honwen2157 wrote:
你看看
英國政府有多爛,Google違法那麼久都無所做為
居然還要台灣人來替全世界的人出一口氣
您把195樓的條文先看過吧!
這其中是不是有什麼誤會？是記者亂報還是網友亂炮？
新聞出處：
http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/110701/4/2u94g.html
www.cattleya.idv.tw
pk881pk881 wrote:
看看台灣90%的盜版...(恕刪)
是啊！
要是我一定就是那種下載回來後第六天一定吐回去叫Google退費的人
怎樣！？
我頂多被別人道德非難，被人罵
但遊戲、軟體都被我爽到了，錢我還是拿的回來
法律上我站的住腳，Google能拿我怎樣？
法律本來就是最後一道防線
Google是不是已經越線本來就有爭議
北市政府硬要把Google的軟體商品硬抓過去適用
只能說官威真大
wheel01 wrote:
* when a new service starts immediately (eg paying for access to a website)
* where the security seal has been broken on a CD, DVD or computer software
* if you buy something from an online auction like eBay - this is known as a private sale.
這3條：
1. 購買即刻享有的服務
基本就是法律要定義軟體被開始執行算不算開始服務，這得看軟體功能而定。
我怎麼看也只有這條比較有點相關性
2. 保證封條(拆封恕不退還那種東西)已毀損
這問題還是在於線上購買APP，怎麼定義保證封條？
3. 線上拍賣，屬私人買賣行為自然沒有7天 buffer...
你舉的例子，和大家討論的主題相關性在哪？
塔綠斑網軍頭子已成淡水河浮屍，各位綠網軍繼續助紂為虐不怕成下一位？
RR wrote:
這3條：1. 購買即...(恕刪)
The quote from UK government ruling to show that the example you post and your argument are totally wrong.
2. To respond your comment 1, the app downloaded and executed == service granted
3. To respond your comment 2, if the seal broken is considered as non-refundable, then I think the app downloaded/executed is more likely to be justified as non-refundable.
4. To respond your comment 3, if you do check Android market's money flow / sales model, you will know that Android market role is more toward the private sale.
... wheel
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X