27 replies to this topic

[Patticus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...nology-14948701

Oh dear...

Apparently you can opt out if you write to their office in Los Angeles within 30 days. If you don't agree to the new clause and waive your rights, you will not be able to sign in to PSN, and are effectively banned until you agree.


Also apparently, the Supreme Court made this kind of thing accepting in a ruling a few months ago. Interestingly, the same practice is already everywhere:

It has become routine now that when someone opens a bank account, subscribes to a cable TV service, buys a cellphone, a computer or a new car or makes a purchase online, he or she agrees to let disputes go to arbitration.

Many employers include the same kind of fine print for new hires, blocking class-action suits for employees with discrimination or wage complaints.

The ability of members of the general public to gather together to sue companies is being hacked to pieces. People may still sue individually, via arbitration, with all of the costs that entails, but because of those costs and the lack of collective force, people will simply be discouraged from suing altogether.

[Scar]

I don't really care, because class-action lawsuits are fucking useless.
All that happens is Sony pay out a large sum of money where Lawyers get most of it, and the consumers get fuck-all. The greater the number of consumers that take part in the class-action, the less compensation each individual gains.

See here:

Edited by Scar, 17 September 2011 - 09:38 AM.

[Shirou Emiya]

Thankfully, this clause is apparently unenforceable in the UK, at the very least.

[Tornado]

Thankfully, this clause is apparently unenforceable in the UK, at the very least.

Probably not enforceable in the United States, either.

[Edward_Elric]

Probably not enforceable in the United States, either.

I'm left wondering how ma many people actually care. At the end of the day, its never really a good idea to sue the SCE as a whole. Your better going off going after a individual from Sony for something like sexual harassment. Besides, this only affects PSN (I think), you can still go after them if they mess up one of there other obligations.

[voice]

I know Steam might pull crap like this sooner or later, but for now this is why I prefer PC gaming over console gaming.

[Shirou Emiya]

Probably not enforceable in the United States, either.

Actually, there has been precedent, to my knowledge - a few courts have, for some reason, been letting these sort of clauses through. Which is REALLY worrying.

Edited by Masaru Daimon, 17 September 2011 - 04:41 PM.

[voice]

Actually, there has been precedent, to my knowledge - a few courts have, for some reason, been letting these sort of clauses through. Which is REALLY worrying.

The US Supreme Court recently decided in favor of AT&T when they did the same thing to their wireless subscribers, this is the ruling Sony is using to justify this new clause in the user agreement. Some people are saying what Sony is doing would not be valid because there would be no way to verify the person who agreed was actually the account owner but like the courts are going to use logic.

[LunarEdge]

The US Supreme Court recently decided in favor of AT&T when they did the same thing to their wireless subscribers, this is the ruling Sony is using to justify this new clause in the user agreement. Some people are saying what Sony is doing would not be valid because there would be no way to verify the person who agreed was actually the account owner but like the courts are going to use logic.

you take that risk when you have your password to your log-in saved or widely known within the household.

[voice]

you take that risk when you have your password to your log-in saved or widely known within the household.

Yes, but can that count as a digital signature? Its like when the RIAA says you're a dirty filthy pirate because someone on your LAN used uTorrent which happened to use your public IP

[LunarEdge]

Yes, but can that count as a digital signature? Its like when the RIAA says you're a dirty filthy pirate because someone on your LAN used uTorrent which happened to use your public IP

you run that risk when you keep your connection open to the public and/or don't track whom's downloading what on YOUR connection But I get your point

Edited by LunarEdge, 17 September 2011 - 05:06 PM.

[turbojet]

Goddamn Clarence Thomas!

And the other judges who approved of this...But mostly Clarence Thomas.

Now that I think about it, this violates the Constitution.

Edited by turbojet, 17 September 2011 - 10:39 PM.

[Edward_Elric]

Goddamn Clarence Thomas!

And the other judges who approved of this...But mostly Clarence Thomas.

Now that I think about it, this violates the Constitution.

Be honest, were you or anyone else here ever going to sue SOE?

Edited by Edward_Elric, 17 September 2011 - 11:35 PM.

[Scar]

Be honest, were you or anyone else here ever going to sue SOE?

Even if you were, a Class-Action Lawsuit is the worst way you could go about it.

[Tornado]

Be honest, were you or anyone else here ever going to sue SOE?

Fail to see what difference that makes.

[Edward_Elric]

Fail to see what difference that makes.

Good point.

Its just that I've seen many other people complain about it else where. Although most of that community isn't that high a caliber, seeing as they didn't even know what a class action law suit was and just based their anger off what everyone else was feeling.

But for what its worth, your better off trying to sue jack tretton for sexual harassment, and even that probably wouldn't bode over to well.

Edit:

Even if you were, a Class-Action Lawsuit is the worst way you could go about it.

I'm just gonna assume the general consensus is no then.

Edited by Edward_Elric, 18 September 2011 - 02:17 AM.

[turbojet]

Be honest, were you or anyone else here ever going to sue SOE?

No. That isn't the point. This violates the Constitution and our right to due process. Not only that, but this also protects corporations in general since cases are defended in precedent. The issue here isn't some damn failure of a class action lawsuit. The big issue here is that the Supreme fuckin' Court, the interpreters of the Constitution, just legitimized something that is inherently unconstitutional.

[Edward_Elric]

No. That isn't the point. This violates the Constitution and our right to due process. Not only that, but this also protects corporations in general since cases are defended in precedent. The issue here isn't some damn failure of a class action lawsuit. The big issue here is that the Supreme fuckin' Court, the interpreters of the Constitution, just legitimized something that is inherently unconstitutional.

Also a good point. But when it comes down to it, it's best just to ignore this and get on with your life. Suing SOE over some little insignificance is the least of your troubles, never mind the hacking and data exposure which they've already compensated everyone with by offering the data protection plan.

[LunarEdge]

Also a good point. But when it comes down to it, it's best just to ignore this and get on with your life. Suing SOE over some little insignificance is the least of your troubles, never mind the hacking and data exposure which they've already compensated everyone with by offering the data protection plan.

I kinda agree, filing suit against Sony for something that isn't necessarily their fault isn't the way to go. I say file suit if the problems you are having are a bit more direct towards you as a whole or are intentional towards the masses. Any system can be hacked, it's just a matter of dedication and time.

[turbojet]

Okay. I am going to explain this in Layman's terms because people are completely missing the point.

I, proud PS3 owner, have no intention of dragging a multi-billion, maybe trillion, dollar corporation through the mud of procedure and jurisdiction. I, an aspiring lawyer, know fucking better.

The issue here is that this case sets precedent for future cases that allow corporations to violate your rights as a citizen and sell you defective shit to the masses. That is the issue.

Edited by turbojet, 18 September 2011 - 02:43 AM.