backtop


Print 109 comment(s) - last by Totally.. on Sep 24 at 2:07 AM


If Sony PS3 users blindly click through the console's terms of service, they sign away their right to bring class action suits against Sony or join existing class actions.  (Source: Simpsons/Matt Groening/20th Century Fox)
Updates terms of service state that the customer is guaranteeing if it sues Sony it can't be a class action

Uh oh, Japan's Sony Corp. (TYO:6758) is back at it again.  The company who installed malicious rootkits on users computers via music CD, banished OtherOS from the PS3, and legally harassed/tried to sue into bankruptcy hardware enthusiasts who modified the firmware of the Playstations they legally purchased, has come back with another controversial policy.

In an update to its popular PS3 gaming console Sony writes in the Terms of Service (TOS) that the user guarantees:
ANY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEEDINGS, WHETHER IN ARBITRATION OR COURT, WILL BE CONDUCTED ONLY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND NOT IN A CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION OR AS A NAMED OR UNNAMED MEMBER IN A CLASS, CONSOLIDATED, REPRESENTATIVE OR PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL LEGAL ACTION, UNLESS BOTH YOU AND THE SONY ENTITY WITH WHICH YOU HAVE A DISPUTE SPECIFICALLY AGREE TO DO SO IN WRITING FOLLOWING INITIATION OF THE ARBITRATION. THIS PROVISION DOES NOT PRECLUDE YOUR PARTICIPATION AS A MEMBER IN A CLASS ACTION FILED ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 20, 2011.
The contract is similar to the one presented by some employers.  Since a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, binding arbitration has been increasingly used by corporations to escape lawsuits when behaving abusively.  

Here's how binding arbitration works.  The signer waives their rights to join or bring class action lawsuits.  Instead, they can present their case to an "arbitrator" appointed by the company.  This is essentially equivalent to a dismissal, as the company's "unbiased" private arbitrator nearly almost always dismisses the case.  The only alternative allowed is an individual suit against Sony, which again, will likely be a lost cause given that Sony has high powered attorneys on retainer, which will seek to quickly have your claims dismissed without the power of a class.

Unfortunately even if you don't sign such contracts, just receiving them is enough to partially nullify your right to due process, according to recent rulings.

Fortunately Sony has offered customers an opt out.  The TOS states:
IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER IN THIS SECTION 15, YOU MUST NOTIFY SNEI IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT YOU ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT. YOUR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION MUST BE MAILED TO 6080 CENTER DRIVE, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90045, ATTN: LEGAL DEPARTMENT/ARBITRATION AND MUST INCLUDE: (1) YOUR NAME, (2) YOUR ADDRESS, (3) YOUR PSN ACCOUNT NUMBER, IF YOU HAVE ONE, AND (4) A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH ANY SONY ENTITY THROUGH ARBITRATION.
In other words Sony provides no electronic opt out, you must write it a letter.  And of course Sony could claim not to have received that letter, unless you pay extra for tracking and signature on delivery.

Why all the legal gymnastics in the terms of service?  Well, several lawsuits are pending class action status against Sony.  Most involve the company's failure to protect PS3 users' private data, including credit cards, from hackers.  Sony was hacked dozens of times [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] in recent months thanks to woefully lacking security.  

Granted the change may not exempt Sony from some of these lawsuits, which were filed before August 20.  It does, however, prevent users from participating in future class actions should Sony conduct itself in an abusive or negligent manner.

Of course, should the Supreme Court overturn such "opt in" contracts, Sony ability to pressure users into signing away their rights could vanish.  However, there's little guarantee that will happen anytime soon.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

lulsec?
By mackx on 9/16/2011 6:08:49 PM , Rating: 5
where are you? we need you again




RE: lulsec?
By Mitch101 on 9/16/2011 6:12:27 PM , Rating: 5
Sounds like Microsoft and Nintendo will be winning the next console war.


RE: lulsec?
By tng on 9/16/2011 6:30:25 PM , Rating: 3
Didn't Nintendo win the last round anyhow?


RE: lulsec?
By Helbore on 9/16/2011 7:02:09 PM , Rating: 2
And Microsoft were in second place behind them.


RE: lulsec?
By B3an on 9/17/2011 6:05:18 AM , Rating: 3
The X360 has outsold the Wii for more than a 12 month basis in the US. In many other parts it's doing the same. Even in Japan it's outsold the Wii at one point, and might still be, i've not looked recently. Theres still a while until this gen of consoles is over remember and as time goes on Wii sales keep going down.


RE: lulsec?
By Phoque on 9/17/2011 7:14:19 AM , Rating: 3
There's the number of unit sold to determine a winner, but there's also the amount of profit the company made during that generation. I'd be curious to see numbers for the three console makers.


RE: lulsec?
By ajfink on 9/17/2011 10:21:40 AM , Rating: 2
My favorite part is how Microsoft is fine with bleeding money at times if it means "winning" the market. Thankfully for them, their entertainment division got profitable relatively quickly.

Sony...not as fast.


RE: lulsec?
By inperfectdarkness on 9/19/2011 7:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
i'm fairly certain that MS spent as much money hyping halo games as nintendo made in net profit across all products.

seriously, MS's business practice with consoles is like watching j-z "makin it rain".


RE: lulsec?
By Helbore on 9/17/2011 7:21:19 AM , Rating: 3
Either way, my point was that Sony were in third place. They certainly didn't win this round like they did with the PS1 and PS2.


RE: lulsec?
By kleinma on 9/17/2011 10:36:34 AM , Rating: 4
What is funny is Sony would likely never have even been in the console game had it not been for Nintendo backing out of the partnership with Sony.


RE: lulsec?
By Totally on 9/24/2011 2:03:38 AM , Rating: 2
not really, it was Nintendo's loss/mistake.


RE: lulsec?
By someguy123 on 9/17/2011 7:48:14 PM , Rating: 1
360 sales are far from reaching wii sales. also microsoft pulled out of japan a while back. the japanese market just wouldn't accept their console for whatever reason.


RE: lulsec?
By BZDTemp on 9/17/2011 7:04:28 PM , Rating: 1
It's debatable whether this round in the console war is over but saying Microsoft came second is wrong. The 360 came on sale almost a year ahead of the PS3 and sales figures by now is around 55 million for both consoles (with the Wii at 88 million or so).

On top of the PS3 there is also the 69 million PSP's sold and the PS2 which has sold 150+ million (more PS2's has been sold since the 360 launch than 360's so you could say Sony beat the current MS console with their old one).


RE: lulsec?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/17/2011 7:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
lol yeah add in the subscription revenue from Xbox Live and tell me who won :)


RE: lulsec?
By BZDTemp on 9/18/11, Rating: 0
RE: lulsec?
By JW.C on 9/20/2011 1:01:37 AM , Rating: 3
Sorry, but PS2 and PSP sales do NOT count in this debate. We are talking about current generation consoles not the PS2 which you can buy for $5 these days


RE: lulsec?
By elgoliath on 9/23/2011 5:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
The real reason the 360 won vs the PS3 is it's attach rate- lots of people bought the PS3 primarily for the BD


RE: lulsec?
By inighthawki on 9/16/2011 7:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
Depends if you consider the winner to be the one with the best, most popular, or best selling console. And by best I don't necessarily mean the one with most most raw power, I mean the one with the best library of games and provides the best experience.


RE: lulsec?
By StevoLincolnite on 9/16/2011 8:47:51 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
And by best I don't necessarily mean the one with most most raw power, I mean the one with the best library of games and provides the best experience.


In that case... The best console will be different from one person to the next due to personal preferences in games.

On another note... Maybe I should write a Eula that makes Sony responsible for everything in my life; which in turn Sony "accepts" every time I turn the console on.
And if they disagree... They have to send a letter to Santa Clause stating otherwise.


RE: lulsec?
By FastEddieLB on 9/16/2011 7:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
if by "the last round" you mean the one with the GameCube, XBox and PS2, then no, they didn't.


RE: lulsec?
By Hiawa23 on 9/17/2011 2:40:37 AM , Rating: 5
I noticed this when I signed on to my PS3 today, but had no option but to agree to the terms.

Buy American, Buy Xbox...


RE: lulsec?
By Targon on 9/17/2011 6:25:07 AM , Rating: 5
I want an option that says, "I agree because I have no choice, not because I actually read or agree to your EULA".


RE: lulsec?
By Fritzr on 9/18/2011 5:50:20 PM , Rating: 3
It's there ... the clause that gives you 30 days to tell them in writing that you are not accepting the new clause.

Just make sure you send it registered, signature required & receipt to you for your files, along with a copy of your letter in case they lose the original. You can be sure the Sony lawyers will be trying to cancel as many of these opt-out letters as possible.


RE: lulsec?
By Hyperion1400 on 9/20/2011 2:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
Do I REALLY have to post a link to Humancentipad?


RE: lulsec?
By ShammGod126 on 9/20/2011 5:51:11 PM , Rating: 1
Dude I was thinking the exact same thing! It does email web-browsing AND shits in Kyle's mouth!?! This is great!


RE: lulsec?
By Da W on 9/19/2011 10:38:00 AM , Rating: 1
WORST than Apple.
And PS-sheeps are worst than i-sheeps.


RE: lulsec?
By Schrag4 on 9/19/2011 11:42:37 AM , Rating: 3
I hate to nitpick, but something cannot be "worst than" something else. You meant "worse than." If English isn't your native language then please take this as a friendly tip. If English IS your native languange, then WTF man !?

FYI, I didn't think it was a typo because the same mistake was made twice in the same post.


RE: lulsec?
By cjohnson2136 on 9/20/2011 8:54:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hate to nitpick, but something cannot be "worst than" something else. You meant "worse than."


Read your own post. The poster above you has than twice and so do you. That is a Grammar fail.


RE: lulsec?
By Schrag4 on 9/21/2011 11:11:37 AM , Rating: 2
LOL! Here's the post I was referring to:

quote:
WORST than Apple.
And PS-sheeps are worst than i-sheeps.


Here is how my post claims it should read:

quote:
WORSE than Apple.
And PS-sheeps are worse than i-sheeps.


(I bolded the words that changed, just for you, because you're special)

I'd love to see how YOU would have changed the original post (or what the hell you thought I even meant)!


RE: lulsec?
By PitViper007 on 9/20/2011 9:03:08 AM , Rating: 2
Since you're nitpicking.... "languange" ????


RE: lulsec?
By cjohnson2136 on 9/20/2011 2:46:28 PM , Rating: 3
You also fail because he did use than correctly

Use than to make a comparison. Use then when referring to time.


RE: lulsec?
By Schrag4 on 9/21/2011 11:13:15 AM , Rating: 2
He said "than." I said "than." I wasn't talking about "than." Reading comprehension fail.


RE: lulsec?
By Totally on 9/24/2011 2:07:39 AM , Rating: 2
I think he just replied to the wrong post


RE: lulsec?
By FITCamaro on 9/17/2011 10:23:09 AM , Rating: 5
Yes lets have a hacker organization hack their network and release everyone's information again. That will show Sony!

Seriously. This is pretty low of Sony. But that is not the answer.


RE: lulsec?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: lulsec?
By cochy on 9/17/2011 11:34:24 AM , Rating: 5
Doesn't matter. The point of a class action lawsuit is to stick it to the big corporations. Wanna try to sue Sony for a few million yourself? Good luck financing that one.

The class action is the consumer's version of nuclear warefare and companies are scared shitless of them which is why we see this total BS EULA from dickless Sony.

As far as EULAs are concerned. I can't believe courts actually hold these things up. They are never rightly explained to the end users and 3/4 of it is incomprehensible legalese. Anyway I thought people weren't even legally allowed to sign a contract which is so one-way biased against them.


RE: lulsec?
By FITCamaro on 9/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: lulsec?
By cochy on 9/17/2011 12:55:59 PM , Rating: 3
You missed my point totally. Simply, my point is that consumers have a massive legal disadvantage against large corporations. Because in America at least, legal advantage is also gained by how much money you throw at the problem. Class action is a way to level the playing field. That's all I was saying.

For you to say that large lawsuits don't stop companies from doing something is pretty silly because losing these large lawsuits ends up hurting the bottom line of these companies quite a bit.


RE: lulsec?
By Totally on 9/24/2011 2:00:58 AM , Rating: 2
Kinda ironic isn't. When Sony is defending its IP those guys show up, now Sony's being abusive to it's customers, well their in jail.


Take 'em down
By BugblatterIII on 9/16/2011 6:48:20 PM , Rating: 4
They don't have my credit card details anymore (new card) and I've only used my PS3 once since all this crap happened. I won't miss the PSN if it somehow disappears.

The entire company deserves to go down; this is just the latest in a long line of abuses.

Am I right in thinking that the PS3 will prevent you playing games until you agree to the update?




RE: Take 'em down
By Helbore on 9/16/2011 7:03:32 PM , Rating: 1
No, you can still play games. You just can't sign in to PSN.


RE: Take 'em down
By BugblatterIII on 9/22/2011 3:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
Well I just tried to play Singstar and it refused to even start until I applied the update.

The next Sony product I buy will make me rich and famous as well as giving me the longest and most intense orgasms of my life. It'll have to...


RE: Take 'em down
By FastEddieLB on 9/16/2011 7:44:58 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The entire company deserves to go down


That's a lot of jobs you're talking about destroying in the middle of the second great depression. I say fire the guys making the bad decisions, leave the company standing and let the people keep working.


RE: Take 'em down
By JKflipflop98 on 9/16/2011 9:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of jobs. . . in Japan.


RE: Take 'em down
By quiksilvr on 9/16/2011 11:42:30 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, yeah. That's like another country, right? Yeah, screw them! It doesn't concern us so forget about the well being of another country that just got out of a terrible natural disaster and is still struggling to get back on their feet. Yes, because they are not the United States, we can just squash their entire company. I mean, no repercussions here, right?


RE: Take 'em down
By Targon on 9/17/2011 6:34:55 AM , Rating: 2
People keep feeling like it is up to us to save the world, yet those in other countries keep giving the attitude that the USA doesn't deserve THEIR help when we have our own disasters happen. As a result, it is a very natural response to say "screw the world".

When Katrina hit, how much foreign aid did we get to help those in New Orleans? Now, how much aid has the USA provided over the past 100 years? The debt that Europe had to the USA after World War II was forgiven, meaning they did not have to pay it back. Yes, that was a long time ago now, but whenever there is an earthquake, flood, tsunami, or whatever, the USA has almost always jumped in with offers to help, yet we get very little back.

I agree that Japan does not deserve a "screw you!" on the whole right now, but when it comes to entertainment, from computer games to consoles to CDs, Sony does deserve that sort of response.


RE: Take 'em down
By Helbore on 9/17/2011 7:24:16 AM , Rating: 5
RE: Take 'em down
By Tunnah on 9/17/2011 6:08:02 PM , Rating: 2
i just high-fived my monitor, just for you


RE: Take 'em down
By Phoque on 9/17/2011 7:35:26 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
People keep feeling like it is up to us to save the world


And I would think a lot of those people are from the USA themselves, at least in the political sphere.

quote:
When Katrina hit, how much foreign aid did we get to help those in New Orleans?


What the f*ck are you talking about you moron?
Even Iran offered help and relief!!! The USA had the ego luxury of refusing help from Venezuela and Cuba.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_respons...

"Additionally, a large portion of the $854 million in aid offered went uncollected, including over $400 million in oil (almost 50%)."


RE: Take 'em down
By FITCamaro on 9/17/2011 10:25:03 AM , Rating: 2
Yes because we don't accept aid from communist nations.


RE: Take 'em down
By nikon133 on 9/18/2011 8:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
You only lend money from them, eh?


RE: Take 'em down
By chick0n on 9/23/2011 1:12:01 AM , Rating: 2
rofl, US owes China how much again ?


RE: Take 'em down
By jamesjwb on 9/18/11, Rating: 0
RE: Take 'em down
By FITCamaro on 9/18/2011 10:33:58 AM , Rating: 3
Anytime we do anything we are blasted as thinking of ourselves as the world's police.

Anytime we do nothing we are blasted as doing nothing.

Other nations hate when we interfere until its their ass or something they have a stake in on the line. France hated us for going into Iraq because we ruined their illegal oil for food program with Saddam.

Fact is, no other nation does anything when anything bad happens other than the US when it necessitates military action. The UN is a worthless, corrupt organization that does nothing without the US. We are the first responders to any crisis. You can demonize us all you want. It won't change that.


RE: Take 'em down
By glennc on 9/18/2011 8:21:08 PM , Rating: 1
and the US isn't corrupt? typical american view of things. "the world owes us man." the US does NOT do anything that doesn't benefit them.


RE: Take 'em down
By Siki on 9/17/2011 3:09:07 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, because having more video games is vital to us all. Do not stop people from wasting countless hours sitting in front of the TV set, it will spell disaster for all of Earth!


RE: Take 'em down
By BugblatterIII on 9/17/2011 7:32:04 AM , Rating: 5
In my forty years on this earth I've seen so much crap justified because doing something about it would 'cost jobs'.

That's a big part of the reason that capitalism is in such a mess; companies have been allowed to literally get away with murder because stopping them would 'cost jobs'.

Replacing the bunch of giant douches at the top with a bunch of turd sandwiches won't change anything. Companies need to succeed or fail based on how they treat their customers.

And while we're at it governments need to succeed or fail based on how they treat the electorate, not how they treat corporations. People should not be afraid of their government; governments should be afraid of their people.


RE: Take 'em down
By FITCamaro on 9/17/2011 10:28:12 AM , Rating: 4
Why do you think the media is demonizing the Tea Party. Because the Democrats are afraid of this exact message. Everyone is supposed to be in labor unions that hold companies hostage and depend on the government to solve all their problems. So they're using the media to demonize a message that the government is the servant of the people, not the other way around.


RE: Take 'em down
By YashBudini on 9/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Take 'em down
By Reclaimer77 on 9/17/2011 3:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
So one out of 20 or so media outlets isn't left leaning. This is a problem?

p.s Nydailynews? Not even going to click on that...


RE: Take 'em down
By Nfarce on 9/17/2011 4:58:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
That's a big part of the reason that capitalism is in such a mess; companies have been allowed to literally get away with murder because stopping them would 'cost jobs'.


Meanwhile on the other end of the spectrum, we have the federal government wasting nearly a trillion dollars on an alleged stimulus bill that was to keep unemployment from going above 8% - nearly three years ago. News this week is that unemployment won't go below 9% throughout all of next year (and an election year THANK GOD ).

quote:
And while we're at it governments need to succeed or fail based on how they treat the electorate, not how they treat corporations. People should not be afraid of their government; governments should be afraid of their people.


How ironic is that. The Obama administration has founded a Nazi-like website to rat out your neighbors saying anything negative against the Great Community Organizer In Chief.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/obama...


RE: Take 'em down
By cochy on 9/17/2011 11:29:56 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. I couldn't be more done with Sony. These guys are clueless.


Make it illegal
By Motoman on 9/16/2011 6:18:35 PM , Rating: 5
...mandatory binding arbitration serves one purpose - it allows corporations to abuse their customers (and/or allows employers to abuse employees) without having to submit to the rule of law.

There's no way that should be legal.




RE: Make it illegal
By HPSwami on 9/17/2011 9:54:01 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, but at the end of the day, I'm signing away my rights to make about $5 in a class action suit while a group of lawyers make $50 million. It comes down to which group that's screwing you do you want to have the money. Sony is providing me with a console and games and providing all of the hacker community with my personal data. The lawyers are providing me a letter that I might not read followed by a check that I might not cash followed by vacation pictures from the Bahamas. I'm conflicted....


RE: Make it illegal
By mcnabney on 9/19/2011 4:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
The people that file the original complaints that the class was based on get a pretty nice check. A friend of mine was the original filer for a class. She got $5k for a twitchy power window, the attorneys got their fees, and overone else got $100 off of their next scheduled service.


What about Canada?
By mmntech on 9/16/2011 8:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
Sony is requiring Canadian PSN users to sign the same agreement. It makes me wonder if that's legal in my own country, or it it even matters. Could you file a class action in Canada? To me knowledge, there have been no similar rulings made in the Supreme Court of Canada, or legislation passed that would support this contract.

Either way, somebody should be fired for this. It doesn't reflect well on the company. Especially one that's just recovering from a self-created PR nightmare. They're basically shirking all future responsibly for their own incompetence.




RE: What about Canada?
By Galcobar on 9/17/2011 3:08:21 AM , Rating: 3
As long as duress is not involved, there's few instances where laws prevent you from signing an agreement that does not violate some other law (as in, you cannot be held to a contract agreeing to rob a bank) in either Canada or the U.S.

The test is generally the 'reasonable person' standard. Would a reasonable person understand what they're agreeing to by signing this contract? Would they read such a contract before signing it? Keep in mind 'reasonable' does not mean 'average.' The average person might not read the EULA/TOS, but a reasonable person would, precisely because they contain important clauses such as this.

However, Canada does have such laws in some provinces. Ontario, Quebec and Alberta have legislation which prohibits arbitration clauses which limit class-action lawsuits. B.C. does not have such legislation, but this March a B.C. woman won the right at the Supreme Court of Canada (5-4) to pursue a class-action lawsuit against Telus for deceptive business practices (using an unadvertised definition of "airtime" to hike fees charged to customers). The arbitration-only clause in a business contract is only affected by deceptive business practices however, since the case relied on a violation of B.C.'s Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act

This overturns, somewhat, prior SCC decisions such as Rogers Wireless Inc. v. Muroff which upheld arbitration clauses in private contracts. I haven't read the Seidel v Telus decision, but I expect the difference is that Muroff was a private dispute, while Seidel alleged illegal behaviour by Telus.


RE: What about Canada?
By Taft12 on 9/19/2011 2:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to know a lot about Canadian law, but I was under the impression that click-through licenses had never really been tested in court in Canada OR the US and that they would be unlikely to hold up if they were.


Sony must die!!
By frobizzle on 9/16/2011 6:22:36 PM , Rating: 2
In the words of Darth Sidious: "Wipe them out. All of them!"




RE: Sony must die!!
By FastEddieLB on 9/16/2011 7:42:48 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree. The people who have been royally screwing up need to be fired, but the company itself has been a long standing innovator in the technological field bringing about high quality products for as long as I can remember Your sense of justice seems a bit skewed to me.


Surely...
By kjboughton on 9/16/2011 6:55:08 PM , Rating: 4
I would think we could all agree, in cases such at this, it should be made illegal to require current customers to respond in writing for purposes of opting out of controversial changes which strip consumers of their rights to due recourse. Instead, the default should be the retention of legal rights, with the option to opt in if one so chooses.

BTW, this is nothing new: Comcast's most recent terms of service agreement update included a similar statement, which I noted too late to take action. Customers were given 30 days to opt out or else binding arbitration alone would be allowable in those situations where *ahem* disagreement was encountered with "official" company policy.

Bottom line: We shouldn't be required to take action to RETAIN our rights. Otherwise the system created is made very ripe for abuse.

Of course, I would be doing a great disservice to all if I didn't at least mention the preservation of rights, whether civil or constitutional, is, without question, the primary duty of the government. It's too bad our elected "representatives" are fighting over the last scraps of a soon-near bygone era of public looting to take notice and provide some level of assistance in this matter. In the end, none of this will really matter...




mmm
By symbiosys on 9/17/2011 5:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
I seriously used to like Sony products and the way the company was run (from a consumer's point of view). I always hoped used to think about Sony with the same respect I had for the PS1. One of the best creations to date and was a marvel when it was first released.

When Sony first got hacked I was very on their side. But now, I'm sorry, big corporations like this shouldn't be making these mistakes. Instead of hiring 1 million dollars worth of lawyers to write up a new EULA, why not hire 1 million dollars worth of some GOOD programmers to secure your F**KING network?

These huge corporations like Sony were successful once, but I doubt they will see the success they had once before. It's going to be a long slippery slope for Sony I think, unless they find out some way to re-invigorate their console market.

So you know, I own an XBOX, WII and PS3.




RE: mmm
By Tunnah on 9/17/2011 6:06:17 PM , Rating: 2
it's probably costing them more than a million to fix up the network, a lot more

the money spent writing this EULA is nothing compared to what they'll save by not having to busy said lawyers with class action suits


By Tunnah on 9/17/2011 6:03:43 PM , Rating: 2
maybe i'm seeing this wrong but isn't this EULA just for PSN access ? as in, anything arising from PSN can't be followed up with a class action lawsuit ?

is that really so horrible to ask? i just don't get why sony are such a bad company - they are protecting themselves from frivolous litigation.

no one (normal/adult) person would in their right mind think they are entitled to compensation for 99% of the things that could go wrong with PSN or the account tied to it, but you get a few squawky teentards (who think the world should be perfect or closest monetary value) getting ideas and banding together to bring pointless suits because they think they can make money...and let's not mention the shyster lawyers whispering in their ears

if they put the EULA for using their product and anything to do with it, then yes fair enough, hang em high or nerdrage em to death whichever you prefer - but for this ? i just can't see the problem

just a quick head count, would anyone here, hand on heart, say they deserve compensation for the PSN hack ? obviously if you succumb to ID theft then damn straight, but apart from that, at worst it's having to order new bank cards and at best resetting your password...would anyone here think they deserve to be paid money for that inconvenience ?




By Kharohz on 9/18/2011 7:14:10 AM , Rating: 2
I wished they got hacked more often, I really enjoyed the games they gave out for our troubles.


By FlyBri on 9/17/2011 2:59:50 AM , Rating: 3
Since I live in Los Angeles, where the address for the opt-out letter is to be sent, I'm considering hand-delivering the letter to that address and video taping it. I was going to do this alone, but then thought it would make more of a statement if I could get a bunch of people to go all at the same time.

If anyone in the LA area is interested in doing this, send me a private message on YouTube (my s/n is FlyBriUR), and we'll figure out if it's feasible, and if so, what the best way is to do this. Sony shouldn't be doing this to people all because they messed up royally and are afraid of the repercussions of their screw-ups.




By Jay2tall on 9/19/2011 9:33:16 AM , Rating: 2
I have to admit I love my PS3 as an entertainment console. I have a few games and use it for a BluRay player. I have a PSN account log in, but that is all the information they will ever get from me. I have bought PSN cards from Walmart to place money in my wallet online as to not give them any financial information to store. I also buy almost all of my games as physical media with a few PSN exclusives as exceptions. Sony has definitely not earned my trust so I will not be providing them any additional data on myself.

I will stick to my PC and Steam and physical disk as my primary avenue for gaming. LONG LIVE PC GAMING! Viva la RĂ©sistance




By Jay2tall on 9/19/2011 9:45:16 AM , Rating: 1
I also agree that Class action lawsuits are very overused these days. Lawyers win, the company loses, which means we could potentially lose something out of the deal in the long run since we own the console and rely on Sony to provide for us. The biggest power we have as a consumer is choice. People can choose not to buy a console, games, accessories, etc. I know several people who ditched their PS3 for an XBox when the PSN hacking hit the fan. This means those are thousands of consoles that people will no longer be buying games for. We spoke, Sony lost and must learn from it. No lawyers were needed to show Sony people were not happy, the consumers spoke with actions. I think Sony is trying to protect themselves from greedy lawyers with these additional agreements. I have a bank that will protect my credit card if unlawful charges are placed on it, that is their job. If I do not like their product, limitations, or agreements, I have a choice and can sell my console. We aren't talking about gas, food, electric, etc that we need to work and survive. It's a game console, its entertainment. Make your choice.


Didn't AT&T do the same thing
By Scott66 on 9/16/2011 6:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
I think AT&T has the same agreement and it survived a couple lawsuits




By Helbore on 9/16/2011 7:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
Surely "you can't take us to court" isn't something you can sign away in a contract. It's like those statements when you buy goods that say "this does not affect your statutory rights." There are some rights you can't sign away.

Surely it is for the courts to decide whether an action is warranted or not. You can't simply say "you can't take it to the courts in this manner" and exapct the courts to say "ok, whilst this is a recognised legal process, you've agreed to something that says you can't use this process, so we're ignoring it."

What is the point of having courts, rights and a legal system if a corporation can force you to give up those protections by changing their terms and conditions?

Sony deserve a class-action lawsuit in response to these terms and they deserve to be fined big time for it. Big companies should not be allowed to abuse their customers like this. They don't have the right to decide on due process. They are not elected officials.




Well that did it
By TSS on 9/16/2011 8:15:27 PM , Rating: 1
I hadn't turned my PS3 on since the hacking debacle (once, to change passwords), but this simply means i won't turn it on again, or if i will simply without the internet cable connected. Save for when friends come over It's dead to me now. Fuck you sony, and fuck the PS4 as well. You can shove that PSP vita somewhere the sun dont shine too.

I, my friends and family all need nothing to do with a company that thinks it's above the law. I'm just glad i was suspicious of the PSN store/DLC all along and never bought or entered payment info anywhere.

Remember kids, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you aren't being followed.




RE: Well that did it
By cmdrdredd on 9/17/2011 12:24:31 PM , Rating: 1
Nobody will miss you. You guys are fucking pathetic. You hate everything that doesn't give you a free lunch. Fuck you seriously...the gaming community is better without prissy pants conspiracy theorists and fear mongers. Sell your PS3, or go break it. Sony doesn't care. For every one of you there's a thousand people happily using their console with no issues.

You guys sound like Apple haters. I don't necessarily like Apple but my iPad is a great tool for me. I might not like some of what Sony does but the PS3 is the best value in gaming.


OH THE HORRORS!!!!!!!!
By cubby1223 on 9/16/11, Rating: 0
RE: OH THE HORRORS!!!!!!!!
By bupkus on 9/17/2011 2:34:11 AM , Rating: 2
Without actually knowing your views on this(?), the flip side of that coin could be thought to be...

we can always count on cubby to defend Sony again and again and again and again and again...


Sounds Familiar...
By EricMartello on 9/17/2011 12:12:53 AM , Rating: 2
Another popular company that has similar legal verbiage in its EULA is Blizzard...and it's easy to see why. In general it's best to avoid doing business with any company that feels the need to add this in any of their EUAs.

I don't think these kind of clauses should protect companies that violate consumer protection laws. I do think that both Sony and Blizzard could be proven guilty of violating laws that are there to protect consumers from predatory corporations and scams.

Blizzard is the king of bait & switch, false & misleading advertising, misrepresentation of facts about its products while Sony just loves attacking consumers' personal property with viruses while taking minimal measures to secure sensitive customer data...this doesn't include Sony's warranty-dodging with their other electronics that seem to stop working right around the time the warranty expires.




Sad times.
By Haelstrom on 9/19/2011 9:28:50 AM , Rating: 2
We have only ourselves to blame. We built these large corporations by buying their products and using their services. They have more money, more lawyers, and more time. Individuals have no chance at ever suing a company of this size for any substantial amount. Now I don't believe I should get a million dollars because someone hacked their network and stole my personal info. I do believe I should be fairly compensated for my lose of money and time to resolve such problems. I should not benefit from it though. Now, the monetary cost to the company should be significant as to persuade the company to make sure it doesn't happen again. Any company that holds any of your personal information has a legal requirement to keep that information safe. Class action suits do not benefit individuals with monetary gain but do entice the corporations to do what is right and not just what is more profitable. If the company can't make money with out screwing its customers then I suggest they take a hard look at themselves and start fixing the issues instead of just taking it out the customers. But as a large corporation why bother. We can just write in EULA's that relieve you of your rights any legal actions against us. Of any significance anyway. They are not trying to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits. They are protecting themselves from your legal rights to force them to do whats right and not just whats more profitable. More and more companies are starting to write this type of crap into their EULA's. Its not just Sony. Recently Origin (a company used to sell downloadable games from EA.) posted a new EULA for their service. And in the name of (Improving their services) they reserve the right to scan your computer for all software, installed hardware, websites you visit, programs you use most often, crash logs of any program, files you have stored on your computer, and much more. They wrote it so openly that they pretty much had every right to your computer as you do and of course you had to sign away all of yours rights to any repercussions. And since EA is requiring you to log into the Origin system in order to play its upcoming Blockbuster hit Battlefield 3. If you wish to play you must give it up. When the community came together on this and out cried about it Origin decided to back off a bit. They still left themselves open to a lot. I hate government involvement in private business but at times its warranted and this sort of thing must end.




By masamasa on 9/19/2011 5:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
US society is inherently focused on sue, sue and sue. The lawsuits are out of control and in many cases, absolutely ridiculous.

With that said, I don't necessarily agree. Another company that does the same is 1and1 internet hosting (terrible company and service by the way). They seem to do it to protect their shady billing practices.

Anyway, arguments for both sides, but liability in the case of PS3 should be limited to the cost of the subscription. It's not as though a down network will result in personal injury.

Enough said.




This is really BS...
By Wolfpup on 9/23/2011 12:31:00 PM , Rating: 2
I don't really have a problem with how Sony handled the PSN thing earlier this year. They communicated pretty fast, and took steps quicker, and they gave us some free stuff to help make good.

But this? As far as I'm concerned, these types of things shouldn't even be legal, if they are. Creepier when cell phone companies do it, but still...




I just checked my PS3...
By Chaser on 9/16/2011 6:23:35 PM , Rating: 1
and incredibly it still plays PS3 games, streams my media library, and plays Blue ray movies in 1080P with Master Dolby HD audio.

Someone call in an air strike from Anonymous.




So What??
By Stuka on 9/16/2011 7:46:53 PM , Rating: 1
What fuxing moron decides what product to purchase based on whether they can file a class action lawsuit or not?

Won't someone please be my hero and stand up against this unholy injustice?!

Moving on..




Who cares about class action
By kleinma on 9/17/2011 10:39:13 AM , Rating: 1
I guess the argument can be made that class action suits at least force the company to change some policies if they lose the suit, but for the most part class action suits are a joke that are brewed up by lawyers, the real winners in any class action suit.

I have been a part of many class actions suits (not because I joined up, but because I had some product or service that class action was brought against) and the payout has always been a laughable joke... I remember one from Verizon Wireless netted me a credit of 0.55 on my bill!




Lets get a few things right
By BZDTemp on 9/17/2011 6:49:27 PM , Rating: 1
1. Of course you must opt out in writing since it must be legally binding.
2. With all the legal BS going on in the US it's no surprise Sony is trying to limit it as much as possible. Class action suits have become yet another misused money machine for lawyers aka. Ambulance chasers.
3. It's not like Sony is doing this because they plan to screw anyone over. Just the PR shit storm they would be hit with ensures this not to mention they usually treat people pretty fair (remember this is not Sony Music).




Meh...
By Kharohz on 9/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: Meh...
By FastEddieLB on 9/16/11, Rating: 0
RE: Meh...
By Hiawa23 on 9/17/2011 2:42:40 AM , Rating: 3
I have no intention of being in court for months or years on end just to be awarded a couple thousand dollars after legal fees, taxes, etc. I use my PS3 for exactly what it was designed to do: play PS3 games. I'm not about to sue Sony, so this has no effect on me whatsoever. All Sony is doing is covering their asses and after the way they've been treated lately I don't blame them at all.

I agree with this, mine only plays games, & bluray movies, so no issues accepting the terms.


RE: Meh...
By nikon133 on 9/18/2011 8:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
Completely agree.

If I'm not happy with Sony, I will not support them any more by buying their games and next-gen console; I'll move my gaming somewhere else. But I'm not going to sue them. It is not like I've spent my life-savings on them.

I have a life to live...


RE: Meh...
By danjw1 on 9/17/2011 11:05:22 AM , Rating: 3
Huh? They used terrible security and allowed hackers to steal users personal information. How is that "nothing wrong"? They are big enough of a company to be able to afford to properly protect data, but it was too much of a bother. If you want hackers to have your credit card number, sure, stay with Sony.


RE: Meh...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: Meh...
By nikon133 on 9/18/2011 8:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
Their security was not as good as it should have been, but then, their PSN is free for everyone, so they don't have MS benefits of leeching extra customers' money for on-line gaming.

Funny thing is, two of my mates moved from X360 to PS3 since July; they found free online gaming more tempting than (supposedly) better security... and they are both IT professionals, well aware of what Sony was going through recently.


RE: Meh...
By Nfarce on 9/16/2011 8:05:52 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly (and I was wondering what the hell that was about last night, but too drunk to care).

But you have to remember that in these modern times, we have a lot of bed wetters out there that can't accept and handle personal responsibility and need someone else (or the government) to manage it for them.

The free market will always reign. If Sony makes similar mistakes in the future and pisses enough people off, their PlayStation gaming platform will go the way of a feathered dinosaur.

I would have no problem whatsoever switching to the Xbox for console gaming to supplement my PC gaming. For now it just so happens that most of my friends have a PS3 as well.


RE: Meh...
By futrtrubl on 9/17/2011 12:25:21 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry but I really did have to say this...
quote:
their PlayStation gaming platform will go the way of a feathered dinosaur

Umm it will continue to exist and eventually rule the skies? Birds ARE feathered dinosaurs.


RE: Meh...
By Nfarce on 9/17/2011 4:52:57 PM , Rating: 2
Uhm, actually they evolved into birds. If you see any feathered lizards flying around, please take a picture of it.


RE: Meh...
By Fritzr on 9/18/2011 6:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
Lizards are a separate branch from the dinosaurs ... Crocodilians and turtles are also NOT descended from dinosaurs.

Among the differences, the dinosaurs of the Age of Dinosaurs are known to have had feathers & were warm blooded. We call their modern descendants "birds".

Americans traditionally have a centerpiece dish of oven roasted dinosaur on Thanksgiving.


RE: Meh...
By JKflipflop98 on 9/16/2011 9:02:43 PM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry, but you're a moron. Stating that someone "deserves to lose any money taken from you" due to Sony's cock-up is one of the dumbest things I've possibly ever heard. It's right up there with "well, it's her fault she got raped". Wow.


RE: Meh...
By cmdrdredd on 9/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: Meh...
By chick0n on 9/23/2011 1:22:09 AM , Rating: 2
you need to learn how to read, moron.


RE: Meh...
By dark matter on 9/17/2011 2:15:25 AM , Rating: 3
So, you're liable for the actions of EVERY organisation you do business with because somehow it's your fault if one them isn't maintaining the correct level of security...

What a douche.


RE: Meh...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Meh...
By BugblatterIII on 9/19/2011 6:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
They need a -6 thing on here.


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki