Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 17th Sep 2011 00:23 UTC
Games "Sony is preparing to ban gamers from the PlayStation Network unless they waive the right to collectively sue it over future security breaches. The firm has amended PSN's terms and conditions and users have to agree to them next time they log in. The move comes months after a string of hacking attacks compromised over 100 million accounts of the PlayStation Network subscribers. It is, however, possible to opt out of the agreement within the next 30 days. Gamers will now have to try to resolve any legal issues with an arbitrator picked by Sony, before being able to file a lawsuit."
Order by: Score:
Sony is so stupid.
by Shannara on Sat 17th Sep 2011 00:39 UTC
Member since:

good thing thats not legally enforcable in the usa ... poor Sony... kidding. Sony's execs need to be burned.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Sony is so stupid.
by bhtooefr on Sat 17th Sep 2011 00:44 UTC in reply to "Sony is so stupid."
bhtooefr Member since:

Except the Supreme Court ruled WRONGLY on that, and now it's completely legal:

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Sony is so stupid.
by Shannara on Sat 17th Sep 2011 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Sony is so stupid."
Shannara Member since:

craaaaaaaaaaap! dang it!

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Sony is so stupid.
by WorknMan on Sat 17th Sep 2011 03:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Sony is so stupid."
WorknMan Member since:

Except the Supreme Court ruled WRONGLY on that, and now it's completely legal:

Eh, who cares? The only thing that normally happens in a class action lawsuit is that companies get a slap on the wrist, and lawyers walk away with most of the f**king money. If anything, those who brought forth the lawsuit might get some chump change out of it. And that only after a few years of litigation.

Edited 2011-09-17 03:28 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Sony is so stupid.
by westlake on Mon 19th Sep 2011 04:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Sony is so stupid."
westlake Member since:

Except the Supreme Court ruled WRONGLY on that, and now it's completely legal

No class action. Unless you opt-out. But you can still sue Sony in small claims court.

The dollar limits vary:

$2500-$25,000 by state and locality. But it can be a realistic and affordable alternative.

Just don't expect a small claims court judge to see much monetary value in the "Other OS" on an aging and long out of warranty PS3.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Sony is so stupid.
by Soulbender on Sat 17th Sep 2011 01:09 UTC in reply to "Sony is so stupid."
Soulbender Member since:

Not so sure about the US but in most countries you can't sign away that right.

Reply Score: 8

Glad I'm not American...
by Lazarus on Sat 17th Sep 2011 01:11 UTC
Member since:

In return, I ask that Sony execs and lawyers polish my joystick :-P

Reply Score: 12

Even Sony doesn't trust their network.
by Pana4 on Sat 17th Sep 2011 03:22 UTC
Member since:

Now if they could get rid of that pesky 1 year warranty.....

Reply Score: 5

Comment by marcp
by marcp on Sat 17th Sep 2011 05:33 UTC
Member since:

Noone can get your rights away from you, not in this "system". Sorry, SONY. There's no shortcut. Be responsible. Simple "sorry" doesn't resolve anything. People have lost their credentials, privacy, accounts and money. If I were PSN user I'd sue their butts, especially now, when they're trying to get away with that by forcing users to walve their rights to sue Sony.

You can never trust big corps.

Reply Score: 3

Something is terribly wrong...
by bouhko on Sat 17th Sep 2011 08:29 UTC
Member since:
2010-06-24 the legal system when company are allowed to do that. TOS modification should be opt-in instead of opt-out. And we really need to go back to companies that actually try to serve customers instead of trying to exploit everything they can.
I can only some PSN subscribers (I'm not) will opt out and engage a massive class action against Sony.

Reply Score: 2

Works in reverse?
by Moredhas on Sat 17th Sep 2011 09:49 UTC
Member since:

My EULA for Sony (I wish!)

Sony Computer Entertainment (hereafter "you") will be legally obliged, upon providing PSN access to myself, to give me half of all Sony Computer Entertainment profits in perpetuity. Failure to respond in the next thirty days, or admission of my account to PSN in that period will be taken as tacit, irreversible agreement to these conditions.

Edited 2011-09-17 09:49 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Works in reverse?
by flypig on Sat 17th Sep 2011 11:51 UTC in reply to "Works in reverse?"
flypig Member since:

Well, it looks like someone did actually try this:

In this case the guy apparently made changes to his Xbox Live contract and gave Microsoft 24 hours to reject the changes. Since they didn't get back to him, he claims the new contract was valid.

I've not read the PSN contract (I guess I'll have to when I next turn on my PS3), but it'd be interesting to know if there's anything that prevents a customer trying to change the terms.

[Edited to add detail]

Edited 2011-09-17 11:55 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Works in reverse?
by Moredhas on Sat 17th Sep 2011 13:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Works in reverse?"
Moredhas Member since:

I'd be curious to see if this gets thrown out of court or not, or even if he's held in contempt of court for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Works in reverse?
by reez on Sat 17th Sep 2011 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Works in reverse?"
reez Member since:


"abusing the court system" <- That's...

Either we have rights and laws or we haven't. Bringing them into action is all they are there for.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Works in reverse?
by backdoc on Sat 17th Sep 2011 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Works in reverse?"
backdoc Member since:

Thanks for posting that. I applaud the guy. It is so unfortunate that we (and I mean me too) are so passive in such a one sided situation.

Why should we accept the terms thrust upon us?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Works in reverse?
by zima on Sat 24th Sep 2011 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Works in reverse?"
zima Member since:

Edited 2011-09-25 00:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Best thing about living in Korea
by neticspace on Sat 17th Sep 2011 12:17 UTC
Member since:

You wouldn't get any abuse from Sony, a company that has lost its priorities and stability.

Reply Score: 2

by fran on Sat 17th Sep 2011 14:06 UTC
Member since:

Many countries have consumer protection laws that can't be waived.

Like implied warranties. Here you cant waive your right warranty rights when purchasing a new item.
Other is medical malpractive. You sign all those forms but when gross negligence can be established no waiver will hold up in court.

I can see this waiver requirement only minimizing the risk of being sued in some constituencies but Sony will still have to prove it's vigilance regarding the safeguarding of client information.

Reply Score: 3

Tough call
by jefro on Sat 17th Sep 2011 15:35 UTC
Member since:

The issue is how one looks at a contract. For example all labor union contracts usually involve mandatory binding arbitration. Even if the union represents a non-member that non-member lost their right to sue in almost all cases.

In this Sony case they basically are like any EULA. You don't have to agree but if you don't then don't use the service.

Sadly the Supreme Court heard a very poor case to rule on. Those F##^ng California idiots were suing over sales tax. They tied up the entire legal system up to the highest court in the land over a lousy $5 that their crooked state is going to give away to some social program. They live in California, they should be happy to pay taxes. The case is more of the crime to the public. They they screwed up other cases with such a poor case.

I'd think that if a proper case has been before the Court the result would have been different. Really, how stupid is the legal system where one can sue over sales tax. Go on the Price is Right and win a car and you get to pay income tax, in some cases more than the car could be bought for. Should all contestants on game shows get a chance to get in class action.

My wife an I have been in a few of these class action legal scams. We get $20 and the lawyers make millions.

Edited 2011-09-17 15:39 UTC

Reply Score: 1

by SlackerJack on Sat 17th Sep 2011 17:36 UTC
Member since:

Yet more EULA's from big companies that erode your rights.

Reply Score: 5

Would this stand up in court?
by mahiyu on Sat 17th Sep 2011 22:08 UTC
Member since:

As I understand it, under UK law (Data Protection Act) Sony has a legal obligation to protect personal data held by them. No waiver will get them out of that.

I suspect that this waiver that Sony is trying to put in would be seen as an unfair term under contract law and would not stand up in court. I also suspect that if they try to deny users access to their online services unless they sign up to said unfair terms they would be on legally thin ice.

Any UK-based PSN users fancy taking this up with the Office of Fair Trading?

Reply Score: 2

*Never* *Again* *Buy* *Sony*
by Lobotomik on Sun 18th Sep 2011 16:23 UTC
Member since:

I am sick and bored with them. The Linux invalidation, the removal of PS2 compatibility, the proprietary card formats, the proprietary audio formats, the proprietary disc formats, the rootkits in their CDs, their abuse of the law to criminalize hackers that were not at all pirates, the three hours battery life of Vita, the PSP Go and its (failed) attack on consumer rights...

Enough is enough. Let them crash and burn.

Reply Score: 7

RE: *Never* *Again* *Buy* *Sony*
by LB06 on Sun 18th Sep 2011 22:48 UTC in reply to "*Never* *Again* *Buy* *Sony*"
LB06 Member since:

Well I applaud the effort, but unfortunately this argument will be completely forgotten in the next next-gen console wars. Besides, let's say Sony had to drop its gaming division. Then we're at the mercy of this other evil company called Microsoft.

In cases like this I believe that two evil companies are way better than one.

Reply Score: 3

Good luck with that...
by zima on Sat 24th Sep 2011 23:55 UTC in reply to "*Never* *Again* *Buy* *Sony*"
zima Member since:

Sony is big in lots of areas, many (most?) of them don't face consumers; one needs to try quite hard to avoid benefiting (yup...) from the results of their efforts and services in electronics or media industries.

Basic components, display panels (both "big" and mobile), CCD sensors, industrial processes / chemicals / manufacturing robots - will you make sure no new toys of yours profit Sony in those ways?

Will you avoid any films, music, TV which were made by Sony-owned entities? (or on their equipment)

And generally, they are more sort of a relatively loose consortium, with many divisions almost infighting in the relevant issues (yeah, there's Sony Music and their love for DRM ...and then there are Sony digital audio players and SE phones which are generally among most open ones, as are Sony e-readers; or CCD progress and great value of Sony Vegas seemingly benefiting independent film makers who erode old media strongholds). Sony also created or co-created many widely adopted open standards (which, by their nature, are simply less associated with Sony than those which remained Sony-exclusive). Then there's Sony banking arm (which I don't recall being involved much in recent mess BTW) ...I guess you better make sure any entities you deal with don't use them, one way or another.

Reply Score: 2

Don't buy Sony products
by jefro on Sun 18th Sep 2011 16:38 UTC
Member since:

That is the real way to stop this abuse.

Just don't buy their products. I know that won't happen because all sorts of people will allow their personal info at every instance.

What the heck is with all these people asking for personal data?

Reply Score: 2