40 replies to this topic

[xg4bx]

Today, Sony released a new Terms of Service Agreement for PlayStation Network. Dated September 15th and marked as Version 12, the Terms of Service contains a notable section that seems to completely absolve Sony from any future class-action lawsuits.

Section 15 of the Terms of Service, called Binding Individual Arbitration, states in part the following:

"Any dispute resolution proceedings, whether in arbitration or in 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, unless both you and the Sony entity 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."

http://ps3.ign.com/a.../1194580p1.html

[Tr3vor]

That means what?

[HammR25]

It means that if you want to keep using PSN or any offline game that requires an online connection then you must agree not to be part of a class action lawsuit against Sony the next time they screw something up or take away an advertised feature.  Instead you'd be required to show up for binding arbitration which is not in the court system and is on your own dime against the big money at Sony.  I also doubt you'd be picking the arbitrator or venue.

Oh and how can they even back date that to before you actually agreeing?

[Reaperman]

HammR25, on Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:43 AM, said:

I also doubt you'd be picking the arbitrator or venue.

I believe we've already 'agreed' to the venue in past versions.
Nothing I like more than getting pushed around by mega-corporations.

Does sony expect me to buy their ps4/vita?
I don't think next gen is going to go as well for them as this one has.  At this point, they'd pretty much have to 'give' me a ps4.

[disjaukifa]

I got a PS3 Slim, and if it weren't for the Blu-ray, I think I would have honestly regretted buying the unit. GT5 has been good and fun, but even now thats beginning to get boring and I've had tos end in the console a couple of times to be fixed.

I'll stick to my 80's Atari gaming, its more challenging and at this point cost much less than modern gaming.

[SlowCoder]

Does anyone else have anything like this in their TOS?  MS or Nintendo?  This is rediculous, and I highly doubt can be considered legally binding.  All it would take is a judge telling Sony they can kiss his butt.

[Rex Dart]

My worthless observation:   Sony considers a few button presses to be 100% legally binding, while Microsoft refunded that guy the money that his toddler spent on MS points by jamming on the 360's "A" button with the TV off.  Funny.

[Reaperman]

SlowCoder, on Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:06 AM, said:

Does anyone else have anything like this in their TOS?  MS or Nintendo?  

I have a EULA from EA stating that 'opening this package is acknowledgement that EA owns my game and that used sales are forbidden.'  The punchline is that the EULA was printed on the inside of the manual.

[Emehr]

EULAs need to die in a fire. Consumers own the media that they purchase and can do whatever the hell they want with it. Too much "scary lawyer speak" is precluding common sense and sanity. If I don't sign it, it shouldn't hold up in court. Simple.

[Mendon]

All I want to do is have FUN with video gaming... you know, just play and escape from "reality" every now and then. Pop a brew and join a friend in a quest to make the universe safe for everyone once more.

But the world of gaming has changed and continues to change far beyond the advances of just HD graphics, wireless controllers, and multiplayer gaming. To often, it seems, the newest product that a company puts on the store shelves succeeds in extending the range of profit far more than it extends the enjoyment of the gaming.

Not to long ago I could sell or trade my no longer played copy of Atari Pac-Man or Golden Eye or Panzer Dragoon without developers going into bankruptcy. Not too long ago I didn't have to worry about servers being taken down and rendering my purchase unplayable in the future. Not too long ago I didn't have to worry about EULA's taking away my rights. Not too long ago I didn't have to worry about my console losing advertised functionality after I purchased it. And on and on.

Maybe this situation is totally my problem and I should just move to a cabin in the wilds of Utah with nothing more than a 2600 and a Lynx. Who knows...


Mendon

Edited by Mendon, Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:44 AM.

[Wntermute]

Kotaku indicated there IS a way to opt-out of the class-action waiver.

http://kotaku.com/58...ing-sony-clause

Quote

RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER WITHIN 30 DAYS. 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.

So basically, you have to do the old-fashioned "write your thoughts on paper and mail it in" thing.

[Mord]

SlowCoder, on Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:06 AM, said:

Does anyone else have anything like this in their TOS?  MS or Nintendo?  This is rediculous, and I highly doubt can be considered legally binding.  All it would take is a judge telling Sony they can kiss his butt.

According to slashdot comments (Which can be either informative or garbage) the supreme court of the US already declared that such a thing is legally binding. That doesn't hold water in other countries of course and perhaps in a couple of states. I fully expect to see class action lawsuits from europe for instance.

[Vaughan]

Until people refuse the new agreement, and let them know why, nothing will change.

[Video]

Vaughan, on Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:55 PM, said:

Until people refuse the new agreement, and let them know why, nothing will change.

That won't happen though.  Next to nobody even reads that damn thing anyways.

Personally, subtracting already available parts/services/features is why I don't have a PS3, and to be honest, next generation, if sony wants money, they're going to have to pay me to take their system first.

[Uzumaki]

Can Sony still claim legally binding if your 4 year old kid/sibling/cousin/whatever messes up PSN and accepts the agreement but the real account owner does not?

[Rex Dart]

I just turned on my PS3 to check out Netflix & had to agree to the new terms.  Had to chuckle at a hardware manufacturer that makes you double-pinky-swear not to tell on them.

[HammR25]

Reaperman, on Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:11 AM, said:

SlowCoder, on Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:06 AM, said:

Does anyone else have anything like this in their TOS?  MS or Nintendo?  

I have a EULA from EA stating that 'opening this package is acknowledgement that EA owns my game and that used sales are forbidden.'  The punchline is that the EULA was printed on the inside of the manual.

This isn't any different.  We've all already paid for our PS3s and now they want to change the terms again or they'll cripple them.  The next gen consoles will all have Blu-ray and/or streaming so I won't need the Sony one.

[moycon]

I might not have minded this nonsense if it hadn't taken 2 minutes just to scroll down to the bottom. Jeese all I wanted to do was watch Netflix before my food got cold. Still, it wasn't as bad as the time I had to download 45 minutes worth of updates to play a $5 Sony store game so I guess I should consider myself lucky this was only very lame and not ridiculously lame.

[wood_jl]

Wow.  Sony Sucks.  All-in-all not that big of a deal in actuality - as far as it personally affecting me (potentially, after all how many class-action suits have I been in?) but it has a much more important connotation of making me want to avoid Sony products.  Love their TVs, though.

Edited by wood_jl, Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:47 AM.

[Mord]

Video, on Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:32 PM, said:

Vaughan, on Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:55 PM, said:

Until people refuse the new agreement, and let them know why, nothing will change.

That won't happen though.  Next to nobody even reads that damn thing anyways.

Personally, subtracting already available parts/services/features is why I don't have a PS3, and to be honest, next generation, if sony wants money, they're going to have to pay me to take their system first.

Pretty much the same with me (Although for me it's ALL consoles, not just Sony brand.)

I still plan on getting a ps3 and 360 since there are a handful of games that I want to play, that I already own. Offline games.

A neat thing about refusing to use the sony network due to their shady practicese is that when I finally do start playing ps3 games, any review of them will be exactly what I wanted them to be anyway. A review of what your money purchased at the store. Before bug patches. Before DLC. Without the quick-to-be-killed-by-the-network online features. (Quick compared to how long the offline game will supposedly last that is.)

I'm expecting Heavy Rain, if I ever buy it, to receive a 0% score if it indeed refuses to let me run the game without logging onto the network for their disc-checked zero-day bug patch. And if it does let me play it, we'll see how buggy that disc really is.

[Tickled_Pink]

Emehr, on Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:54 AM, said:

EULAs need to die in a fire. Consumers own the media that they purchase and can do whatever the hell they want with it. Too much "scary lawyer speak" is precluding common sense and sanity. If I don't sign it, it shouldn't hold up in court. Simple.

You're not wrong. Is there any other industry, beyond others that sell their products on recorded media, where you don't actually own the products you buy?

Is there a EULA on a loaf of bread preventing you from giving any to someone else? I think not. There aren't even EULAs on books, which is probably the closest analogy you have to other copyrighted media. Once you buy a book or magazine you're free to do what you want with it.

Wntermute, on Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:39 AM, said:

Kotaku indicated there IS a way to opt-out of the class-action waiver.

http://kotaku.com/58...ing-sony-clause

Quote

RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER WITHIN 30 DAYS. 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.

So basically, you have to do the old-fashioned "write your thoughts on paper and mail it in" thing.

Yes? And what will Sony do once they know your PSN account number?

This kind of thing is really going to make me look more closely at EULAs from now on.

[Rex Dart]

Tickled_Pink, on Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:01 PM, said:

There aren't even EULAs on books, which is probably the closest analogy you have to other copyrighted media. Once you buy a book or magazine you're free to do what you want with it.

Of course there are.  You can't just duplicate a book & hand out free copies.

[VW]

Mord, on Fri Sep 16, 2011 1:54 AM, said:

I'm expecting Heavy Rain, if I ever buy it, to receive a 0% score if it indeed refuses to let me run the game without logging onto the network for their disc-checked zero-day bug patch. And if it does let me play it, we'll see how buggy that disc really is.

You don't have to sign into PSN to get patches to games.

[Reaperman]

Rex Dart, on Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:30 PM, said:

Of course there are.  You can't just duplicate a book & hand out free copies.

At least you can still thumb through it at the store without having to sign your name on the contract printed on page 1.

Do they really even need us to agree to their changes?  I thought we already agreed to let them change this document at any future time.  
20 years from now they'll just alter it so we signed away our firstborn and enslave a large chunk of the human race.
Future generations will curse us.

Edited by Reaperman, Fri Sep 16, 2011 1:36 PM.

[Animan]

Funny. My Sony headphones stopped working today...