- Status
kinggraves
Distinguished
- May 14, 2010
- 445
- 0
- 18,940
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]13 year old kid buys a Playstation, has his personal data stolen in an attack, OK maybe not credit card but you can still have debit cards and they could be stolen.You join a class action suit against Sony and they argue that the T&C says you can't do it and the T&C is a binding legal agreement.13 year old kid points out he is a minor and cannot enter into legal agreements.Sony contines to be sued.Moral of the story is if you want a Playstation, lend the money to your kid and get him to buy it on his debit card, then let him register and agree the T&C and if it all cocks up at Sony's end you can use his underage status to sue Sony successfully.[/citation]
That doesn't work, because nearly anyone who bothers to put out a ToS is going to state that minors need their parents permission. The parent is expected to have read the legal contract and given consent. We all know the minor is just going to sign up anyway and leave the parent ignorant, but the parent is still technically bound to the contract.
[citation][nom]theshonen8899[/nom]Sony is not forcing users to sign away right to defend themselves, only that they have to do so with traditional first party lawsuits. Class action lawsuits allow the members of the class to divide the cost of the lawsuit amongst themselves making it cost nearly nothing in exchange for possibilities of enormous gains. What ends up happening is that anyone can jump in on the Sony lawsuit and pay nearly nothing to contribute while Sony has to pay their legal fees all by themselves. Class action lawsuits are still a phenomenon in America and are rarely adopted in other parts of the world.With this change in the ToS you can still defend yourself in case of fraud, however you will need to back the legal fees yourself. This ensures that you truly believe you were wronged and that you can win the case, instead of just jumping on a bandwagon for free money.[/citation]
Awww, what a sad story for Sony.
Sony is a major corporation that can afford million dollar defense teams that would shred most attorneys a common citizen could afford. Class action lawsuits allow people to band together for a common issue and get a legal team with just as many resources as Sony. In an ideal world, it would only be a matter of right and wrong, but reality is that with the complicated legal system full of contradictions and loopholes the team with more lawyers usually has the advantage. This is EXACTLY why they want to prevent class action lawsuits, they do not want people to have a chance to represent themselves on equal grounds. Whether it's a class action suit or not, Sony has a team of lawyers and will bring them all to protect their assets, so class action lawsuits don't change their legal expenses at all, just their risks of losing.
Sony themselves are unsure of the legality of this move, that's why they added that part at the end that says that this section will not be upheld if it's found illegal. They know most people don't read these notices and will confirm it without even knowing. The few who do read it and confirm it will believe they can't sue, even if the section is found illegal and overturned. Sony probably won't send a notice saying it doesn't apply anymore. They win no matter what, because they still have people believing they can't file a class action suit even if they can. The real win for Sony isn't the new agreement, but the deception they're instigating from it. Sony fanboys, what exactly are they afraid of?
That doesn't work, because nearly anyone who bothers to put out a ToS is going to state that minors need their parents permission. The parent is expected to have read the legal contract and given consent. We all know the minor is just going to sign up anyway and leave the parent ignorant, but the parent is still technically bound to the contract.
[citation][nom]theshonen8899[/nom]Sony is not forcing users to sign away right to defend themselves, only that they have to do so with traditional first party lawsuits. Class action lawsuits allow the members of the class to divide the cost of the lawsuit amongst themselves making it cost nearly nothing in exchange for possibilities of enormous gains. What ends up happening is that anyone can jump in on the Sony lawsuit and pay nearly nothing to contribute while Sony has to pay their legal fees all by themselves. Class action lawsuits are still a phenomenon in America and are rarely adopted in other parts of the world.With this change in the ToS you can still defend yourself in case of fraud, however you will need to back the legal fees yourself. This ensures that you truly believe you were wronged and that you can win the case, instead of just jumping on a bandwagon for free money.[/citation]
Awww, what a sad story for Sony.
Sony is a major corporation that can afford million dollar defense teams that would shred most attorneys a common citizen could afford. Class action lawsuits allow people to band together for a common issue and get a legal team with just as many resources as Sony. In an ideal world, it would only be a matter of right and wrong, but reality is that with the complicated legal system full of contradictions and loopholes the team with more lawyers usually has the advantage. This is EXACTLY why they want to prevent class action lawsuits, they do not want people to have a chance to represent themselves on equal grounds. Whether it's a class action suit or not, Sony has a team of lawyers and will bring them all to protect their assets, so class action lawsuits don't change their legal expenses at all, just their risks of losing.
Sony themselves are unsure of the legality of this move, that's why they added that part at the end that says that this section will not be upheld if it's found illegal. They know most people don't read these notices and will confirm it without even knowing. The few who do read it and confirm it will believe they can't sue, even if the section is found illegal and overturned. Sony probably won't send a notice saying it doesn't apply anymore. They win no matter what, because they still have people believing they can't file a class action suit even if they can. The real win for Sony isn't the new agreement, but the deception they're instigating from it. Sony fanboys, what exactly are they afraid of?
Not illegal at all, read your pretty cellphones contracts. Oh way you guys probably didn't, right?
vicsrealms
Distinguished
- Oct 22, 2007
- 34
- 0
- 18,580
Well, that is reason enough not to participate or purchase anything from PSN. I think this is one of those reasons I am not buying the next generation of consoles. I'll stick with PC gaming from now on, its all I do anyway.
Well, all bemoaning and second guessing the legality of this decision aside, the power to change this is squarely in the hands of the PS3 owners. If the majority of owners do not accept this agreement and cancel their memberships Sony will rethink the policy. Honestly if 60-90% of users canceled their memberships Sony would feel no choice but to recant.
On the legal side it's one of those gray areas kind of like being searched for flights. Legally government agents cannot search your person without a warrant, but they can ask you to waive that right for you to take an optional flight. Schools work the same way students and parents of students are forced to sign waivers that limit the free speech (dress codes and such) of students in order to attend classes. If this provision is illegal then all provisions in an EULA is illegal as it limits what you can legally do with the product or service you have purchased. Unfortunately this is no more illegal then non-disclosure agreements, salaried positions, and EULAs all of which force a consumer or employee to give up legally provided protections in order to gain employment or a product/service.
TL;DR if you don't like it don't boycott it
On the legal side it's one of those gray areas kind of like being searched for flights. Legally government agents cannot search your person without a warrant, but they can ask you to waive that right for you to take an optional flight. Schools work the same way students and parents of students are forced to sign waivers that limit the free speech (dress codes and such) of students in order to attend classes. If this provision is illegal then all provisions in an EULA is illegal as it limits what you can legally do with the product or service you have purchased. Unfortunately this is no more illegal then non-disclosure agreements, salaried positions, and EULAs all of which force a consumer or employee to give up legally provided protections in order to gain employment or a product/service.
TL;DR if you don't like it don't boycott it
[citation][nom]konstantindk[/nom]Isn't that illegal?[/citation]
The service is 100% voluntary, and you have the right to decline the agreement.
[citation][nom]bak0n[/nom]They can write it all they want but it doesn't make it legal. Not in this country at least.[/citation]
Not sure what country you're referring to, but in the US it's 100% legal due to the fact that it's voluntary.
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]13 year old kid buys a Playstation, has his personal data stolen in an attack, OK maybe not credit card but you can still have debit cards and they could be stolen.You join a class action suit against Sony and they argue that the T&C says you can't do it and the T&C is a binding legal agreement.13 year old kid points out he is a minor and cannot enter into legal agreements.Sony contines to be sued.Moral of the story is if you want a Playstation, lend the money to your kid and get him to buy it on his debit card, then let him register and agree the T&C and if it all cocks up at Sony's end you can use his underage status to sue Sony successfully.[/citation]
Not sure what banks you deal with, but to my knowledge a 13yo can't have a debit card due to the legal contract that's required between the card holder and the issuing agency. The issuing agency, since no one under the age of 18 can legally agree to a contract, would have no recourse if the minor violates the terms of the contract.
[citation][nom]dextermat[/nom]Wow i don't understand why no authorities do anything about companies not responsible for thier own product and services.......[/citation]
Because groups of idiots such as "Anonymous" and "Lolzsec" always resort to illegal methods of attacking these companies, turning these companies into victims.
[citation][nom]Garbanzos Fritos[/nom]Not illegal at all, read your pretty cellphones contracts. Oh way you guys probably didn't, right?[/citation]
I'd be surprised if most of the people posting bothered to read their cellphone contracts, mortgage contracts, loan contracts, etc... Most appear to be pretty ignorant....
[citation][nom]kinggraves[/nom]Sony themselves are unsure of the legality of this move, that's why they added that part at the end that says that this section will not be upheld if it's found illegal. They know most people don't read these notices and will confirm it without even knowing. The few who do read it and confirm it will believe they can't sue, even if the section is found illegal and overturned. Sony probably won't send a notice saying it doesn't apply anymore. They win no matter what, because they still have people believing they can't file a class action suit even if they can. The real win for Sony isn't the new agreement, but the deception they're instigating from it. Sony fanboys, what exactly are they afraid of?[/citation]
Sony puts the second part in there because under certain circumstances, the rights of individuals or groups can supersede the contract agreement. While the agreement says you can't seek a class-action suit, you can have your lawyer request a chamber meeting with the judge to review evidence and the contract to decide whether or not the agreement is legally binding under your particular circumstances. The judge has the authority to determine that the contract impedes on your civil right to seek class action status and, for all intents and purposes, void the contract on your behalf. Most lawyers will probably charge extra....but it's an advantage the user actually does have over Sony.
The service is 100% voluntary, and you have the right to decline the agreement.
[citation][nom]bak0n[/nom]They can write it all they want but it doesn't make it legal. Not in this country at least.[/citation]
Not sure what country you're referring to, but in the US it's 100% legal due to the fact that it's voluntary.
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]13 year old kid buys a Playstation, has his personal data stolen in an attack, OK maybe not credit card but you can still have debit cards and they could be stolen.You join a class action suit against Sony and they argue that the T&C says you can't do it and the T&C is a binding legal agreement.13 year old kid points out he is a minor and cannot enter into legal agreements.Sony contines to be sued.Moral of the story is if you want a Playstation, lend the money to your kid and get him to buy it on his debit card, then let him register and agree the T&C and if it all cocks up at Sony's end you can use his underage status to sue Sony successfully.[/citation]
Not sure what banks you deal with, but to my knowledge a 13yo can't have a debit card due to the legal contract that's required between the card holder and the issuing agency. The issuing agency, since no one under the age of 18 can legally agree to a contract, would have no recourse if the minor violates the terms of the contract.
[citation][nom]dextermat[/nom]Wow i don't understand why no authorities do anything about companies not responsible for thier own product and services.......[/citation]
Because groups of idiots such as "Anonymous" and "Lolzsec" always resort to illegal methods of attacking these companies, turning these companies into victims.
[citation][nom]Garbanzos Fritos[/nom]Not illegal at all, read your pretty cellphones contracts. Oh way you guys probably didn't, right?[/citation]
I'd be surprised if most of the people posting bothered to read their cellphone contracts, mortgage contracts, loan contracts, etc... Most appear to be pretty ignorant....
[citation][nom]kinggraves[/nom]Sony themselves are unsure of the legality of this move, that's why they added that part at the end that says that this section will not be upheld if it's found illegal. They know most people don't read these notices and will confirm it without even knowing. The few who do read it and confirm it will believe they can't sue, even if the section is found illegal and overturned. Sony probably won't send a notice saying it doesn't apply anymore. They win no matter what, because they still have people believing they can't file a class action suit even if they can. The real win for Sony isn't the new agreement, but the deception they're instigating from it. Sony fanboys, what exactly are they afraid of?[/citation]
Sony puts the second part in there because under certain circumstances, the rights of individuals or groups can supersede the contract agreement. While the agreement says you can't seek a class-action suit, you can have your lawyer request a chamber meeting with the judge to review evidence and the contract to decide whether or not the agreement is legally binding under your particular circumstances. The judge has the authority to determine that the contract impedes on your civil right to seek class action status and, for all intents and purposes, void the contract on your behalf. Most lawyers will probably charge extra....but it's an advantage the user actually does have over Sony.
But if the law states that class action lawsuits are legal, how can a contract cancel that law?
If I make a contract with someone stating that I can kill him, and he agrees and signs, the law still won't allow me to kill him. A contract doesn't cancel a law.
If a person signs a contract stating that he will be my slave, that contract would be useless, because there is a law that states slavery is illegal.
So as long as there is a law permitting class action lawsuits, this change in the terms of service means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. A court would not be able to deny the right to a class action even if it was signed in a contract.
If I make a contract with someone stating that I can kill him, and he agrees and signs, the law still won't allow me to kill him. A contract doesn't cancel a law.
If a person signs a contract stating that he will be my slave, that contract would be useless, because there is a law that states slavery is illegal.
So as long as there is a law permitting class action lawsuits, this change in the terms of service means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. A court would not be able to deny the right to a class action even if it was signed in a contract.
I can't say I really blame them for watching their own, especially these days it seems like anything can be hacked into or violated. I also don't see how this is illegal since they are giving you the option of whether or not you want to accept the new terms as soon as you log into the PSN store. If you don't like it, you can always say no and get any $ refunded. I don't really see a problem with it. Just don't do anything sleazy and you won't have to worry about not having the option of a class action lawsuit.
[citation][nom]bv90andy[/nom]But if the law states that class action lawsuits are legal, how can a contract cancel that law?If I make a contract with someone stating that I can kill him, and he agrees and signs, the law still won't allow me to kill him. A contract doesn't cancel a law.If a person signs a contract stating that he will be my slave, that contract would be useless, because there is a law that states slavery is illegal.So as long as there is a law permitting class action lawsuits, this change in the terms of service means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. A court would not be able to deny the right to a class action even if it was signed in a contract.[/citation]
Your comparison doesn't hold up the way you think it does. And i'll toss this one up for you. Most racing event's have disclaimer's on them that absolve's the event promoter's from almost any liability barring willful negligence or criminal action.
On it's face this isn't inherently illegal, court TV is actually a fine example that proves this. All of those court television show's are actually mediation hearing's where the people willfully sign their legal right's to bring a lawsuit in exchange for the service of a mediation.
The snag I see with this happening with Sony was mentioned earlier. You have two classes of customer's. New customer's and existing customer's. Their are a few game's that require PSN access in order to function properly and Sony is putting customers that already have purchased products in a position to either forfeit there legal right's or forfeit their access to products they have purchased. This would be a good case to bear against developer's on whether they truly do have the ability to arbitrarily end a customer's access to a service with no real due cause.
Your comparison doesn't hold up the way you think it does. And i'll toss this one up for you. Most racing event's have disclaimer's on them that absolve's the event promoter's from almost any liability barring willful negligence or criminal action.
On it's face this isn't inherently illegal, court TV is actually a fine example that proves this. All of those court television show's are actually mediation hearing's where the people willfully sign their legal right's to bring a lawsuit in exchange for the service of a mediation.
The snag I see with this happening with Sony was mentioned earlier. You have two classes of customer's. New customer's and existing customer's. Their are a few game's that require PSN access in order to function properly and Sony is putting customers that already have purchased products in a position to either forfeit there legal right's or forfeit their access to products they have purchased. This would be a good case to bear against developer's on whether they truly do have the ability to arbitrarily end a customer's access to a service with no real due cause.
- Sep 6, 2008
- 3,485
- 0
- 20,730
I sort of support Sony's decision. You have too many attorneys taking advantage and pursuing class action suits that run up in the billions of dollars. This can significantly hurt a company even drag it to bankruptcy.
If folks are afraid that their information is going to be stolen, then don't use their network. This is only a result of attorneys trying to become billionaires from one huge case. This sort of security measure is definitely protecting any future mishaps. We know we won't see the last of major hacks. If Northrop Grumman can get hacked there's just not stopping the headless horseman....
Stop being Muppet's and protect the few companies left that are innovating and researching new technology for consumers. Don't try to bring it down with your senseless rubbish.
If folks are afraid that their information is going to be stolen, then don't use their network. This is only a result of attorneys trying to become billionaires from one huge case. This sort of security measure is definitely protecting any future mishaps. We know we won't see the last of major hacks. If Northrop Grumman can get hacked there's just not stopping the headless horseman....
Stop being Muppet's and protect the few companies left that are innovating and researching new technology for consumers. Don't try to bring it down with your senseless rubbish.
At the very least Sony should allow you opt-out of the new terms digitally, but of course they make you have to write a physical letter to do so. There should be a law that says if terms can be agreed to digitally, that op-outs should also have to be presented digitally. In addition, I think they should also make it mandatory that any changes to the agreement be highlighted so users can clearly see what changes were made from the previous version.
silky salamandr
Distinguished
- Sep 16, 2009
- 60
- 0
- 18,580
Well to all the idiots that thought some free games was a perfect idea of sony saying sorry the joke is on you. By accepting those "free" games to update your firmware this you gave up your right to sue or participate in a lawsuit. This is actually very old news and why i never upgraded my firmware. But now sony has it that you cant watch new blurays if your firmware isnt upgraded. Picked up a Panasonic blu ray and havent looked back.
The word "free" has been a favorite by ps3 folks but ive always said theirs nothing in this world that is free.
The word "free" has been a favorite by ps3 folks but ive always said theirs nothing in this world that is free.
silky salamandr
Distinguished
- Sep 16, 2009
- 60
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]silky salamandr[/nom]Well to all the idiots that thought some free games was a perfect idea of sony saying sorry the joke is on you. By accepting those "free" games to update your firmware this you gave up your right to sue or participate in a lawsuit. This is actually very old news and why i never upgraded my firmware. But now sony has it that you cant watch new blurays if your firmware isnt upgraded. Picked up a Panasonic blu ray and havent looked back. The word "free" has been a favorite by ps3 folks but ive always said theirs nothing in this world that is free.[/citation]
Actually, this has to deal with a recent change in the terms of service, and has nothing to do with the firmware update you are talking about. And you can opt-out, it's just that they make it more difficult to do so by making you write a letter and mail it in. Don't get me wrong, this is completely ridiculous, it's just that you have your information wrong.
Actually, this has to deal with a recent change in the terms of service, and has nothing to do with the firmware update you are talking about. And you can opt-out, it's just that they make it more difficult to do so by making you write a letter and mail it in. Don't get me wrong, this is completely ridiculous, it's just that you have your information wrong.
Since I live in L.A., I'm thinking of getting a bunch of people together to go down to the L.A. address where you have to mail in the opt-out letter and have everyone hand-deliver the opt-out letters instead, and video tape the whole thing. I was going to do it by myself, but I figured the more people the better, and it would make a bigger statement about how this whole thing is complete B.S. Anyone interested?
techguy911
Distinguished
- Jun 8, 2007
- 251
- 0
- 18,940
All you have to do is decline TOS launch class action lawsuit against TOS = WIN!.
I'm looking into it now i don't really need PSN anyways i only play single player games.
I'm looking into it now i don't really need PSN anyways i only play single player games.
[citation][nom]galactos[/nom]I sort of support Sony's decision. You have too many attorneys taking advantage and pursuing class action suits that run up in the billions of dollars. This can significantly hurt a company even drag it to bankruptcy. If folks are afraid that their information is going to be stolen, then don't use their network. This is only a result of attorneys trying to become billionaires from one huge case. This sort of security measure is definitely protecting any future mishaps. We know we won't see the last of major hacks. If Northrop Grumman can get hacked there's just not stopping the headless horseman....Stop being Muppet's and protect the few companies left that are innovating and researching new technology for consumers. Don't try to bring it down with your senseless rubbish.[/citation]
Are you crazy? The problem is that Sony is trying to get out of having to deal with class action lawsuits related to the PSN network because of their incompetence when it came to security. You say people shouldn't use the network if people are afraid of their information being stolen, but people weren't afraid initially because they had no idea that a huge global corporation like Sony, who manufactures one of the major gaming consoles in the world now, would be so negligent with their security. I would have never have guessed Sony would be so ignorant and stupid. Yes, of course even well implemented security can get hacked, but Sony's security for PSN at the time was far from being acceptable -- they had credit card info in unencrypted text files!
Please don't use the "lawyers are just trying to get rich" argument for this situation. While yes, there are a ton of lawyers and individuals trying to get rich by suing other people and companies, this is definitely not one of those scenarios. It is totally valid that Sony is being sued for their lax PSN security, and they deserve the class action lawsuit against them for removing Linux compatibility (since that was a marketed feature of the PS3 originally).
So sorry to say, but unfortunately it is you who are spouting off senseless rubbish. Open up your eyes, see what's really going on here, and take the time to research the facts about all of this before you start talking bullshit.
Are you crazy? The problem is that Sony is trying to get out of having to deal with class action lawsuits related to the PSN network because of their incompetence when it came to security. You say people shouldn't use the network if people are afraid of their information being stolen, but people weren't afraid initially because they had no idea that a huge global corporation like Sony, who manufactures one of the major gaming consoles in the world now, would be so negligent with their security. I would have never have guessed Sony would be so ignorant and stupid. Yes, of course even well implemented security can get hacked, but Sony's security for PSN at the time was far from being acceptable -- they had credit card info in unencrypted text files!
Please don't use the "lawyers are just trying to get rich" argument for this situation. While yes, there are a ton of lawyers and individuals trying to get rich by suing other people and companies, this is definitely not one of those scenarios. It is totally valid that Sony is being sued for their lax PSN security, and they deserve the class action lawsuit against them for removing Linux compatibility (since that was a marketed feature of the PS3 originally).
So sorry to say, but unfortunately it is you who are spouting off senseless rubbish. Open up your eyes, see what's really going on here, and take the time to research the facts about all of this before you start talking bullshit.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question My laptop is working fine with an external monitor but the internal display does not- Started by AgelosRouvas
- Replies: 2
-
-
Question I need help troubleshooting buzzing noise in microphone
- Started by spardsha
- Replies: 0
-
Question [ iOS 17.5 - iPhone 15 ] Safari “website data” will not load
- Started by autozonejawana
- Replies: 0
-
-
Question I need help with installing a custom ROM on a Huawei T1-821L- Started by anglvix
- Replies: 1
-
Facebook
Twitter