PSN's new user agreement.

[blace]

In case anyone was wondering what the new agreement was before hitting the "Agree" button: http://www.glaciergaming.co.uk/blog/articles-ps3/15/psn-s-new-user-agreement-has-class-action-waiver

And still tracking down the original article on IGN.

Edit: found the original slightly extended article: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/119/1194580p1.html

[McLaughlin]

As I understand it, Canadian privacy laws prevent you from signing away your rights, and joining a class-action lawsuit is a right in Canada, so this holds no water up here.

Still, this is hilariously bold of Sony.

[blace]

Looks like Sony is becoming a bit desperate just to keep itself in working order and I agree with this comment


I’m not really surprised to be honest, but it kinda screws over it’s users to be honest… It’s like they’re saying “Hey, we really don’t think we can protect you, so if we get hacked again, you agree to not sue us!”

The things major corporations do.

[Rashiid]

I'm very tired and cannot process these legal terms and whatnot.
Can someone dumb it down for me? ; ;

[blace]

Read the quotation I put up. That's the basic summary, or you're basically signing away your rights to PSN. Purchases do not count as your own, but rather a license or permit for it.

[amtalx]

I'd like to see that EULA stand up in court...

[Rashiid]

Ah okay. Thanks. Interesting as hell.

[McLaughlin]

I'd like to see that EULA stand up in court...

As far as my limited understanding of American civil law goes, I'm fairly sure it's legal. This case (http://www.statesman.com/business/supreme-court-ruling-imposes-limits-on-class-action-1438654.html) sets that precedent, anyway.

Edit: Also, just to be clear, that provision in the new EULA only prevents you from joining a class-action suit against Sony. You can still sue them individually, if need be.

[Sinue_v2]

You can still sue them individually, if need be.

Yeah, good luck with that. On the bright side, if enough individual suits get filed - it could potentially cost Sony quite a bit more money to defend themselves... but I can't see anybody putting forth the kind of cash it would take to actually challenge Sony given the nigh impossibility of actually winning the case against an entity of that size.

[Kent]

As if Sony didn't need more reasons to justify people hating them. This is some combination of disgusting and amazing (and really should be illegal, to try and prevent people from joining a class-action lawsuit if they were actually wronged in the case).

[Keilyn]

I chose daily tech because they like to actually LINK PEOPLE TO REAL DOCUMENTATION that is THERE for the masses to read. They love to use LEGAL documents.....and spell things out.

Check this out on the latest thing from the PS3...Its the main reason I don't own one but I do own a 360.

http://www.dailytech.com/Sony+PS3+Update+Tries+to+Force+Customers+to+Sign+A way+Their+Rights+/article22765.htm

This isn't a PS3 vs 360 thread...but one informing owners. Consumer Rights are very important and if it were the 360 pulling the crap I would report it just the same. Gaming is improving and has large populations. Its not longer something for the small-mass minority....so this means rights again are threatened on many fronts, so that corporations and companies can once again escape all liabilities at the expense of consumer right.

Let me know what you think. ^_^

[Nitro Vordex]

Yup, the hell with Sony. Microsoft likes to make money, Sony likes to - aggressively - protect what money they already have.

Also, I definitely lol'd at the Simpsons picture.

[Sinue_v2]

so this means rights again are threatened on many fronts

There's already a thread about this, and technically Sony is only doing what's well within their right. Not to say it isn't a dickmove, but it's not like they are the ones who are infringing on your rights as a customer. They're just using a tool that has been provided to them. If anything, thank AT&T for pushing the issue, and the Supreme Court for the decision.

From the L.A. Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/04/consumer-confidential-supreme-court-class-action-lawsuits-att-arbitration-apple-ipod-ipad-data-tracking-bank-america-credit-c.html)
[spoiler-box]The conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that companies can prohibit customers from banding together in class-action lawsuits. The ruling arose from a California lawsuit involving AT&T cellphones, but it will have a nationwide impact. In the past, consumers who bought a product or a service had been free to join a class-action lawsuit if they were dissatisfied or felt they had been cheated. By combining these small claims, they could bring a major lawsuit against a corporation. But in its 5-4 decision, the high court says that under the Federal Arbitration Act, companies can force these disgruntled customers to arbitrate their complaints individually, not as part of a group. Consumer-rights advocates say this rule would spell the end for small claims involving products or services. The justices ruled that arbitration is an acceptable alternative to litigation. It isn't. This is a big win for the business world.[/spoiler-box]

Also... looking around a bit, and I could be wrong here, but it seems that protection from Class-Action Waivers when entering into a contract has never been guaranteed from the federal level. This was something that was granted by the state, and not all states had similar protections. Most contracts for services which are offered in multiple states didn't have CA~Waivers specifically to avoid such issues in long drawn out proceedings. However, such clauses weren't exactly uncommon and a series of legal cases starting from Southland Corp. v. Keating in 1984 up to the recent AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion had set enough precedent as to establish the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act applicable. In was the violation of the aforementioned act that Judge Scalia cited when he made his decision that federal arbitration laws trump state arbitration laws on the matter.

Further, this waiver does not prevent Sony from being sued for breech of contract in individual suits... nor does it necessarily prevent the levying of a class action lawsuit against them should arbitration proceedings break down. It just forces both parties to sign off in agreement before taking it to that level... which admittedly, is something Sony isn't very likely to do unless they know they can win and deter further attempts.


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 LEGAL ACTION, UNLESS BOTH YOU AND THE SONY ENTITY WITH WHICH YOU HAVE A DISPUTE SPECIFICALLY AGREE TO DO SO IN WRITING FOLLOWING INITIATION OF THE ARBITRATION.

[Keilyn]

In the United States:

"All law is subject to interpretation by the courts"

This means although laws can be written, its up to the courts to rule in favor or against the written law.

Illinois had an interesting ruling on a different case. They were the first state to rule that an IP Address does not equal a person. http://www.law888.com/blog/2011/05/judge-rules-ip-address-does-not-equal-a-person.shtml

I remember when sitting in a class for contract law years ago being told for an agreement to be legit, both parties must be present when signing the agreement and both parties must sign the agreement and must be given a hard copy of the agreement. The agreement has to be provided directly and not give any stress to the individual to obtain it. It must be free from "Misrepresentation" (lies) and "Concealment" (keeping information from you important to the agreement) as both Null and Void an agreement. Any alteration of the product forces a new agreement to be drawn up.

Now..... I remember also learning the cases at which a client may issue to follow the old agreement.

So what if I owned a Playstation 3, and "refused" to update?

I stay upon the old agreement, as the new affects owners. Or would this agreement be given to anyone regardless the level of updating?

Know what I mean?

A company can not draw up an agreement and impose its members upon it willingly, so if the agreement is forced upon and automatic....that alone speaks of a grey area that can be exploited on an individual basis..

Not to mention the fact that refusal to accept an agreement means to no longer use a product which has had its EULA changed up so many times that its amazing what is added in and removed at each cycle.

Sinue...What do you think? You are the first to have a decent post with thought to the issue, so I am interested in what you have to say on the matter.

[SnowfoxZero]

I'd like to see that EULA stand up in court...

Microsoft has similar shady stuff in their terms of service and its held up in court time after time. You pretty much waive all your legal rights against microsoft when you sign up for Xbox Live. EULA "policies" will supersede any type of tort if its listed within the agreement.

[KodiaX987]

You wanna know the funniest part of that bullshit?

People are still gonna buy their games and life will move on like nothing ever happened.

[NoiseHERO]

Wait, what did I agree to? o_o

DAMMIT!

Doesn't matter... I rarely use sony products anymore... they died on the ps2...

[Randomness]

A side note, that those articles seem to omit:



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.

For the cost of stamps, the provisions do not apply. This clause probably makes the entire agreement much more likely to hold up in court... even though most people won't read it, most articles aren't covering it, and at least half the people who read it won't take advantage of it. (There's another clause exempting small claims court filings from arbitration requirements)

It's poor form not to mention these exemptions, imo.

Also, as noted, there are jurisdictions where this doesn't apply anyways due to laws.

I find their attempts to switch the terminology to licenses rather than products amusing, since such terms have been in EULAs for the past decade without having any meaning... though since PSN purchases are account-bound the change in terms doesn't mean much... (Maybe someone sued them for not letting them transfer ownership of a game? That should be allowed anyways...)

[Randomness]

A clause most people will probably not take advantage of:


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.

This article mentions it, at least.


In the United States:

"All law is subject to interpretation by the courts"

This means although laws can be written, its up to the courts to rule in favor or against the written law.

Illinois had an interesting ruling on a different case. They were the first state to rule that an IP Address does not equal a person. http://www.law888.com/blog/2011/05/judge-rules-ip-address-does-not-equal-a-person.shtml

I remember when sitting in a class for contract law years ago being told for an agreement to be legit, both parties must be present when signing the agreement and both parties must sign the agreement and must be given a hard copy of the agreement. The agreement has to be provided directly and not give any stress to the individual to obtain it. It must be free from "Misrepresentation" (lies) and "Concealment" (keeping information from you important to the agreement) as both Null and Void an agreement. Any alteration of the product forces a new agreement to be drawn up.

Now..... I remember also learning the cases at which a client may issue to follow the old agreement.

So what if I owned a Playstation 3, and "refused" to update?

I stay upon the old agreement, as the new affects owners. Or would this agreement be given to anyone regardless the level of updating?

Know what I mean?

A company can not draw up an agreement and impose its members upon it willingly, so if the agreement is forced upon and automatic....that alone speaks of a grey area that can be exploited on an individual basis..

Not to mention the fact that refusal to accept an agreement means to no longer use a product which has had its EULA changed up so many times that its amazing what is added in and removed at each cycle.

Sinue...What do you think? You are the first to have a decent post with thought to the issue, so I am interested in what you have to say on the matter.

If you don't update, or whatever, then they cannot claim the new agreement applies to you. You could probably try to make a case that Sony holds all the cards and so the agreement is invalid by undue influence ("Oh, hey, you're enjoying this service, aren't you? Well, here's a new contract, sign it or we take the service away"). Alternatively, that it's unconscionable since you have zero bargaining power and Sony gains unreasonable benefit (The unreasonable benefit would be the tricky part, since the lack of bargaining power is obvious... but the agreement change is basically Sony gaining a large benefit/imposing a cost with no reciprocation, which strikes me as unreasonable - you gain nothing, they gain everything). I'm not a lawyer, and have never taken courses in law or anything, so I could be wrong here.

[NoiseHERO]

*russian accent*

The law is very flexible when you have money and good lawyers.

[Keilyn]

A clause most people will probably not take advantage of:


This article mentions it, at least.



If you don't update, or whatever, then they cannot claim the new agreement applies to you. You could probably try to make a case that Sony holds all the cards and so the agreement is invalid by undue influence ("Oh, hey, you're enjoying this service, aren't you? Well, here's a new contract, sign it or we take the service away"). Alternatively, that it's unconscionable since you have zero bargaining power and Sony gains unreasonable benefit (The unreasonable benefit would be the tricky part, since the lack of bargaining power is obvious... but the agreement change is basically Sony gaining a large benefit/imposing a cost with no reciprocation, which strikes me as unreasonable - you gain nothing, they gain everything). I'm not a lawyer, and have never taken courses in law or anything, so I could be wrong here.

I would argue as to why an Alien-Company is being given so much power, when no other nation on the face of the planet would dare give an Alien Company more power than a Domestic or Foreign Company...