Free Technology Newsletters
» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters
Technology & Business Daily
 
InfoWorld
 
   

Playing Games With Customer Rights

By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
Posted on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 12:45:52 AM PDT

My new microwave won't work because it objects to the brand of refrigerator I have in the kitchen. And the aspirin bottle has detected a rival brand in the medicine chest and therefore can't be opened. And my mattresses tag-removal alarm system is ...


Well, OK, maybe things haven't gotten quite that bad yet, but it's certainly the direction that software Digital Rights Management schemes are taking us. Most distressing is the trend by game software publishers to use DRM that refuses to let the game play if software it doesn't like is detected on the user's system.

"They really have gone too far this time," one reader recently wrote. "Check out the links in this Slashdot discussion. Sims 2 checks your computer and will not run 'when active CD Emulation software is detected by the copy protection on the game CD.' That means Electronic Arts wants us to remove perfectly legal programs like Nero and Clone CD that are often pre-installed by the PC manufacturer! This can't be legal."

In past months, readers report encountering similar DRM restrictions on CD/DVD burning software with other games such as Activision's Doom 3 and Ubisoft's Far Cry. One reader had resorted to getting cracked versions of the games instead of the CDs he had purchased, but this meant that they could not be played on-line. "Doom 3 was something I was really looking forward to playing on-line, so I relented and uninstalled the Clone CD and Daemon Tools software in an attempt to get Doom 3 to work with the store-bought executable," the reader wrote. "To add insult to injury, Windows XP decided that I had made a hardware change when I uninstalled the virtual DVD/CD-OM software and told me I had to re-activate. When I tried to re-activate it told me I had re-activated too many times ... So then I had to call Microsoft and convince them I wasn't trying to install Windows XP on more than one computer so that I could use the operating system I bought and paid for over two years ago. As a software engineer myself, I understand the need to protect your code but to make copy protection so stringent that legitimate users can't use the software they paid for encourages piracy or at the very least discourages future purchases."

As is always the case with copy protection, the DRM the games are using can easily be circumvented by those who want to make illegal copies but can cause problems for honest users. "My version of Clone CD is so old that it doesn't do any emulation, probably wouldn't beat any modern copy protection, didn't have any services running, and was solely used for a few personal CD backups," wrote another frustrated Doom 3 customer. "I actually had to uninstall Clone CD to even be able to run Doom 3. Meanwhile, friends of mine downloaded and were playing days before I bought it - totally hassle-free. Why bother anymore? Why should paying customers be the ones who get screwed?"

What seems particularly unfair is that none of the game publishers are upfront about their restrictions. "If the game objects to the mere presence of certain software packages on my hard drive, that information better be clearly stated on the OUTSIDE of the box," wrote another reader. "Most stores won't accept software returns if the box has been opened. If I have to break the shrinkwrap and attempt to install it in order to stumble over this restriction, Activision will refund my money, even if I have to take them to small claims court."

It's one thing for software publishers to sell copy-protected products if the customer knows it's there and what it does. But it's quite another thing when vendors surreptitiously include code that disables other products that perform legitimate functions. That's a game that nobody should be allowed to play.

< Battle of the Forms | Technology-Constraining Patents/Intellectual Property >


Display: Sort:
Playing Games With Customer Rights | 34 comments (34 topical) | Post A Comment
It's our own fault[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by wantobe on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 03:11:49 AM PDT

When it comes to certain business software, an argument can be made for continuing to use a product despite the developers' pig-headed DRM schemes. After all, if it's the only product that you can use, or if you already have a heavy investment in the backend for the product and absolutely need the upgraded version, or whatever, you basically have little choice.

That excuse does not work for entertainment software. Many of you on this board, and hundreds of thousands of less informed gamers, continue to buy products from these vendors knowing just how shabbily they treat their customers. What incintive do we, as consumers, give the vendors to change? None.

A few years ago, enough people squawked about Turbo Tax to get Quicken to remove a certain piece of spyware. We could do the same thing with these game vendors with a concerted effort, but it won't work just to complain about one or two examples. Everyone should email all of the vendors with an explanation of why we won't be buying any future games from them, and then don't buy the games.

I know that's a pipe-dream, though. Doom 3 is just too damned essential to actually ignore, right? Ba-a-a-a-aaah!


Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Reply to This ]



It's your own fault: DRM extensions[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous User on Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 06:55:57 AM PDT

I believe that games are the true bleeding edge of technology implementation. So if this sort of insanity is permitted to exist in any legal context then your precious business software will be next. What happens if your Office suite refuses to run because you're trying to connect to a DB2 or MYSQL database? Or your PC refuses to make a network connection because your server is running the wrong OS? This is wrong... both morally and, I am certain, legally (anti-monopoly, consumer rights, privacy, false or misleading trade practices, et al) DRMA or no. (By the way, Intuit didn't actually stop their practice of treating customers as thieves they just made a slight change in how they do it.)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Just say NO![ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous User on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:33:28 AM PDT

Instead of griping about it, TELL the software vendor of your objection and refusal to buy their product. DEMAND your money back because there was no mention of this on the outside of the box. TELL them that what is on your PC is YOUR business and NONE of their business. Chances are they don't care anyway, but unless you make your voice heard, more and more of this is going to put into place.

[ Reply to This ]


Scratch another paying customer[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous User on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:49:25 AM PDT

I sure do appreciate hearing about this now. I was going to buy that game but my new HP came with cloning and burning software so I doubt it will run. I'm not going to remove it, I need it, I don't NEED this game. I guess I'll just skip this one and play something without such a hostile DRM. Anyone for a game of Halo? Let's hope EA don't do the same dumb thing with Halo2.

[ Reply to This ]


It's a safe bet EA won't mess up Halo 2...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous User on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 12:18:38 PM PDT

...it's not their game. ;-)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


I regret to inform you[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by Jeff Foster on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 01:51:02 PM PDT

that Halo 2 will probably never come out on the pc :(

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Don't Forget to Chargeback![ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous User on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:58:40 AM PDT

In every situation, the best way to get the seller's attention is to put the credit card charge into dispute, explaining to your bank why the seller didn't supply the goods or services as promised and expected. If enough people did this to get refunds from a misleading seller, the seller will either lose its ability to take any kind of credit card ever again--or it will reform.

[ Reply to This ]


RE: Don't Forget to Chargeback![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#7)
by haplo on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 02:25:58 PM PDT

The problem here is that by doing so, you're punishing the wrong party.  The reseller is the one being punished, not the game vendor.  They've already been paid.

I prefer the idea of lawsuits against the game vendors, or better yet, a class-action suit.  Had they disclosed the restrictions, that would be one thing, but by forcing you to keep a game that won't work, that's basically fraud.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Chargeback[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous User on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 04:51:22 PM PDT

Although it may be true that the reseller is getting punished; they are also the ones refusing to allow the return of an opened software product that is unusable. If there is no information on the package saying that burning software being installed on the computer will prevent the use of this product, how could the consumer possibly know it wouldn't work?

If you bought a hardware product at the same store, in most cases you can return it with no problems for a full refund.

So, in this case, yes the store deserves the chargeback. They also have way more clout with the software vendor than a handfull of customers. If they get too many chargebacks, they'll either drop the product line, or simply pass on the chargebacks to the software vendor. (Probably both.) I suspect if Best Buy told the publisher they were dropping all products by that publisher until the restrictions were removed, it would happen pretty quickly.

Yet another reason why it's very important to purchase all software products using a credit card. (And not a debit card, which gives you no rights.)


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Retailers are just as guilty[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous User on Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 03:21:15 PM PDT

I'm in total agreement. Resellers that often make it difficult or impossible to return software that has onerous license terms that can only be determined after opening the package are a part of the problem. CompUSA and the like have never been bastions of customer service and helpful and informed employees. Maybe pressure on retailers is another route worth exploring? Since many software makers won't listen directly to their customers, maybe pressure from their distribution and sales channels will do the trick.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


punishing the retailer[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:41:33 AM PDT

The retail is exactly who should receive the wrath of unsatisified customers. The retailer exists as a middle-man between producer and consumer. As such they add no value to the transaction other than giving the consumer a point of contact for information and service related to the products. If the retailer doesn't like playing middle-man then it's time to find a different business. If enough retailers see unhappy customers taking business elsewhere they will pressure wholesalers who will pressure producers. Along the way there will probably be some businesses that get hurt but that is not the concern of the customer - his only concern is getting the best value out of his purchases.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


And yet you know this?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#28)
by kamnet on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:14:33 PM PDT

If you, as a retailer, know in advance that this is how the system works, and you still choose to purchase software from these vendors knowing that these problems exist, then that burden SHOULD fall on you, and in my opinion it is only fair.

As the retailer, when you stock an item, you are asking your customers to trust you that this product will do what it says it does, and that if there is anything special the customer needs to know that they will be told about it up front. AND that if this program doesn't work as advertise or REASONABLY expected to, that you will take the product back and refund their money. You are putting your company's name, reputation and trust behind this product when you choose to promote and sell it.

To do anything less is completely irresponsible.

Oddly enough, I have NO issues with returning software to Wal-Mart. Yes they will make a small argument that they can only exchange defective CDs or software and not refund it. My counter argument is simple - the included license and end-user agreement are INSIDE the box. I cannot read and agree to them unless I first purchase it and read them. These agreements ALWAYS state that if I disagree with any part of the license that I am required to uninstall the software and return ALL portions of the software and packaging to the retailer I purchased it from for a FULL refund. And as the retailer, they assumed FULL responsibility for upholding this license by purchasing it and then reselling it to me. Also, as a concession to their concerns and needs, I always accept a Wal-Mart gift card with the amount credited back to me so that I can still spend the money in their store.

I have not needed to use this policy anywhere else, but if I did, then I would have no problem doing so, and I don't find it unreasonable to expect a retailer to support their customers over their suppliers.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



The reseller may not be able to do anything.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 10:50:57 AM PDT

As a (very) small reseller, I can understand the problem with returning opened software. Personally, I'll accept anything back my distributors will take back from ME. Opened software is NOT among them. Tech Data, Ingram Micro and certainly any third-tier distributor will NOT accept opened software for any reason other than defective CD's. Charging back your purchase will ALWAYS hurt the reseller (who's already been charge commission on the sale and who'll be charged commission on the chargeback) - even if it IS Best Buy. Hurting them certainly won't make them want to be any more helpful than they already are (or aren't). SOME software offers a refund thru the manufacturer - though you never know until after you've already opened and begun installation.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Big Resellers Will Receive Credits[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:34:31 AM PDT

Large resellers like Best Buy will receive credits for returns from distributors or manufacturers in most cases, because Best Buy has tremendous clout. In truth, big companies can take back just about anything for just about any reason, and they'll get their money back. Besides, many people buy software directly on the net from the publisher, so there you are punishing the ultimate culprit.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Resellers can do something[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#29)
by tscoff on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:26:48 PM PDT

There is a lot that you can do as a small reseller that will have a huge impact.

1. Tell anyone who is about to buy a product with a hidden catch that may make it not work on their computer before they buy it that it won't run if the customer has xyz perfectly legal software on their computer.

2. Stop stocking any software which gets returned because it has hidden DRM "features" which keep the legal purchaser from being able to use it and stop stocking anything else from the vendor of that software also.

3. Go to small claims court and file a claim against the vendor for refusing to take back the software when their license states that the end user is to return the software to the reseller for a full refund if the end user does not agree to the license agreement.

You're not helpless, fight back against the vendors who are causing this!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Been done before[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous User on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 03:29:02 PM PDT

I seem to remember Microsoft doing something similar in the early days of Windows. If they detected an OS that was not M$DO$, Windows would not start. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[ Reply to This ]


Windows' problems were a little deeper than that.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by foxyshadis1 on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 08:50:19 PM PDT

That was explained last year by Raymond Chen as being because Dr DOS wasn't a good enough copy, and windows was built so deeply on top of privare MS-DOS APIs, functions, and data structures (not to mention grandfathered bugs), that it simply wouldn't run correctly. (I can't remember what part wouldn't, or if it was just the entire OS.) Not fantastic design, but not a pure shell game.

(Whether they designed it that way out of uncaring ignorance of other DOSes or actual malevolence, the way Win98 was delayed 6 months to integrate IE to fight netscape, is left to the beholder.)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Windows' problems were a little deeper than that.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous User on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:40:48 PM PDT

Not true. Read some of the coverage of the (first) anti-trust trial at The Register.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


AARD[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#16)
by sconeu on Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 10:44:59 AM PDT

It was bogus.

They specifically looked for things in DR-DOS.  Things that had absolutely no connection with anything Windows was doing.

Search google for "AARD code".

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States of America.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



He's lying[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous User on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 06:09:38 PM PDT

1) The detection code was encrypted. 2) The detection code threw an unexplained error. If it was truly a compatibility problem they should have been upfront about it. Their sneaky way of doing it implies it was for evil purposes.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


poor security?[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous User on Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 01:39:59 AM PDT

Is it possible to change the permissions on the CloneCD directory so that it cannot be detected by the game installer? If not, why not?

[ Reply to This ]


Might work....[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous User on Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 01:11:03 PM PDT

Unless it's looking for the program(s) in the Windows Registry...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Some games are starting to warn you.[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous User on Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 07:13:09 AM PDT

I just purchased Pacific Fighters from UbiSoft and on the back near the system requirements, it DID list that some disk cloning software would prevent the game from running. The warning was small, but it was also had a yellow background where the rest of the requirements had a white background.

[ Reply to This ]


Game DRM Gripe[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous User on Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 08:53:47 AM PDT

Very interesting gripe on current situation in Game Industry with respect to DRM. Ed is railing against some of the recent DRM practices across some big names in the Games Industry, but with the tremendous volume of piracy of software, games in particular, action must be taken and there will be pain up front as companies work through DRM challenges and learn how to best deploy a mix of protection + usability with their products. It may be a bit rough now, but trust me, it's a good thing in the long run. Being a gamer I like high quality games (like EQ2, w00t!) and have no issue dealing with some DRM technology rough spots (even in Doom3) as I know it is helping keep the game publishers and development houses profitable which means they are able to produce more high quality, high production value games.

OffTackle | offtackle@gmail.com | http://offtackle.blogspot.com |

[ Reply to This ]



You're missing the point...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#19)
by wantobe on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 02:57:57 AM PDT

That DRM will have some growing pains isn't the major issue. Some people don't want any protection at all, true, but most reasonable people understand that developers have to have some kind of protection. We just want them to stop punishing those of us who are honest and want to pay for (and then be able to use) a product.

The real issue, though, is trust. Most developers don't tell you that their product won't work if you have certain software on your computer, and you don't find out until after you've made the purchase, opened it, and attempted to install it. Even if the return policies weren't designed to screw the consumer and you were able to take the product back, it's a needless inconvenience. As many have pointed out, though, the return policies do screw the consumers.

Developers can do whatever they want to protect their product, but consumers have a right to know before hand and make an informed decision based on that info. If the developers don't put the info where you can find it before making the purchase, they should be punished, at the very least, by consumers who refuse to buy their crap.


Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Software Notices[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#20)
by glenn354 on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 09:01:46 AM PDT

What is wrong with the trade magazines? I regularly read PC World and PC Magazine plus several others periodically. I read the reviews about the software/hardware. What I see as missing is any cautionary remarks in the reviews. They seem to be written more by the vendor. How about a line at the end of each review that states the cons, such as "Copy Protected", "Can only be installed on one PC", "Won't run if there is a CD/DVD copying program installed." What we really need is a magazine like Consumers Report that does not accept advertizing and tests honestly and rates the various PC components. Even the review of a new product would rate it against others in the market.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Maybe I'm Missing Something...[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 09:33:44 AM PDT

but how does such a scheme prevent piracy? One doesn't have to INSTALL the software in order to COPY it, right? And what stops a person from just reinstalling the copy software after the game is installed? Is it that the game won't run, or just won't install? If it's that the game won't run, then there's another issue here, maybe a bigger one: repetitive monitoring of one's PC now and in the future.

[ Reply to This ]


The game companies are afraid of ...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 10:55:37 AM PDT

...gamers cloning their friend's legitimate copy of the software onto a virtual CD and running the software from the virtual CD (they give the original CD back to their friend, but they still have a perfectly functional virtual CD). But there are legitimate reasons that the original user might want to do this (to protect the CD from damage, for example; faster access is another). I don't like it, but I think they should be allowed to do it IF they disclose this in the system requirements. Online and pulp game "mags" would also do their readers a great service by making a point of these restrictions in their reviews (but maybe they don't because they are afraid of losing ad revenue). Does anyone know of an online or pulp game mag that consistently notifies the gamer of these restrictions? Vote with your dollars. Don't buy these games ... even Doom 3.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Put some pressure on the game mags[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:21:24 AM PDT

Maybe all of us should put some pressure on the online and hardcopy game sites and magazines to always include all DRM restrictions in the "Requirements" section of the game review. As mentioned, there is the "no install and no run when CD clone software is on the computer". But there are also games being released that require an active Internet connection on the game PC so that the game can "phone home" and verify the legitimacy of the game license. (What if you don't have an Internet connection on your game PC?) We should start demanding that game magazines and web sites disclose these restrictions. I recently wrote the following to GameSpot: "I've been told that a growing number of PC games are being published with a type of Digital Rights Management that will not allow them to install or run if any kind of CD cloning software is installed on the computer. Other recent games have been published that require an active Internet connection so that they can phone home and validate the license. Why do you not make note of these requirements in the "Requirements" section of the game review??? Two games that I have read about which supposedly have these restrictions are "Beyond Good and Evil" and "Doom 3" ... and yet your PC Review for these games makes no mention of these restrictions in the "Requirements" section. What's up???" Feel free to copy this and send it off to your own favorite game magazine or web site.

[ Reply to This ]


Full and frequent disclosure[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:28:29 AM PDT

If all the game sites and magazines started publishing these restrictions as a matter of policy, maybe the game companies would feel the financial effect of their policies and reconsider the wisdom of such policies. As is frequently said, such policies are more detrimental to legitimate users and petty pirates than they are to organized professional piracy. So, let's make the policies detrimental to the game companies.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Steam solves some of these problems[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous User on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 11:14:39 AM PDT

I think that Valve's Steam takes great steps in solving most of these problems by removing the publisher from the picture. I actually prefer internet validation of ownership since it makes the software portable and allows for easy backup to cd. If a Steam-like game delivery system takes off it may eventually make game publisher's and their "DRM" tactics that abuse "fair use" obsolete. The only potential drawbacks I see are that if you don't have internet access you probably can't play the game. We'll see how that works out in the coming months.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Solves some, creates more.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#31)
by Anonymous User on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 03:07:40 AM PDT

Consider this. You run out and buy Half Life 2 on CD (DVD, whatever). You then install it, validate it, and play it. Fun! Wheeee!

Cut to five (or ten) years later. You still have an old PC lying around, and find your Half Life 2 CDs gathering dust. Gee, that was a great game... I'd like to play through it again, you think. So you install it. Uh... validation? Sorry, the servers no longer support this game. Tough luck, pal, you can't play the game.

In contrast, all my old C&C, Red Alert, Sierra adventure games (* Quest series), etc. will run just fine, provided I have the necessary hardware and software (or emulation software). It's not just about the here and now...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



good point[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous User on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 11:47:46 AM PDT

That's a good point. Let's start a pro/con list for this particular type of drm scenario(steam like). |Pros-- 1. The game is portable. 2. No cd is required to play. 3. There are no DRM drivers installed into your OS that remain resident (that I know of). |Cons-- 1. Internet access is required. 2. Activation servers may go away in the future preventing you from playing your game 5-10 years from now (Unless they can disable the need to activate before they bring the servers down). 3. Activation may affect lan parties. Not sure how well they handle this.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


xzvczxv[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#34)
by samezhen on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:55:09 AM PDT

<H1>出会い eve iskeve iskChinese antique furniturecar wash systemscar wash systemscar wash equipmentcar wash equipmentautomatic car washautomatic car washcar washing machinecar washing machinecar washcar wash北京汽车租赁网络地板防静电地板白癜风疱疹生殖器疱疹毛刷工业毛刷 毛刷厂清洗毛刷无机钢筋锚固料锚固料融达北京融达北京融达建业渗透性聚合物砂浆聚合物砂浆高强渗透性聚合物砂浆灌浆料灌浆北京灌浆料不锈钢钢绞线粘钢胶植筋胶结构胶灌浆剂高强无收缩灌浆料建筑结构胶水泥灌浆剂加固料碳纤维胶碳纤维胶灌注粘钢胶树脂灌缝胶办证环氧地坪环氧自流平帕金森办证血管瘤铜门货架货架厂肝血管瘤 疱疹疱疹病毒疣病毒疣数控火焰切割机数控等离子切割机电焊机焊机指纹锁指纹锁周界报警:瓷贴面烤瓷冠氧化锆全瓷牙四环素牙牙齿不齐全瓷牙铸瓷牙铸瓷冠二氧化锆烤瓷牙牙齿美容牙齿美白牙科牙齿美白牙周病牙齿种植北京口腔医院口臭补牙牙疼牙齿美容牙龈出血烤瓷牙牙齿矫正种植牙齿科除皱隆胸吸脂瘦脸开眼角隆鼻鼻头双眼皮眼袋隆下巴阴道紧缩APW机柜ATEN切换器威宝机柜 除皱除皱双眼皮眼袋眼袋眼袋阴道紧缩吸脂吸脂隆胸隆胸瘦脸隆鼻开眼角 品牌服装服装加盟服装代理服装经销品牌男装品牌女装男装加盟女装加盟服装厂北京服装租赁品牌服装服装加盟服装代理服装经销品牌女装品牌服装服装代理男装加盟服装经销 品牌男装品牌女装男装加盟女装加盟服装厂vi企业形象设计北京设计公司展览展示设计标志设计黄金矿工小游戏黄金矿工小游戏美女餐厅小游戏美女餐厅小游戏拳皇小游戏拳皇小游戏三国麻将小游戏风水起名eve isk汽车影音汽车改装贴膜汽车装饰汽车保养汽车配件汽车维修汽车美容汽车坐垫氙气灯汽GPS导航防盗器车载mp3润滑油汽车音响轮胎蓄电池汽车用品尖锐湿疣尖锐湿疣治疗生殖器疱疹生殖器疱疹治疗疱疹治疗疱疹的治疗疱疹图片病毒性疱疹单纯疱疹疱疹病毒疱疹症状男性生殖器疱疹症状男性生殖器疱疹什么是生殖器疱疹生殖器疱疹的治疗生殖器疱疹怎么治疗生殖器疱疹如何治疗生殖器疱疹治疗方法生殖器疱疹怎么治生殖器疱疹的治疗生殖器疱疹的治疗中药治疗生殖器疱疹复发性生殖器疱疹治疗生殖器疱疹的药物治疗生殖器疱疹的特效药生殖器疱疹治疗尖锐湿疣症状什么是尖锐湿疣宫颈尖锐湿疣阴道尖锐湿疣男性尖锐湿疣假性尖锐湿疣尖锐湿疣怎么治疗尖锐湿疣治疗方法尖锐湿疣的治疗中药治疗尖锐湿疣治疗尖锐湿疣的药物治疗尖锐湿疣的特效药男性尖锐湿疣尖锐湿疣复发尖锐湿疣图片铜门写字楼巡展写字楼巡展</H1> 阴道炎 阴道炎治疗 滴虫性阴道炎 细菌性阴道炎 霉菌性阴道炎 月经不调 痛经 月经不调的治疗 痛经的治疗 产前检查 孕检 女性体检 女性检查 体检套餐 人流 无痛人流费用 无痛人流优惠 无痛人流套餐 人流费用 人流优惠 人流套餐 人流医院 无痛人流医院 北京人流医院 北京人流价格 处女膜修复医院 北京处女膜修复医院 北京处女膜修复 妇科疾病 常见妇科病 女性常见妇科病 女性妇科病 孕妇妇科病 妇科病种类 老年妇科病 女人妇科病 少女妇科病 妇科病的表现 儿童妇科病 妇女妇科病 产后妇科病 严重妇科病 孕妇妇科病 女性妇科疾病 常见妇科疾病 外阴白斑病 子宫颈糜烂 重度宫颈糜烂 轻度宫颈糜烂 中度宫颈糜烂 宫颈糜烂二度 慢性宫颈糜烂 非淋菌性尿道炎 非淋性尿道炎 女性尿道炎 霉菌性尿道炎 慢性盆腔炎 急性宫颈炎 慢性子宫颈炎 女性附件炎 急性附件炎 子宫内膜炎 慢性子宫内膜炎 子宫内膜炎症 子宫下垂 卵巢早衰 妇科症状 妇科病症状 常见妇科病症状 妇科病及其症状 妇科疾病症状 妇科病炎症 妇科炎症症状 女性妇科炎症 常见妇科炎症 子宫炎症症状 输卵管炎症症状 附件炎症状 子宫附件炎症状 卵巢囊肿症状 外阴白斑症状 宫颈糜烂症状 子宫肌瘤症状 子宫颈癌症状 宫颈糜烂出血 非淋菌性尿道炎症状 尿道炎症状 盆腔炎症状 宫颈炎症状 白带异常症状 孕期白带异常 白带多 白带带血 白带发黄 白带有血 白带异味 水样白带 白带黄绿色 白带豆腐渣 月经不调症状 附件炎症状 孕妇白带异常 女性白带异常 女性月经不调 少女月经不调 更年期月经不调 外阴白斑 外阴搔痒 外阴红肿 外阴瘙痒 宫外孕症状 宫外孕早期症状 乳腺增生症状 子宫内膜炎症状 子宫内膜异位 子宫癌症状 子宫癌早期症状 生殖整形 处女膜修补 处女膜修复手术 处女膜修补手术 阴道紧缩 阴道紧缩术 阴道松弛 处女膜再造 妇科整形 生殖器整形 妇科整形手术 生殖器整形手术 女性生殖器整形 女性生殖整形 阴唇整形术 小阴唇整形 小阴唇整形手术 妇科手术 妇科手术 妇科腹腔镜手术 妇科手术护理 子宫肌瘤微创手术 宫颈糜烂手术 多发性子宫肌瘤手术 子宫肌瘤手术 卵巢囊肿手术 宫外孕手术 人流手术 无痛人流手术 可视人流手术 人工流产手术 乳腺增生手术 乳腺微创手术 输卵管微创手术 清宫手术 引产手术 流产手术 宫腔镜手术 宫腔镜取胚术 刮宫手术 女性节育手术 子宫癌手术 子宫切除 子宫肌瘤切除 宫颈疾病 阴道炎 盆腔炎 卵巢疾病 痛经 子宫肌瘤 月经不调 乳腺疾病 宫外孕 处女膜修复 节育环放置 不孕不育 避孕 宫颈糜烂 健康知识 男性疾病 女性疾病 不孕不育

[ Reply to This ]


Playing Games With Customer Rights | 34 comments (34 topical) | Post A Comment
Display: Sort:
Recent Entries
A few things
4 comments

Thank you
14 comments

Ed Foster: 1949-2008
73 comments

Dell notebook turns into a Bad Buy
8 comments

Of Apple, Psystar users, and copyright
6 comments

The suspicious death of XP support
29 comments

More The Gripelog...

Submit a gripe
About the Author
Email Ed Foster

Help Ed and his readers build these projects:
The Gripewiki
The EULA Library

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Live Gripes
Has AOL Changed Their Ways?
8 comments

A Nestle SweeTarts Conspiracy
19 comments

AT&T Kills "Bad" Username
35 comments

DESPERATE! AOL HAS TAKEN OVER MY COMPUTER
55 comments

parkingticket.com SCAM on refunds
33 comments

Don't let Net Enforcers Ruin Your Day.
19 comments

More Live Gripes...

Sign up for my newsletter

To have my column automatically e-mailed to you, submit your email address in the form below. Of course, I will not turn your address over to any other party or send you any unrequested e-mail.

Infoworld Blogs

Recomended Sites
The AFFECT Coalition
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Free Software Foundation
HearUsNow.org
Public Knowledge
StopBadware.org

Jeff Angus
Ben Edelman
Dan Gillmor
Bob Lewis
Brian Livingston
Freedom to Tinker
Lawmeme
PC World's Techlog
SunBeltSoftware Blog
Troubleshootsers.com

Rss Feeds
How this works
 Top News