The Warring States of NPF - Sony takes advantage of Supreme Court license for corporations to steal

The Warring States of NPF (http://www.nuklearforums.com/index.php)

- News and current events (http://www.nuklearforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Sony takes advantage of Supreme Court license for corporations to steal (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=40745)

Sony takes advantage of Supreme Court license for corporations to steal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14948701

Quote:

Sony is preparing to ban gamers from the PlayStation Network (PSN) unless they waive the right to collectively sue it over future security breaches.

The firm has amended PSN's terms and conditions and users have to agree to them next time they log in.

The move comes months after a string of hacking attacks compromised over 100 million accounts of the PlayStation Network subscribers.

It is, however, possible to opt out of the agreement within the next 30 days.

Gamers will now have to try to resolve any legal issues with an arbitrator picked by Sony, before being able to file a lawsuit.

The new clauses, dubbed "Binding Individual Arbitration," state that "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 action".

The re-written terms and conditions are being presented to gamers when they log in, but some have questioned who will notice the changes.

Tech news site The Register wondered who would notice the small print outlining the opt-out terms, and not simply click the "agree" box having scrolled all the way down.

Those that want to opt out will have to send a letter to Sony's Los Angeles headquarters in the US.

Once they do, the subscribers will be able to keep their right to file a class action lawsuit without any need for arbitration.

But before subscribers have a chance to opt out, they will still be required to agree to the new terms the next time they log into their accounts.

Note: the game which the thread tag is referring to is called "sucker you into signing away your right to sue".

Sony has clearly been inspired by it's recent streak of stunning failure to take advantage of the Supreme Court's recent ruling licensing large businesses to steal from their customers, which will of course also have the benefit of shielding Sony from it's liability when it enables other people to steal from their customers.

That they're trying to re-write a contract that's already been agreed upon is just the propeller-beanie on the tip of the hardon, as what this really signals is that pretty much any large company that handles financial information of or provides services to large numbers of citizens is going to cram these clauses into their legal boilerplate to pre-empt the one effective means of people in these situations from seeking redress.

edit: my bad I meant to put this in the news forum, it's not really about games per se. It could be either-or though IDK

Eh it is close enough about games.

This is bullshit, Supreme Court still ass kissing corporations, America circling the drain even more, etc etc.

The best you can hope is that this story gets around and turns into a massive PR hit, like the breach itself.

I am curious. Sony provides the PS3 to the entire world. Does these new terms only buttmurder U.S. customers?

Most countries believe that a TOS is binding.

What's really insulting is how you have to opt out. With a letter. With your personal information regarding a gaming system.

So Sony still isn't caring about its network. It's STILL finding ways to screw you over. Thanks Sony for being epic douchebags.

Cool, I'm going to connect my PS3 to the Internet just long enough so I get the option to not sign that bullshit.

Edit: Weirdly the TOS I signed (after reading somewhat carefully) was dated 2009 and didn't mention any of the new stuff. Are they using sequestered updates or do they just not care about Europe, as usual?

When I bring my lawsuit against Sony can I bring it against only the head of sony and demand that he can in no way be represented by Sony or by their lawyers or their resources.Cause that's how the law would work on television.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amake (Post 1155322)

Based on my really fuzzy, vague understanding, it be a matter of EU rules or the laws of the individual countries as far as whether the terms they're introducing would be enforceable there. I think some countries may not even have class actions in their legal system in the first place so it might not even be a thing?

Going by the general thrust of the news I would imagine you're better off not being cared for in this fashion.

I should probably know if we have class actions in this country, but no. We just don't sue each other a whole lot I guess.
I reached another TOS contract dated September 2011 by the way, but it doesn't seem to mention anything about individual arbitration either even after pretty careful reading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jagos (Post 1155321)

I never did understand why Terms of Service agreements (electronics companies or otherwise) were considered legally binding when most other legally binding agreements in the U.S. require a written contract personally signed by both parties in the presence of a notary.

It's kind of like how businesses like carwashes or autobodies or what have you apparently just have to put up a sign saying they're not responsible if your car is damaged, because apparently that does indeed make them not legally culpable if they say, accidentally drop a sledgehammer through your windshield or whatevs.

I kind of have the feeling if most truly unfair Terms of Service agreements were actually challenged in court they would be found legally nonbinding, with whether or not they were fair then determined by the judge. But most people would rather just pay some stupid fee than challenge the fact that they for some reason are getting charged a 200 dollar cancellation fee or what have you, even though you never actually signed an actual contract, just gave them your credit card number over the phone one time (ala the automatic XBOX Live Renewal shenanigans that appear in the news once every few months, where someone automatically gets a new year without their knowledge, or in one case was actually double-charged).

Magus is basically correct. The terms of a contract that conflict with existing laws are not binding. Which is not to say that such terms are harmless as I imagine they can still provide significant roadblocks in cases where the law is poorly understood.

Although I'm unclear on how that plays out when you waive your right to sue an individual or company. Surely if Sony sent goons to murder your family this waiver you're agreeing to wouldn't technically prevent you from taking legal action against them right? Or will this thread further plumb the depths of my disillusionment?