Thou Shalt Not Sue Sony

from the can't-let-people-have-rights dept

Fri, Sep 16th 2011 5:28am — Mike Masnick

AC alerts us to a change in the new Sony PlayStation Network terms of service that basically says that you agree not to sue the company. Honestly (and Sony pointed this out in its defense), such clauses are pretty common. It is debatable how enforceable some of these clauses are, but they say that you have to go to arbitration, rather than sue. The terms also bar participating in class action lawsuits, which seems much more questionable. Where Sony gets ridiculous is in claiming that this change "is designed to benefit both the consumer and the company by ensuring that there is adequate time and procedures to resolve disputes." That makes me think of a two syllable word whose first four letters are bull. Come on. At this point, everyone knows that binding arbitration between a company and a consumer wildly favors companies. A study from a few years back found that companies win in arbitration against consumers 95% of the time. Sony knows this. So its move is not about protecting consumers at all, and it's insulting for it to imply that it is.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: arbitration, playstation, playstation network, psn, terms of service
Companies: sony

77 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 5:38am

hm perhaps i should have read that junk, but i just wanted to watch netflix..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- doughless (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 9:24am
  
  Re:
  I have no idea if this would ever hold up in court, but I told my 9 year old son that he doesn't have permission to accept any agreements on our PS3, but then also told him that if the PSN store and Netflix won't work unless someone accepts them. I've never accepted any Sony agreements, but both of those things surprisingly work on my PS3 right now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 5:46am

So, "agreeing" to the PS TOS means..
So, if I buy a PS, and then get hit by another rootkit fiasco, that means I can't sue them?!??!? How the fuck is that "fair" to anybody but Sony?

How about if I'm George Hotz and Sony sues me - all of a sudden I'm not allowed to file a countersuit?

Fuck Sony and the horse they rode in on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 6:04am
  
  Re: So, "agreeing" to the PS TOS means..
  Actually I think this is restricted to problems relating directly to PSN. If your PS3 explodes and destroys your house you can still take them to court. (Having said that I haven't read the full agreement - so I stand to be corrected by anyone with more information.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - sheenyglass (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 8:01am
    
    Re: Re: So, "agreeing" to the PS TOS means..
    The security breach was of the PSN - the hackers weren't after my FF13 save games, they were after credit card numbers and other personal info from our PSN accounts.
    
    So it appears that this is an attempt by Sony to prevent customers from suing them for their egregiously poor security measures. For this reason, the class action bar is especially troubling, as that would be the most effective way for Sony to be sued case like this, where the damages are spread out among a large number of people in small increments. And the threat of class action suits is generally the only thing keeping companies honest absent a regulatory regime (and even in a regulatory regime, class action lawsuits can be more effective for a variety of reasons, such as regulatory capture or an inadequate enforcement scheme). Although they aren't terribly effective at compensating people (except lawyers), they are still better than arbitration).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 6:15am
  
  Re: So, "agreeing" to the PS TOS means..
  Hey, what did the horse ever do to deserve that sentiment?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 8:08am
    
    Re: Re: So, "agreeing" to the PS TOS means..
    It helped Sony
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 16 Sep 2011 @ 5:54am

just another case of the consumer drawing the short straw. it shows the continuing contempt Sony has for it's customers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 5:56am

Aha
You can opt out of it (for the price of a stamp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 5:58am
  
  Re: Aha
  You can also opt out by not buy any Sony products, which is the route that I'm going to take.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 6:27am
    
    Re: Re: Aha
    Electronics today have a very tight integrated supply line, even if you buy a Motorola. Samsung, Apple or any other electronic chances are that you are still buying Sony products, just not the branded one.
    
    With that said not buying the brand does hurt them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 6:52am
    
    Re: Re: Aha
    This. Last time I bought a Sony product it was years ago. A pair of earbuds I urgently needed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 6:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Aha
      I used to have a sony walkman...it was a pos though.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Spaceboy (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 6:16am
  
  Re: Aha
  And then they disconnect you from PSN. If you rely on your PS3 for playing online games and Netflix then it is essentially bricked.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 6:33am
    
    Re: Re: Aha
    If you never buy the product, how can it get bricked?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 7:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Aha
      You realize the PS3 isn't a new product right, and that there at least one or two people who own them already?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Spaceboy (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 7:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Aha
      My reply was to the guy that said you can opt out via mail. So if you already clicked through Sony is giving people a way out. Their way out bricks the PS3 for people that rely on its online capabilities. If ever there was a reason to have an alternate OS this is it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 9:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Aha
        nothing in there says they will brick your PS3. they just allow you to opt out of waiving your rights to arbitration and class action lawsuits.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Phillip Vector (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 9:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Aha
        You misunderstand..
        
        He isn't saying brick like "It's not going to work at all".
        He's saying brick as in "All I use it for is netflix and online stuff." Basically, useless now for whatever purpose he had it for.
        
        Hence, Bricked.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 6:53am
    
    Re: Re: Aha
    And then they disconnect you from PSN.
    
    Actually No - on my reading - I think they are relying on inertia - most people won't bother.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 6:06am

dont care, any smart people already don't buy Sony crap. The dumb ones? We'll, screw them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 7:14am
  
  Re:
  Why are you planning on having some kind of group sex with PS3 owners?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 7:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    It depends on the USB port.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - el_segfaulto (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 8:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Unless he decides to just have sex with one after another, then he could use a serial port.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 9:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Parallel interfaces are more fun though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        G Thompson (nli), 16 Sep 2011 @ 10:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        you two... Get a room then you can duplex the night away ps: writing this on crappy ps3 virtual keyboard blah
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Andrew (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 8:34am
  
  Re:
  To be fair to Sony it wasn't all bad in the beginning. I am an old school fan of the Play Station and even their walkmans where good. My first MP3/cd player was from them and it worked fantastic for years. So they have decent products, just of late they have really dumb marketing strategy and its turning a lot of people, like me, away.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 9:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    Good for you; keep voting with that wallet. It is, sadly, the only language that Sony understands, and even at that, not so well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 6:12am

I will just boycott.There is nothing I ever need to buy from that Company again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceboy (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 6:21am

Nice move Sony. Instead of showing the world how confident you are in your new network and how secure it is, you do an end-run around your customers and try to limit your liability by removing our right to sue. You should be putting that energy into your infrastructure.

I remember your rootkit fiasco and the TOS you tried to force down peoples throats then. Seriously? If I declare bankruptcy I have to delete all my music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 6:24am

Mike unfortunately you're wrong about banning participating in class action lawsuits being illegal. The US Supreme Court recently ruled in the last few years that this is perfectly legal in a controversial 5-4 ruling. I forget the name of the case, but the case was about a cell phone company in California. The cell phone company advertised free cell phones if you sign up for their plan. But then when customers went to get their 'free' cell phone they were charged over 30 dollars in a state tax.

Obviously 30 dollars in tax means that the phones weren't really free. So someone started a class action lawsuit against the cell phone company. I believe that the cell phone company lost in court until they appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that their contract bars class action lawsuits, and the idiots in the supreme court sided with the cell phone company.

This means that class action lawsuits will soon be pretty much dead in the US, once all companies not run by complete idiots amend their contracts to ban class action lawsuits. This pretty much guarantees that companies can get away with stuff like that Cell Phone company, because no one is going to waste their time suing over $30 dollars. The lawsuit itself would cost the victim much more then $30 dollars even if they won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 7:39am
  
  Re:
  That would be fine, if arbitration almost always didn't work in the consumer's favor. It was also the case, as I understand it, that if arbitration fails, you have a statutory right to go to court in that case.
  
  This doesn't allow for that. At all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jordan (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 11:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    Well has anyone actually ever received anything from a class action lawsuit more valuable than a free chalupa? Besides the lawyers that is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert Doyle (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 6:24am

You can always sue
It is a right to sue them. They can't take it away.

They can write all of the terms in the world - if they are negligent and cause damage, they are held liable. Period.

These terms are scare tactics. Don't be bullied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- American A-hole, 16 Sep 2011 @ 6:54am
  
  Re: You can always sue
  It is a right to sue them. They can't take it away.
  
  AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
  
  Oh, wait, you're serious? You really think because something is a "right" that it can't be removed?
  
  I have some Tennessee oceanfront property for sale...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
doewnskitty, 16 Sep 2011 @ 6:29am

The terms only pertain to the PSN service, which you agree to if you want to use it. Thing is, the "agreement" has about as much tooth to it as an elderly gumline, given that it's possible to "agree" to the terms from your dog having sat its ass on your controller, hitting the button that triggers the "agreement" to commence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd, 16 Sep 2011 @ 6:35am

This would be irrelevant if people would just follow the simple DBS Rule*.

*DBS: Don't Buy Sony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Dan (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 6:46am

Typo
Last sentence: "and its insulting for it" should be "and it's insulting for it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rex (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 6:51am

The sad truth
Class action lawsuits will not disappear completely if people would not agree to TOS contracts forbidding them. Companies (smart companies, this may not include Sony) would catch on that including this bull was costing them money and customers and then they'd just concentrate on good service instead.

Playing games and having their PS3 is more important to most people. The toy they get to play with is more important than the possibly of getting to sue when everything goes south.

But sadly this won't happen. I never read TOS contracts so I can't blame anyone, but news articles like this alert myself and others to what Sony is trying to pull over on us. Most people will click "agree" and move on. I won't, I haven't bought a Sony product since my PS2 and I doubt I ever will again. There's too many reasons why to list here.

To everyone who's reading this story (on any news site, not just this one), you know what you're doing by agreeing to the terms and you know what the company's been capable of in the past so good luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pitabred (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 7:41am
  
  Re: The sad truth
  If you don't read TOS contracts, and I don't read TOS contracts, and the VAST majority of people don't read them, are their terms still binding? They make them so easy to click through because the know people won't read them. They force you to scroll to the bottom, but that's no guarantee of reading, comprehension, or even the user being of legal age to agree to such terms. TOS "agreements" are almost always unfair to the consumer, and there should be a guarantee of an acceptable level of service in return for the rights you give up. Otherwise the courts should see them for the scams they are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 8:02am
  
  Re: The sad truth
  "Class action lawsuits will not disappear completely if people would not agree to TOS contracts forbidding them. "
  
  How can they when the TOS is specifically binding?
  
  " Companies (smart companies, this may not include Sony) would catch on that including this bull was costing them money and customers and then they'd just concentrate on good service instead."
  
  No, most companies go the arbitration route, which runs counter to being able to sue in open court by leagues.
  
  1) Arbitration doesn't report the results of the mediation
  2) There is huge incentive for judges to favor with the plaintiffs, who are usually businesses.
  3)The arbitration judges are usually gone if they favor defendants.
  
  So why not sue in open court with all of the precedents? Because the law allows this binding in arbitration.
  
  The only thing I remember about arbitration is how Al Franken pushed for the denouncement of arbitration.
  
  The move "Hot Coffee" also discusses this, but be aware, it's quite controversial. I'm sure an AC will come here to say the movie is bad, under the guise of working for the Chamber of Commerce (since they're portrayed quite badly in the move) so I'll leave off by saying, Your mileage may vary.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rex, 16 Sep 2011 @ 10:35am
    
    Re: Re: The sad truth
    "How can they when the TOS is specifically binding?"
    
    You don't buy it. Hence, no reason to agree to their terms. I haven't for years. Believe me, it's quite possible.
    
    The rest of the post becomes kind'a moot so I'll just stop there.
    
    I look into a company and product before I spend money on it. If I don't agree with practices then they don't get my money and I have nothing to do with them. If more people did that then... (continues rant on soapbox)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lesath (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 7:08am

Fortunately this will never apply to me, as I will never buy another Sony product ever again. Honestly wouldn't surprise me to find out Microsoft and its XBOX Live has something similar but MS, to my knowledge, has never let any of my personal information be hacked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 7:10am

The machine will eventually brick anyway. Just like that nice new Ipad you just bought. Technology is flawed by its very nature. As long as I can play Final Fantasy, listen to my Ipod and toast so (well) toast at least for a while I'll be happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still an anonymous coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 7:19am

Just let me play "Dark Souls" then the PS3 can go back to rearing dust bunnies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harrekki (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 7:35am

of course, you don't KNOW about the TOS to not sue until you have opened and used the console, meaning you can't return it.
So... when Is congress going to crack down on this? oh
wait, that requires action.

Citizens are screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 8:01am

Amusing.
Rather amusing to read all the people who are now stating they won't buy Sony's products in the future. Sony's despicable treatment of their customers has been appalling for so long, but what is it *today* that offends you so much that their prior poor behavior didn't?

Won't affect me, anyway. Their isn't a SONY logo in my house, anywhere, not even on a blank CD. There are, however, large screen TVs, stereos, clock radios, and a number of other things happily purchased from other manufacturers. I don't just advise it, I actually vote with my wallet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 8:10am
  
  Re: Amusing.
  No blu-ray player I'm guessing?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 9:08am
    
    Re: Re: Amusing.
    You are correct, I am without Blu-Ray. I enjoy the feeling of smug moral superiority, it seems, more than I enjoy fancy movies.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2011 @ 8:02am

How enforceable is it when you are not able to read the terms of service until you set up your PS3 and connect it to the Internet? Also, what about people who have purchased games through the PSN that require PSN connectivity to run? My son couldn't play Fat Princess until the terms were agreed to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greevar (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 8:06am

They're just trying to protect themselves from the next hack of the PSN so users can't sue them for gross incompetence that they rightly should be sued for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jimr (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 10:23am

There are certain consumer rights that you should not be able to sign away in a TOS agreement.

What if the minor is the recipient of the Sony product? The minor are not of legal age to consent to a binding legal document?

What if some asshat at Sony added in to the TOS that 10% of your gross income is forfeited to Sony?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just chris (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 11:47am

My kids might have said yes to this when it happened but I did not. So I can still sue that and they need to know kids can't sine any contract with out a parent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Just chris (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 11:53am
  
  Re:
  Makes most of what your kids sine or say yes to mute in any legal contract and since 90% of all PS3 accounts are kids accounts don't sweat the little shit Sony would not have a leg to stand on in court.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Phillip Vector (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 9:38pm
  
  Re:
  I was wondering this myself. I have all my ToS's clicked on by my 8 year old. They are free to try to prove that it was me who installed whatever. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killercool (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 12:03pm

Can I...?
Would it be feasible to file a class action suit against Sony for taking away functionality of my already-purchased PS3 and PSP? Since I will never agree to this ridiculous contract clause, and I can't seem to find the button that allows me to strike out a clause and send it back for deliberation, I have lost my ability to update my systems, play multiplayer-only games that I have purchased (Brink; even the single player requires an internet connection), and cannot return, since they are already opened, as well as a few other functions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Just chris (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 12:13pm
  
  Re: Can I...?
  I think you can if people stood up and said HELL NO in one big voice but most won't. So just click yes and blame your kids if no kids then barrow one :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just chris (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 12:09pm

I would love to see there little JAP faces when a judge tells them kids in the USA can't sine legal contracts. They look so funny where there mad -,-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just chris (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 12:39pm

Look like I said in there country this might fly but in the USA there is a lot of legal reasons why a court will not take Sony's side, the list is long but just use your heads. The person that wrote this does not know law he is just informing people what was in the new TOS Sony sent out yesterday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bergman (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 2:34pm

There's a simple solution.

The courts have, essentially, ruled that there is no need for a meeting of the minds or an actual signature for contract terms to be binding. The company simply needs to publish them to you and include a clause that states that use of the service equates to signing the contract.

But if that's legally true, then it is true both ways.

Either in a separate mailing or printed on a check used to pay the first bill, include an image of the sections of the terms of service you reject, with those clauses lined out and the statement that continuing to provide service constitutes a binding agreement. Mail it to the company.

Suddenly, you have the same type of agreement with them that they do with you. Equally binding, equally enforceable, and if their shrinkwrap EULA is binding on you, then yours binds them too. And suddenly you can sue again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rabbit80, 16 Sep 2011 @ 4:30pm

I just saw thhis comment on Arstechnica...
I saw the email update from Sony about this yesterday. I thought that TOS update looked fishy. The email is set up to show you redlines to indicate the diff between the old and new legalese - something they probably don't want you to understand. So, if they're pointing it out, it's so they're covered in the future. "We took the extra mile and pointed out the differences!"

What got my notice was that this same TOS update removes references to "purchases" of content on the PSN in favor of the term "license" or "content license". So, after this update, you aren't buying content anymore from PSN... You're just giving them money for a license. Sounds questionable for older purchases (they shouldn't be able to just declare old purchases are now rentals).

Additional on this subject:

OLD -> NEW WORDING
purchase -> completing a transaction
acquiring -> licensing
sales -> transactions
pay for purchase -> complete transaction payment
"You bear all risk of loss for accessing your content" -> "You bear all risk of loss for accessing the content"
cost-> total amount
purchase -> order

DELETED WORDING (any reference to owning is removed)
"purchase of rental content, subscriptions and other prepaid products"
"Upon termination of this Agreement, Your Account, or license to any Property, You will immediately cease use of the Property and delete or destroy copies of the Property."
�own,� �ownership�

Last edited by Blue Adept on 16 Sep 2011 15:00

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/09/mandatory-ps3-update-removes-right-to-join-in-a- class-action-lawsuit.ars?comments=1&start=40#comment-22066988
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just chris (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 5:26pm

I called my legal counsel and he said I was right that Sony can't cut off any thing bought before this new TOS that came out yesterday and if they do there breaking the law. When we bought the systems, games and add-on packs we said yes to there terms and they have to stick to those terms if we do not agree with new terms they try to make us sine. They have to keep providing the same services for items bought before Sep 15, 2011 or it breaks blackmail laws (holding something a value that was payed for tell you sine a new contract is blackmail under CA Penal Code 518 and federal blackmail statute (P.L. 103-322, 108 Stat. 2147)). Only systems and games gotten after the new TOS would be forced by law to stick to the new TOS. Cutting off Peoples access to items bough like the 47 add-on packs I have gotten in the past 5 years for not agreeing to new TOS is BLACKMAIL any way you look at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 5:52pm

The fail boat, soon we'll be making another run...
The fail boat, promises to screw every single one...
We'll set a course for failure, our eyes on a new defense...

dere is no T infront of AC... I has a sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phillip Vector (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 9:32pm

Idea
Someone from Reddit said, "Watch Microsoft give a major discount to people who buy an xbox and trade in their sony PS3.

Heck, donate them to childs play and get even more good PR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
G Thompson (profile), 16 Sep 2011 @ 11:40pm

Wonder if this is world wide, since it is absolutely voidable under Australian law and as far as I am aware NZ, and most probably EU consumer laws (??).

Also it cannot be retrospective for any products already purchased and used. So really only for new PS3, PS Vita, PSN owners.

Though when you read their Terms it would of been interesting if it was around when GeoHot was sued, since under these terms they would of breached them themselves for suing him (or am I reading it wrong).

As for whether it is legal in the USA for these terms to be enforced, if so, it is even further proof of why the USA needs better consumer protection statutes and tort reform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just chris (profile), 17 Sep 2011 @ 3:13pm

I just got back from talking to a friend who is a CA district attorney and he is going to his boss Monday to see if charges can be charges brought against Sony for blackmail witch non of us need a lawyer for since it is a state law and this is only the first legal action I am taking to fight back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 Sep 2011 @ 7:10pm

I has a question for the hivemind.
I do not own a PS3 and I don't begin to know where to find the answer to my question.

These TOS are for the PSN, to get the updated code bits for newer DRM'd games and BlueRay keys/features do you not have to use the PSN network to get these things? Or do they have a different channel to deliver these things to the consoles?

I ask because there was a story in my recent memory about a game coming out that to play at all required you to connect to the PSN network and let them update your firmware otherwise your new $60 game was just a brick that you unwrapped and could not return.

Is what they are doing as bad as I think it is?

They want you to settle for a machine that will no longer do "everything", because your unwilling to accept TOS that they modified to protect themselves from being punished for misdeeds they might continue to do in the future?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Just chris (profile), 18 Sep 2011 @ 8:35am
  
  Re:
  No you have to have PSN in order for any game or add-on you have gotten online for your PS3 or PSP and yes there is games that are 100% PSN dependant like Brink.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just chris (profile), 18 Sep 2011 @ 8:42am

Like right now I have been locked out from 5 games, 47 Add-on packs The one pack for Fallout 3 was $50 and you can only get the Add-on pack from PSN but (PC and Xbox once you buy the add-on packs there yours), netflix and all online PSN dependant games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just chris (profile), 18 Sep 2011 @ 8:47am

One question I have is I pay Netflix and it has nothing to do with Sony at all, so why on the PS3 do you have to sine in to use the Netflix at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just chris (profile), 18 Sep 2011 @ 8:57am

OH and I have been locked out of all games I have gotten for the PSP GO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh King (profile), 18 Sep 2011 @ 8:58am

Arbitration
The reason companies prevail 95% of the time isn't because arbitrators are inherently biased in favor of companies - it's because the vast majority of the cases that go to such arbitrations are essentially uncontested collections actions. And while the potential for arbitrators to have such bias is obvious, I've never seen any data suggesting it plays out that way.

In fact, in the cases people seem to be concerned about here (suits against the company), arbitration is actually more consumer-friendly, as it's easier and much cheaper than going to court. Sony's not concerned about those cases - which are few and far between - but rather the ability to use arbitration as a quick and cheap method for bringing its own claims.

And the class action waiver, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
True, 18 Sep 2011 @ 10:25pm

How legit?
I do wonder on that 5% stat being the same as court cases. I used to work for a major tech co and people would sue us over the stupidest things. I was the one people in charge of helping people with special cases. I had checks cut for 100's to 1000 of dollars some time due to some horrible issue where are product caused some sort of real damage (like causing a small fire) or Giving refunds or free products for lesser issues. If the user has a valid claim it was't a big deal. But some people would claim the silliest things like one of our software products that did't even install into the PC blew there pc power supply or made there cable modem fry Many of these jokers that I told that there claims were impossible or would demand insane compensation would sue us and get tossed by the first judge who looked at it. Frivolousness law suits are nothing new. I just don't know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2012 @ 11:17pm
  
  Re: How legit?
  interesting you worked as a lawyer, yet still can't spell "their"...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
kie, 10 Dec 2011 @ 6:10am

What about UK, you can't sign away your rights here, we just bought a PlayStation 2nd hand and apparently it's been banned from the playstation network, we can't even play offline games because they demand Playstation network membership to progress past a couple of minutes of gameplay (EA and others). It's about time people in the UK started suing sony for destruction of many thousands of � worth of property.

Sony haven't answered e-mails and the notice of the ban doesn't give a time-frame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
japan student, 1 Sep 2012 @ 11:14pm

This is the tyrrany the US gets for no executing war criminals in 1946. Japans excuse for accepting 5 refugees a year is that any more and it would be harmful for the refugees, so therefore its a good thing for the refugees because they would "not get along with japanese society". meaning there would be racism and social unrest in a 95% japanese society if it accepted foerigners so leting them suffer in refugee camps is an acceptable alternative to headaches for the gov in accepting them in. "WE say it benefits everyone and all you have to do is lie down and accept our version of reality"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
monkey, 14 Jun 2013 @ 5:37pm

lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]