Sony Sued Over PSN 'No Suing' Provision

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from the Examiner: "In a grand dose of irony today, Sony was sued over a term in the PlayStation Network's End User Agreement that states that users cannot sue Sony. These terms were added in September, after a long string of Sony hacks (the official count is that Sony got broken into 17 times in a space of about 2 months), which included a massive outage of the PlayStation Network itself. The suit that was filed today is a class action suit for all of those who bought a PS3 and signed up for the PSN before the September update to the EULA. The suit also claims that this is a unfair Business practice on Sony's part, and requires users to forgo their rights in order to use the device that they purchased."

Comments

EULAs

[bonch]

"The suit also claims that this is a unfair Business practice on Sony's part, and requires users to forgo their rights in order to use the device that they purchased."

I don't know about the rest (avoiding legal culpability isn't exactly uncommon in EULAs), but this part is untrue. You don't have to use PSN to use a PS3, and you are also free to return the PS3 if you don't like the EULA for its online component.

Anti-Sony stories are one of Slashdot's most common page-view drawing tactics, so I'm always a little suspicious of any stories Slashdot posts. Not to automatically dismiss this one, but lawsuits are filed literally every day for every reason imaginable, and this one is only getting reported because it's "ironic" and it's a well-known company that Slashdotters love to hate. Strangely, Nintendo gets a lot of love even though it has a history of being even more evil than Sony.

No doubt there will be comments about the evils of EULAs following mine (assuming I'm not modbombed into oblivion), but I should mention that EULAs are no different from free software licenses--they are contracts you agree to the terms of in using the software. The majority of U.S. courts have upheld the enforceability of EULAs.

Re:EULAs

[XanC]

No EULA is required to use free software. DISTRIBUTING software is a different matter. It's an important difference.

Re:EULAs

[InsightIn140Bytes]

In this specific case Sony also allowed you to opt-out from that specific provision and still accept the rest and use PSN, you only had to give them written notice about it. So if you want to bash Sony, it would be good to at least stay in truth.

Re:EULAs

[dan828]

A EULA, like any other contract, is only enforceable if it's provisions don't break the law. A company can put whatever they want into them, but that doesn't mean it has legal standing. Companies don't get to arbitrarily make laws. They could add a provision that you'll give them your first born son, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't stand if challenged in court.

Re:EULAs

[NoobixCube]

I'd like to see my local EB Games accept my PS3 return now, after the EULA updates, even though I bought it years ago...

Re:EULAs

[InsightIn140Bytes]

If this EULA update worries you, then just give them a written notice that you don't accept that clause. They allow it as long as you notice Sony, and they still let you accept rest of the EULA and use PSN. It's even written there right next to the clause. Read it.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he was right. The license doesn't come into force until you distribute a modified version. You can compile and use the code without releasing the source.

Re:EULAs

[jazzmans]

PSN is required to use Netflix, So, yes, it is required to 'use' the PS3.

I don't game, and didn't buy the ps3 to game. I bought it to act as a media viewer. Not being able to watch netflix on my bigscreen is a huge problem. I had to agree to the new TOS or the netflx app wouldn't connect.

I'd sign onto this class action, you bet.

  I'll never buy a sony product again.

jaz

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

A EULA, like any other contract, is only enforceable if it's provisions don't break the law. A company can put whatever they want into them, but that doesn't mean it has legal standing. Companies don't get to arbitrarily make laws. They could add a provision that you'll give them your first born son, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't stand if challenged in court.

You clearly don't live in the USA.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Sony gave 30 days written response from the time the EULA was accepted..

Outside of that time, Sony considered the EULA to be accepted in full by the user.
 

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely, Nintendo gets a lot of love even though it has a history of being even more evil than Sony.

Sony used Audio CDs to install rootkits on hundreds of thousands of computers.

Show me what Nintendo did that was more evil than that.

I am waiting...

Re:EULAs

[NoobixCube]

I'm just saying, I don't think an entirely unrelated retailer is actually legally obliged, or inclined, to accept my four year old game console back, no matter who signs a note for me. One might be able to return directly to Sony, but I just doubt a shop that could have changed management or even franchisee in all this time is going to care.

Re:EULAs

[Overly Critical Guy]

That's a silly response. EB Games wouldn't accept your returned PS3 because it's years old, regardless of the EULA updating or not. Sell it used.

Re:EULAs

[Cyberllama]

And, IIRC, didn't the Supreme Court recently rule that an AT&T provision in their contracts did not violate the law? If you are an AT&T customer, your lack of right to sue them (for any reason, no less) has apparently been upheld by the courts. Your sole method of redress is binding arbitration with, as I recall, some sort of liability cap.

Re:EULAs

[InsightIn140Bytes]

So all in all, there is a provision that lets you do just what I said.

Re:EULAs

[HiThere]

Your final proposed course of action is the proper one. Given the course of recent decisions, I don't think this suit has much of a chance.

Others may have other reasons for thinking this suit won't succeed. My reason is that courts usually find a way to decide in favor of large businesses. Justice isn't involved, though frequently the wording of the law is. After all, the laws were written by the lobbyists that the corporations paid for. And passed by the legislators that ...

Re:EULAs

[Travelsonic]

No ... just no. "you should have blah blah" WELL HE DIDN'T, really, what is the point of subjective opinions like that?

Re:EULAs

[PatDev]

IANAL, but no, EULA are not the same as free software licenses. The primary difference is that one is a *licensing agreement*, and the other is a *license*.

The concrete difference between the two is that a licensing agreement rests on contract law, in that it is an agreement between two parties. Generally speaking this means it must have (at least) two parties (software vendor and user) and there must be mutual consideration (they give you a license to software, you provide the agreement not to do certain things, and often toss in some money). A license rests on copyright law. Thus it does not require two parties or mutual consideration. Rather it is the unilaterally granted permission of a copyright holder to someone else to use their work.

The best place to see the difference is in the consequences of failure to adhere. The only way to fail to adhere to most free software licenses is to distribute binaries without the source and/or license du'jour. If you fail to adhere to the conditions of the license, then you have no license and are distributing a copyrighted work without permission of the author, which is copyright infringement. If you fail to adhere to the conditions of an EULA, then you are in breach of contract.

A helpful overview: http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/contractvlicense.html

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the right tool for the job you twat.

Re:EULAs

[AngryDeuce]

The game console was marketed as a media box, just like it's linux capabilities were. You can't fault someone for buying a product to do a job that they were told the product did.

In all honesty, I don't know anyone that bought a PS3 for the games. Most people I know bought it for the Bluray player, since the good ones were going for more than a PS3 was at launch, as well as the streaming capabilities (whether local or via Netflix, which I don't think even had streaming service at that time).

Besides, putting together a decent HTPC that could push 1080p wasn't nearly as cheap back in 2005 (or was it 2006?) as it is today.

Re:EULAs

[Synerg1y]

A blu-ray player and a ps3 for the longest time were very comparable in price, where you'd have to be stupid to buy the former when the latter was available with 10x more functionality.

Re:EULAs

[Overly Critical Guy]

Businesses make people sign release forms all the time that dissolve them of legal culpability, and those releases are legally upheld in court. For instance, a tattoo shop can make it so you can't sue them if your tattoo gets infected, as long as you sign a release form which says they're not responsible for infections, because infections are a possibility with tattoos.

Sony is not asking you to give up your first-born son, so that's just a meaningless strawman.

Re:EULAs

[king neckbeard]

Maybe he felt that was the best tool for him.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

netflix added a similar thing to their agreement this year. you can't sue them either.

Re:EULAs

[causality]

And, IIRC, didn't the Supreme Court recently rule that an AT&T provision in their contracts did not violate the law? If you are an AT&T customer, your lack of right to sue them (for any reason, no less) has apparently been upheld by the courts. Your sole method of redress is binding arbitration with, as I recall, some sort of liability cap.

What's the good, compelling reason that anyone is allowed to forfeit (or demand another party forfeit) what is otherwise a legal right? What was the justification given for considering this a legitimate part of contract law? Especially in one-sided, non-negotiable contracts of adhesion?

If there are any lawyers who can answer that, I'd really like to know. It seems like one of those incredibly short-sighted ideas that does more harm than good.

Re:EULAs

[mungewell]

Technically the GPLv3 is a EULA, it requires the _user_ of the software to do things. GPLv2 is only in action if you are distributing the software.

Re:EULAs

[The Pirou]

Did you just dictate that post via a Siri-like program? You shouldn't have typed that with a standard keyboard.

Individual reasons for doing anything should not be predicated solely on the original intent of the creator, else you lose the chance to hack your life your way.

Re:EULAs

[M0j0_j0j0]

I agree with some of your points, but it is abusive , and should be illegal for a contract to make you abide your rights as a citizen to sue. The company commits to something, it must deliver, if not, sufer the legal consequences, to me even arbitrage court is abusive since most of the times they favor the costumer, which of course is the targeted company.

Re:EULAs

[AngryDeuce]

What's the good, compelling reason

What on earth makes you think there was one of those involved?

Re:EULAs

[mark-t]

Actually, the chief difference between the two is that the free software license just specifically outlines what a person is permitted to do with the work, typically relatively freely copy it, where otherwise they would not be permitted to copy it at all (fair use provisions notwithstanding) without obtaining explicit permission from the copyright holder, even if they *did* have access to the source code. Essentially, the free software license acts as "written permission" from the copyright holder for people to do the things that it permits, and that you otherwise would not be able to do without infringing on copyright.

Re:EULAs

[realityimpaired]

And the time period for exercising the rights in that provision has now expired. If you didn't exercise that right when they made the change, you're SOL.

Re:EULAs

[king neckbeard]

Is the screwdriver marketed as having hammer functionality? You also chose a rather strange analogy, as a great number of non-hammer tools do a decent job of being a hammer. Using a hammer as a screwdriver is where you really run into trouble.

Re:EULAs

[Bert64]

Can i return the PS3 i bought several years ago (one of the launch models), because i don't agree with the new PSN terms?

Most free software licenses only cover distribution, you don't need to agree to them if you only want to use the software yourself and don't intend to distribute it to third parties.

Re:EULAs

[causality]

If this EULA update worries you, then just give them a written notice that you don't accept that clause. They allow it as long as you notice Sony, and they still let you accept rest of the EULA and use PSN. It's even written there right next to the clause. Read it.

Marketer says: if my decision to automatically sign you up for our endless reams of junk mail err I mean special promotions, adding your name to every advertising database we maintain, and spamming you err I mean keeping you posted about interesting new offers worries you, just waste your time by opting-out of them!

This is a little like mail-in rebates. The company is counting on the fact that most people are lazy, are not diligent, and won't follow through. The number of customers who would say they dislike this clause if asked directly is far higher than the number who actually read through the EULA of their own initiative and used their limited time to follow up on each provision they disliked. Sony knows this.

If you think a business practice that depends solely on laziness and lack of due diligence is perfectly legitimate and deserves to be successful ... well, that's where we would disagree. If we are going to have that sort of free-for-all marketplace then I also want all warning labels removed from all products, all drugs to be legal and unrestricted (you still go to a doctor because it's a good idea, if you are too stupid to realize that then you take your chances), all other victimless-crime laws to be repealed, and all scams to be legal since the targets should have known better anyway.

In some ways, I would like that because laziness and stupidity would become much, much more painful to the point of become rarities. People would learn that no one cares about their own interests more than they do. They'd also learn how to perform basic research when in doubt about something important. However, I'm not really so sure that replacing lazy, fat, stupid people with smart, fit, evil assholes would be an improvement. At any rate, some time ago we decided that "consumer" protection was a good idea and shady business practices don't deserve to be rewarded. All I'm asking for is a little consistency.

Re:EULAs

[mattack2]

What's the good, compelling reason that anyone is allowed to forfeit (or demand another party forfeit) what is otherwise a legal right?

IANAL, but the logical reasoning (yeah, that doesn't usually any similarity with the law...) is: That some users may be willing to give up a legal right in exchange for something that they wouldn't otherwise be able to get (or not at that price)?

Just like I can pay $x for a good or service, I might be willing to give away some other intangible item for it.

It seems to me similar to Facebook, etc., where a lot of people have privacy concerns, but are willing to give that up in exchange for the benefit they get.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a subjective opinion. While I could probably use it too, I still don't go out to buy screwdriver when I want to hit nails to a wall.

This seems closer to buying a power drill that also can act as a powered screwdriver. The PS3 did advertise itself as a media machine. I believe the Netflix logo was even on the box when I purchased mine.

If, using your analogy, a given screwdriver also came with a blunt-hammer-end for the occasional hammering, it wouldn't be unexpected for someone to buy it for hammering.

Re:EULAs

[meerling]

He purchase a product to do a job it was advertised as being capable of doing.
Now, after the fact, the manufacturer is attempting to get him to agree to lose his rights he already has or else he can't use the functionality they sold him the device for.
He is using the right tool. It may not be what you or I would have chosen, but he did, and they said he could.

Re:EULAs

[damiangerous]

He's using the product in a manner for which it was designed and sold. How is that not the "right tool"?

Re:EULAs

[causality]

You should had bought an actual media box or built one yourself to begin with, not buy a game console. Use the right tool for the job if you want something done.

Just curious, do you ever actually put forth your own ideas instead of waiting for opportunities to condescend and tell people why they're wrong on matters that aren't even factual in nature?

For example ... there was a time when the PS3 was one of the more affordable Blu-Ray players. That time may have passed, but at one point it was a good deal and significantly cheaper than a standalone player or a PC with a Blu-Ray drive. This is attractive to people who are on a budget and are willing to work with the ways that a PS3 is less flexible than a home-built media box. If you are unwilling to deal with such things, and spending more money is worthwhile to you, that is your own preference. The GP obviously has a different one. Your preference is more suitable for you personally but that does not make it superior to his.

I will say that few people are such a purist about a damned media machine. If it connects to their TV and plays the media they want to play, most people are satisfied at this point. Do you have any idea how smug you come across when you say they used the wrong tool? The problem here is not the tool or any technical aspects of the tool. The problem is the legal agreement surrounding the tool.

Tired of seeing this mentality everywhere. If you really must insist on looking down your nose at everyone else, try earning it by contributing more than they do.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

And some people might be willing to sign themselves up for slavery. Doesn't mean it should be allowed.

That said, how many people actually read EULAs? There are simply too many, and they are always long and filled with legalese.

Re:EULAs

[Fieryphoenix]

Having a PS3 without being able to play online is kinda like having a TV that you can only watch VHS tapes on. Yeah, technically it's using it, but without the TV stations its value is greatly diminished.

Re:EULAs

[ILongForDarkness]

Can I return my 1.5 year old PS3 because the new version of the EULA has terms I don't like and I bought it specifically for the online component?

Re:EULAs

[Fred Foobar]

That's a good, concise distinction between the two.

For a while now I've maintained that EULA's (but not free software licenses because, as you pointed out, are different from EULA's) are bunk anyway, in the vast majority of cases. Copyright law explicitly grants to end users the right to make copies of software as necessary to use the software, so what other rights or permissions does an EULA grant to the end user? If you (as an end user) don't agree to the EULA, then you can still legally use the software and are not bound by any of its terms and conditions*. Requiring the user to accept the terms before installing the software is merely a technical hurdle, not a legal one.

* Copying and distributing software is covered by copyright, so an EULA doesn't add any protection in that area that isn't already in law.

Re:EULAs

[causality]

IANAL, but the logical reasoning (yeah, that doesn't usually any similarity with the law...) is: That some users may be willing to give up a legal right in exchange for something that they wouldn't otherwise be able to get (or not at that price)?

I understand why it could be tempting. But there are lots of tempting things the law does not allow (eh use your imagination if you like).

What makes this one special? Especially considering the nature of a contract of adhesion and the tendency for all companies in a given market to use extremely similar agreements? It's just a bad idea. I see no benefit to it being allowed by law. That's especially true in the USA which is founded on the concept of natural inalienable rights. It would be more understandable in a country where rights are considered something granted by law.

Re:EULAs

[exomondo]

Wrong--in the case of a free software license, the user agreeing to the license is the developer who uses the code.

Which is why he said no EULA is required to use free software. I can take linux and use it all i want, modify it, re-compile, not release my changes, remove all copyright and legal notices, etc... and that's fine. It's only if I want to distribute it that the license terms will have to be considered.

Re:EULAs

[PopeRatzo]

I still don't go out to buy screwdriver when I want to hit nails to a wall.

You're on such a shill roll, I hate to interrupt your flow, but you do realize that Sony marketed the PS3 as a media box, don't you?

And you do realize that they advertised it as a media box on which you could install an "OtherOS", right?

Then, after you shelled out your cash and bought their product, they decide that "Well, no, we really didn't mean that, so we're going to take those capabilities away from you even though you paid for them".

It would be like a a car company saying, after you bought that car, that no, you can no longer put groceries in the trunk because someone might put contraband in their trunk so they're going to remotely lock all trunks so they cannot be used. No, you didn't buy the car just to use it as storage, you bought it as transportation, but the manufacturer just took away a very useful feature of a product. A feature for which they gladly took your money when you bought the product.

"InsightIn140Bytes", I'm trying to figure out why, in the nearly 300 comments you've posted on Slashdot in the three weeks since you signed up for an account here, that so many of them are posts fiercely defending Sony (at least when you're not fiercely defending Microsoft). I'm curious, is it because you just can't stand the injustice of people picking on poor, weak corporations who only want to give their customers great products and make them happy, or is it because you work for one of the "New Media Strategies" type companies and defending these corporations is your job? Because honestly, I can't wrap my head around anyone suggesting that Sony has been anything but hostile to their customers, using the worst kind of bullying and sleazy legal maneuvers (like a 30 day period for sending a written, notarized opt-out via certified mail or else you are considered to have accepted their brand new EULA for a product you may have paid for years ago, or else you won't be able to use many of its features and fuck you if you don't like it).

So tell us, please: What's your story?

Re:EULAs

[ILongForDarkness]

Not to mention it seems like my PS3 every other time I turn it on wants to either update its OS or update the game I'm currently running before letting me use it. It is like the Windows box from hell (KB 1010283 ready to install don't do anything and don't shut me off while I spin for 20min installing another .00.01 release of a feature you don't use). It isn't just a matter of reading the EULA, I think I did when I opened my box. It is the biweekly OS updates since this problem, each with an EULA warning, which may are may not be different from the original one (and if it is the same is a complete waste of time to read again) but which I'm not willing to spend the 20 minutes I was planning on spending playing a game reading it instead. I'm not sure couldn't they just have sort of a release note? Ie. "all previous rights and terms as before except ... you can't sue us". Would save a heck of a lot of reading/might actually get read/might actually fit on one screen.

Re:EULAs

[arth1]

Sony used Audio CDs to install rootkits on hundreds of thousands of computers.

Show me what Nintendo did that was more evil than that.

Easy. "But our princess is in another castle!"

FFFfffffffuuuuuu.....

Re:EULAs

[geekoid]

Yes, it's in the basement guarded by a tiger.

THIS is the type of thing he was poking fun at.

Re:EULAs

[ILongForDarkness]

It's not just laziness, well I guess it is, but it is time. You are obviously willing to do something and have time (you're playing games) its just them jerking you around by changing the contract every couple weeks and expecting you to write a letter if you want to dispute a change every time is unreasonable. EULAs didn't change this frequently until we had the expectation of constantly connected devices. Some how them pushing changes is made really convenient but your responding to them has to rely on snail mail, likely to some bloody office in Japan that would cost you $5 every time you mailed a letter. Your "free" PSN doesn't seem so free anymore.

Re:EULAs

[geekoid]

Sony would be forced to pay the retailer for their efforts in accepting returns. then the retailer is out nothing.

And if I know how these thing work, after about a month Sony will tell the retailers to just destroy the unit and throw it away.

Re:EULAs

[exomondo]

It's not a subjective opinion. While I could probably use it too, I still don't go out to buy screwdriver when I want to hit nails to a wall.

Of course you don't, a screwdriver is not made for hitting nails into a wall and would not be advertised as such. So your example clearly is not analogous to the situation with the PS3, which was advertised as a machine that 'only does everything'. Avoiding being obtuse and taking things literally you can see that while you're not going to use this to hit nails into a wall this does include media center functionality and streaming apps like Netflix. Consoles evolved beyond being purely gaming machines years ago, get with the times.

Re:EULAs

[msobkow]

I have another question for you: What is it about Americans that they can't resolve differences without a judge, jury, and obscene settlement involved?

Is it so horrible to just do the honourable thing and resolve issues and differences without being forced to?

Re:EULAs

[ILongForDarkness]

Hey I have this screwdriver, I'll give it to you if you'll hit these nails into my wall. There ya' go, problem solved.

PS3 is reasonably cheap now, especially since you get a bluray with it (always nice to have a spare in case your dedicated one goes to hell), and you have the option to play games if you have a visitor that wants to. In short: more options for about the same cost (and comes with a couple, albeit crappy for purpose remotes).

Re:EULAs

[ILongForDarkness]

Even when I bought mine along with my TV a year and a half ago the sales guy said the Samsung bluray player I was looking at was the second fastest on the market ... first was still the drive in the PS3. Not sure if he knew what he was talking about but yeah PS3 was and still is marketed as a media server. I don't know you probably can do it if you built it yourself, but I think it would be hard to be able to build a system even today with what a PS3 has: bluray, wireless N, HDMI, and a couple remotes for $200 let alone buy one you plug in and your done Good luck.

Re:EULAs

[SleazyRidr]

Strangely, Nintendo gets a lot of love even though it has a history of being even more evil than Sony.

Could you please elaborate on this? Nintendo has always struck me as being quite a respectable company, what have they done that makes you think of them as evil?

Re:EULAs

[Hatta]

It seems like one of those incredibly short-sighted ideas that does more harm than good.

There's no time to worry about that. We have quarterly projections to meet!

Re:EULAs

[labnet]

In Australia (and most commonwealth countries) Common Law always trumps contractual agreements.

Even so, my business partner always reads every line of a contract (I'm talking genuine contacts, like trade accounts, NDA's, BtoB agreements, not software EULA's).
The notorious ones are courier companies that have clauses like, 'You make available your personal assets for compensation in case we have an accident while carrying your goods'. We send back those contracts with the stupid clauses crossed out. If they don't like it, we don't complete the contract.

Re:EULAs

[spire3661]

When the PS3 launched it was as close to the perfect media player as you could get AT THE TIME including ease of use, substantial feature list and robustness of hardware. Lets keep some perspective here. Sure it didnt do everything, but it did more then anything that came before it in a consumerized package.

Re:EULAs

[AK Marc]

You don't have to use PSN to use a PS3, and you are also free to return the PS3 if you don't like the EULA for its online component.

You must use PSN to use some integral features or games/content. Play TV will fail eventually if you never sign in. And you *can't* return it if the EULA changes and you don't agree. Walk in to Best Buy returns and try to take back a 3-year old PS3 with or without receipt and see how it goes. You claim it to be untrue, but it seems explicitly true to me.

Re:EULAs

[PopeRatzo]

If Sony is so bad, why do you need to resort to lies to attack them? If they were so bad shouldn't you be able to make them look bad even without lies?

Son, if it's not notarized and not sent via certified mail, that EULA opt-out that Sony requires in writing is not worth a damn.

I would guarantee that if you send them the written opt-out statement and it's not notarized and not sent via certified mail, and Sony comes after you for a violation of their EULA, their lawyers are immediately going to demand to see the certified receipt for a notarized written statement or else they'll just say they never got it.

And by the way, why don't they ask for your agreement to their EULA in writing? Why just the opt-out?

You're not very good at this, "InsightIn140Bytes". If you're going to defend Sony, you're going to have to start bringing your A-game.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

I am waiting...

You really need to get a life...

Re:EULAs

[similar_name]

Even with such an agreement a tattoo shop can be held accountable if they were negligent. Recognizing that infection is an inherent risk and an infection happening because the tattoo shop did not take known steps to prevent an infection are two different things.

So you might not be able to win a lawsuit against Sony if they took reasonable steps to ensure security but if they did not then a EULA shouldn't necessarily absolve them of liability. Suing is how this is generally determined so waiving your right to determine Sony's liability is not a strawman.

Re:EULAs

[similar_name]

So how is a 12 year old held to contract law?

Re:EULAs

[choongiri]

And if you're not a professional astroturfer being paid directly or indirectly by Sony, why don't you answer PopeRatzo's question?

Re:EULAs

[russotto]

And, IIRC, didn't the Supreme Court recently rule that an AT&T provision in their contracts did not violate the law? If you are an AT&T customer, your lack of right to sue them (for any reason, no less) has apparently been upheld by the courts.

That's because there's a law, the Federal Arbitration Act, specifically allowing that. The idea is to reduce the courts' workloads so the judges could spend more time admiring themselves in their robes and less time actually doing their job.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod up. This is the correct answer.

Wiki link

Re:EULAs

[hairyfeet]

But will the games work without updating? Don't know as I haven't owned a console since the PS 1 but I frankly wouldn't be surprised if games want to go online to update as everything else does these days. Also many people buy games for the MP such as COD:MW and I'm sure you can't actually play MP on the Sony without PSN can you?

Personally i'm glad i'm out of the whole mess, no more Xboxes, no more PSes, now I have the boys using Steam and GOG and everything is simple and easy. The only trouble I've ever had from either service is when I installed a new CPU and motherboard on my machine steam was having trouble connecting but to their credit I shot off a support email and even with it being the holidays i had someone asking for more details and helping me do a full reset on Steam so it would re-update for the new board in less than 30 minutes.

As far as EULAs they should have to show you it at purchase if you have to agree with it to use the product PERIOD. Because if they don't you've pretty much left the consumer with a catch 22 as many places don't want to give you your money back on a return and even if they do they'll usually zing you for a 15% restock fee so either way you're out money. That is another nice thing about sticking with the PC for gaming as both Steam and GOG gave me their EULAs BEFORE I had spent a single cent in either store. I would much rather be given the EULA up front, where I can read it and decide if it is something i can live with or not, than the shrink wrap bullshit the courts have been letting slide.

Re:EULAs

[hipp5]

If we are going to have that sort of free-for-all marketplace then I also want all warning labels removed from all products, all drugs to be legal and unrestricted [...]

Careful. There are a lot of people on slashdot who would love to see this happen.

Re:EULAs

[TangoMargarine]

You act as if they *want* people to read the things.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

In this specific case Sony also allowed you to opt-out from that specific provision and still accept the rest and use PSN, you only had to give them written notice about it. So if you want to bash Sony, it would be good to at least stay in truth.

You obviously didn't read it carefully, as if you send this in, your PSN account is immediately closed and you forfeit any money you have in your PSN wallet.

Re:EULAs

[mrchaotica]

Please don't feed the trolls.

Re:EULAs

[l0ungeb0y]

Buying Senators and paying for legal goon squads to draft legislation for your puppet Politico to pass is hardly arbitrary.

Re:EULAs

[westlake]

Companies don't get to arbitrarily make laws. They could add a provision that you'll give them your first born son, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't stand if challenged in court.

There are contractual provisions that a court will simply refuse to enforce:

Contracts encouraging immorality such as selling a daughter for marriage, seeking to interfere with the administration of justice or injurious to the state, transacting in goods known to be stolen, to commit torts or crimes or to promote sedition or mutiny or, in time of war, enemy attacks have all been held to be unenforceable as against public policy, or seeking to enforce a contract obtained by fraud.

Public Policy

But you have to be realistic.

Freedom of Contract is also public policy.

Absent evidence to the contrary, a court will treat you as a responsible adult who has learned to live with the choices he makes. Not every clause of the contract you sign with Sony has to be to your liking. That doesn't make it unconscionable as a matter of law.

Re:EULAs

[Courageous]

While what you are saying is generally true, two facts are worth mentioning 1) first and foremost, a license is not regarded as 100% equivalent to a "contract" in its treatment under the law, and it is inadvisable to equate them, and 2) what you are referring to in terms of the first born son thing is what we call restrictions against "unconscionable" terms in an agreement, which while patently obvious when it comes to things like handing over a first born child, might be less so for more mundane business things, even if you were not to like them. So tread with care.

Re:EULAs

[Courageous]

I'm skeptical, on the grounds that contract law varies by state; I'm uncertain why SCOTUS would put their nose in it.

Re:EULAs

[mrchaotica]

A more concise way of stating that is that a Free Software license adds permissions that the owner of the copy would not otherwise have under law, while an EULA attempts to take away the rights that the owner of the copy inherently obtained along with the copy itself.

(Of course, a license to use a service (such as is being discussed here) is an entirely separate kind of thing, even if it calls itself an EULA.)

Re:EULAs

[guruevi]

The GPL is a license, it requires those that (re-)distribute parts or all of the software to adhere by it. The GPL does not limit your rights in any way if you want to privately use, modify or derive the software.

Re:EULAs

[westlake]

And you do realize that they advertised it as a media box on which you could install an "OtherOS", right?

If you asked that question of PS3 FAT owners, how many could truthfully answer yes?

From the very beginning of this hooh-rah I have yet to see posted a convincing estimate of the number of OtherOS users in the PS3's consumer market space.

Re:EULAs

[ILongForDarkness]

Exactly. My thinking is: there should have to be a very good reason to amend an agreement, it shouldn't be a monthly thing. Heck they shouldn't have to have you accept another agreement every time they do a patch, they could just have "same terms as the last time" (Ok Cancel). The burying you in legalize on a regular basis and then calling it your fault if you don't send them a letter within 30 days to keep your original rights is ridiculous.

Re:EULAs

[digitig]

No, he's right. Even in the USA a corporation wouldn't be able to get a law that meant they could take your firstborn son. The Department of Homeland Security would never yield that power.

Re:EULAs

[mark-t]

I would think that a license to use a service would be called a TOS

Re:EULAs

[PopeRatzo]

From the very beginning of this hooh-rah I have yet to see posted a convincing estimate of the number of OtherOS users in the PS3's consumer market space.

I'm sorry, in what way does the percentage of users of OtherOS impact the fact that what Sony did was pure evil?

You sell something, then take it back. If I sell you an orange, then snatch back the orange, what would you call it? Even if you're the only one who bought an orange and everyone else bought quinces, it's still fucked up behavior.

Re:EULAs

[icebike]

What's the good, compelling reason that anyone is allowed to forfeit (or demand another party forfeit) what is otherwise a legal right? What was the justification given for considering this a legitimate part of contract law? Especially in one-sided, non-negotiable contracts of adhesion?

I was always under the impression you could not "sign away" your rights, and any contract that requires this was invalid.

Such a case came up in Washington State in 2008, and Groklaw jumped all over it due to its relation to another issue between Apple and Psystar.

AT&T's Consumer Services Agreement is substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable to the extent that it purports to waive the right to class actions, require confidentiality, shorten the Washington Consumer Protection Act statute of limitations, and limit availability of attorney fees. ... Courts will not be easily deceived by attempts to unilaterally strip away consumer protections and remedies by efforts to cloak the waiver of important rights under an arbitration clause. The dispute resolution section is severable from the balance of the contract.

.

The case involved AT&T attempting to force consumers into arbitration and prohibit Class Action suits:

It forbids class actions and requires that all arbitrations be kept confidential. The agreement also states in relevant part that "[n]o dispute may be joined with another lawsuit, or in an arbitration with a dispute of any other person, or resolved on a class-wide basis," and "[a]ny arbitration shall remain confidential.

PJ goes on to state that some States do allow waivers of class-based relief, but such a waiver would not extinguish your individual rights.

Washington State held that the contract was entered into in Washington, and New York law be dammed, AT&T had to remove such clauses from their contract without voiding the contract. The prohibitions against joining a Class Action were not only severable, but invalid.

IANAL, so I don't know if this is directly on point or not.

Re:EULAs

[ixnaay]

I'm sure it's not, but this really looks like you responding to yourself with an anonymous sock-puppet. Just saying. Please continue with the rational discourse.

Re:EULAs

[shadowfaxcrx]

One of the selling points of the PS3 is PSN, from which you can get games, and updates of games. In order to use the PS3 in the way it was advertised, I have to have access to PSN.

Re:EULAs

[shadowfaxcrx]

And is Sony also going to compensate us for the other investments we made in the PS3 in good faith that they would not arbitrarily change the contract on us down the road? Chargers, extra controllers, games, etc?

Re:EULAs

[Riceballsan]

Some companies yes.. people have sued over frying their poodle in a microwave when attempting to dry it off etc... Sony has been sued over removing features after the fact (other OS), and for PSN going down and the comprimise of all of their users data and possibly credit card numbers... that isn't a little thing.

Re:EULAs

[jazzmans]

I was one. Mine is a ps3 fat, and running linux was my second goal after making it a media server. Then they removed 'other os' I bitched back then on slashdot too, refused to update my ps3 untill the day came that netflix wouldn't let me cheat my way past the 'you must update' window.

fuck sony.

Never, ever, again.

I did build a home pc as a media viewer, but had problems getting my damn 42" toshiba screen to display correctly. It has 'weird' requirements to display a 1080p signal.

after that, I bought a ps3, to be my media machine, play blue ray, and run linux. Obviously netflix wasn't around when I first got it, but it quickly became the 'killer app' for me.

I will never buy a device that I can't install my own os of choice, and I'll never buy another sony device as long as I live.

jaz

Re:EULAs

[mrchaotica]

Yes, thank you; that would make sense. On the other hand, TFS calls the document being discussed an "End User Agreement."

Re:EULAs

[shutdown -p now]

If GP is indeed an astroturfer, he's being paid by Sony, Microsoft, Apple, and DPRK foreign intelligence at the same time (just check his posting history). The more likely explanation is that he's just a troll.

Re:EULAs

[msobkow]

And as per usual, the American's can't deal with the truth and vote down anything that reminds them that their idealistic and naive view of what their country used to be about has long been abandoned.

In retrospect, I'm glad I never succeeded in getting my permanent residency in the US. It stopped being a place I wanted to call home when they over-reacted to the terrorist attack on 9/11, and has only gone downhill since.

May the American people wake up to what their legislators and businesses are doing to a once great nation.

Re:EULAs

[arkenian]

The GPL is a license, it requires those that (re-)distribute parts or all of the software to adhere by it. The GPL does not limit your rights in any way if you want to privately use, modify or derive the software.

Which is a wonderful 'free' software perspective. But from a legal perspective, the GPL IS a EULA, because rather than "does not limit your rights etc." legally it "grants limited rights" (that is, unlimited rights for private use, specific conditions to distribute.) Those rights have to be granted unless the work is in the public domain, which GPLed works very specifically are not.

Re:EULAs

[pete6677]

If anyone could be absolved of all legal liability just by getting the other party to sign a waiver, then why does nearly every business in existence have a general liability insurance policy?

Why do doctors pay a ton of money for malpractice insurance when they could instead make their patients sign a waiver?

Drafting a liability release form is one thing - having it hold up in court is quite another.

Re:EULAs

[russotto]

I'm sure it's not, but this really looks like you responding to yourself with an anonymous sock-puppet.

Wouldn't be worth the effort.

Re:EULAs

[Khyber]

"WELL HE DIDN'T,"

Then he isn't worthy of his UID.

Re:EULAs

[tycoex]

I don't think you really are allowed to sign away rights. There's a reason we don't see indentured servitude anymore.

Re:EULAs

[Gastrobot]

It is the biweekly OS updates since this problem, each with an EULA warning, which may are may not be different from the original one (and if it is the same is a complete waste of time to read again)

I diff EULAs upon upgrading various software for that reason. You can probably find the latest text on Sony's website.

Re:EULAs

[SuperMog2002]

What does it matter what percentage of people used it? They advertised it as a feature, Then they took it away as a condition of continued use of the paid-for product. That's called a bait and switch, and is illegal.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey bonch you forgot your usual "buy Apple products cause theyre better hurdur"

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

The games will continue to work, although not necessarily without updating. However.. you do not need to have connectivity to update. Games come with the minimum required firmware on the disc and will update that way.

Re:EULAs

[Maow]

"InsightIn140Bytes", I'm trying to figure out why, in the nearly 300 comments you've posted on Slashdot in the three weeks since you signed up for an account here, that so many of them are posts fiercely defending Sony (at least when you're not fiercely defending Microsoft). I'm curious, is it because you just can't stand the injustice of people picking on poor, weak corporations who only want to give their customers great products and make them happy, or is it because you work for one of the "New Media Strategies" type companies and defending these corporations is your job?

Bingo, we have a winner. The ever-insightful Mr Ratzo has hit the nail on the head, without even having to mention the absurd number of first posts "Insight..." has had. Must be paid to troll Slashdot.

Re:EULAs

[ShakaUVM]

>>That's called a bait and switch, and is illegal.

Well, you'd think.

Except a judge threw it out.

Re:EULAs

[glitch0]

indeed, he has many non-sony posts and posts that don't even push a product or company at all. he would have to be a very clever 'turfer with a lot of time to post all those other posts.

Re:EULAs

[boxxertrumps]

It was thrown out not because the action was deemed legal, but because the plaintiff didn't make a cohesive claim that could have been argued.

Sony got off scott free because the people running the class action suit fucked up.

Re:EULAs

[Sollord]

a 12 year old cant have a valid PSN account

Re:EULAs

[mwvdlee]

You don't have to use PSN to use a PS3

You don't need electricity either to use a PS3 either, but most people intend to use it for something else than a paperweight.

and you are also free to return the PS3 if you don't like the EULA for its online component.

Even years after you've bought it?

Re:EULAs

[cavreader]

Using absurd generalizations when describing people that live in the US is an example of your ignorance. The US takes a heap load of shit when making generalizations about Arab countries but generalizing about the US population is always justified and proper according to your warped reasoning. I am glad you didn't get your permanent US citizenship but why did you apply in the first place? Do you consider yourself so smart that all your generalizations about the US would never apply to someone as exceptional as yourself? The US is the most diverse society on the planet in religion, race, and ethnicity. I don't know when the US was ever a "great nation" because it has always had it's problems and incompetent leaders just like every other country. US equality, justice, and democracy is just a goal that should be worked towards. This process has been ongoing since the birth of the nation and it has had mistakes and triumphs in trying to reach the goal. Thankfully the US public is slowly but surely reaching the point where they don't give a shit about foreign countries problems and desires. You think the US has been making unilateral decisions but you have not seen anything yet. And the US did over react to 9/11, especially with the Iraqi war and extended Afghanistan operations but at least the US did react while other countries just set around with their thumbs of their ass criticizing US decisions.

Re:EULAs

[maxwell demon]

Actually copyright is about making copies (and derived works as "generalized copies"). Think of a book: If you get a book, you are allowed to read it (at least as far as copyright is concerned). You don't need permission to do it. It's only if you are making a copy that copyright comes into effect.

Re:EULAs

[xtracto]

I don't see how different is this "no sue" clause to what every other service and product have in their licenses (usually with all caps).

Strangely, Nintendo gets a lot of love even though it has a history of being even more evil than Sony.

Well, I haven't heard of Nintendo putting a Rootkit in any product to spy on users, or removing features from their consoles (well actually they did, they removed MP3 playing from the Wii so I take that back). But on this case, the PSN is a free service that Sony is providing and I sympathize with them. It is like people suing Linus because Kernel.org went down and they could not download the last Linux kernel. WTF?

Re:EULAs

[man_the_king]

"Anti-Sony stories are one of Slashdot's most common page-view drawing tactics, so I'm always a little suspicious of any stories Slashdot posts....it's a well-known company that Slashdotters love to hate. Strangely, Nintendo gets a lot of love even though it has a history of being even more evil than Sony.

True. No one on Slashdot reported it when Microsoft added the no-sue clause with no way to opt-out (not even snail mail ala Sony) in their latest dashboard update. Probably 360 fanboys like reporting anti-Sony stories.

Re:EULAs

[thsths]

The bigger question is: why would anybody in a sane mind agree to such a contract?

It implies that Sony will provide certain services to you for a price, but then it implies that Sony may not do so, and you are explicitly SOL.

I wouldn't pay 2 dollars for a box that may or may not contain a bar of chocolate, for example.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG, I did not know. How could I have known... It is time to get my little son back!

Re:EULAs

[hawkinspeter]

I'm a PS3 FAT owner (not the first model, but the one with only 2 USB ports and no Emotion chip) and used to use the OtherOS. It was a big consideration when buying the PS3 as I intended on installing Ubuntu and setting it up as a media box.

When Sony stole that feature away from me, I had to backup my PS3, format it to remove the Ubuntu partition and then restore the games partition.

I don't care how many other people wanted to use OtherOS - I paid money for it, used it and then had it stolen from me.

Never will I buy from Sony again.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the good, compelling reason that anyone is allowed to forfeit

The point of a corporation is to aggregate financial/political power and limit liabilities. That is why a corporation is not a person.

Re:EULAs

[shentino]

When two farmers fight over a cow that straddles their fence it will only get milked by a lawyer.

At any rate, the reason nice guys finish last is that the nasty ones kick them in the nuts.

Re:EULAs

[shentino]

Gross negligence cannot be waived, neither can reckless or intentional behavior.

Re:EULAs

[shentino]

And they will conveniently lose (shred) the paperwork.

Re:EULAs

[shentino]

Here's a good way.

When someone is scammed NOBODY gets to keep it.

The idiot who fell for it gets punished as a fool being parted from his money.

The asshole who took it gets punished as a thief

Re:EULAs

[shentino]

OtherOS users who get smeared by Sony's FUD as nothing but pirates and cheaters who DESERVE to get screwed.

It's shocking how many members of the "regular" gaming crowd will be quick to smite you for so much as defending them.

Boo who cares about that minuscule section of the market that deserves to get fucked in the ass anyway for ruining our games.

Re:EULAs

[shentino]

And now thanks to res judicata, since it was a class action NOBODY can sue them for it.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

*Wrong*. Software in the USA has patents (such as those on MPEG players) and DMCA style restrictions on "breaking protection", which prevents DVD decryption.

Re:EULAs

[IIH]

Which is a wonderful 'free' software perspective. But from a legal perspective, the GPL IS a EULA, because rather than "does not limit your rights etc." legally it "grants limited rights" (that is, unlimited rights for private use, specific conditions to distribute.) Those rights have to be granted unless the work is in the public domain, which GPLed works very specifically are not.

It may be a licence agreement, but as it the licence is for distribution, not use, it would be a LA, not a EULA.

Re:EULAs

[Killjoy_NL]

First, that was hilarious :)
Second, it gave me the thought that Mario should get better intelligence before storming a castle.
That thought lead to the MIA, the Mario Intelligence Agency, it could literally have spooks that find out where the princess is so Mario won't waste anymore time :)

Re:EULAs

[fa2k]

Incorrect, actually. The GPLv3 is a "use license" that relies on the fact that you copy the code when executing it. It needs to work in this way to protect against the TiVo "hole". IMHO a too large concession.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

I do live in the USA, I've been involved with contract disputes in the world of real estate. What I learned quickly is, contracts are meaningless. Say a contract has an arbitration clause. That just means you have to go through the motions of arbitration before you sue. It don't mean you have to accept the arbitration. The show "fear factor" found out real quick that contracts are meaningless when they had contestants sign a contract that said they wouldn't sue if they got injured, yet the contestants still successfully sued for gross negligence on the part of the producers. If you take EULAs seriously, remember the no Microsoft product is allowed to be used in, I think it's Delaware, because one of the clauses goes strictly against state law. The contract I signed in my HOA says I have to get approval to put up solar panels, but one of my neighbors did it without approval, the HOA sued him, the guy simply pointed out the law that said he was allowed to put them up, and the judge dismissed it on the spot. Contracts are meaningless for ANYTHING there is a law written to cover. Contracts are only meaningful in agreements for services provided and money paid. Putting this stuff in an EULA is a way for the lawyers to try to scare people away from suing. It'd NEVER stand in court if challenged.

Re:EULAs

[ILongForDarkness]

Good idea. Still I literally play PS3 for 20-30 min at a time every week. Running to my computer and diffing a legal document to make sure my rights aren't being taken away rather than spending my little free time actually enjoying games sucks :-)

Re:EULAs

[Phreakiture]

Okay, now, let's suppose you've owned it for a year. It's past the point where you can return it. You bought it with full intent to use PSN and use it heavily. Now, all of a sudden Sony says you can't sue them. You have a choice. Either (a) you can agree to relinquish your rights to sue them or (b) you can give up the functionality that your machine had when you bought it, and for which you bought it, and that you use.

The only correct choice is (c) force Sony to back down.

Re:EULAs

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Most of the liability waivers I have signed are to cover things that are inherent risks, mostly when going to a race track (drag strip or road course) but those only cover things that are inherit risks. I can't sue the track if I roll my car, I can't sue if I get clocked in the head by an engine part from a dragster that just blew up. Those are risks I accept but if I rolled my car because of negligence of the track, like they didn't clean the track properly after the previous guy splashed his transmission, then I could sue because the didn't take reasonable precautions to prevent the accident. At least that is my understanding. As much fun as seeing a top fuel dragster or top fuel funny car blow up is when you are racing it is annoying as they take forever to resume because they actually do their due diligence for cleanup and preping the track so that it isn't a safety issue.

Re:EULAs

[Mordermi]

Please provide proof of this. I read the terms and I remember no such thing.

Re:EULAs

[MrL0G1C]

My cousin bought a 2nd hand playstation from ebay, it turned out to be permanetly banned from the PSN. Most if not all of the games wanted to connect to PSN and would not work even in single player mode which practically makes the Playstation a brick, she already has a DVD played and a PC so the Playstation is completely useless.

Let this be a warning - never buy 2nd hand consoles, never buy sony and be very careful when buying 2nd hand games, films, etc from now on.

Not everybody can afford or has the time to attempt a million+ dollar lawsuit with a conglomerate.

Re:EULAs

[Bob the Super Hamste]

But I have used a screwdriver as a dead blow mallet before, they also work well as pry bars.

If Craftsman's warranty on their hand tools wasn't lifetime no questions asked but instead lifetime for only correct uses I wouldn't complain when I break a screwdriver when I use it as a pry bar and they won't replace it, but I would complain when I break a socket when I put an 8 foot long pipe on the end of the ratchet and use it as a breaker bar and they wouldn't replace it. It comes down to how the device was advertised I buy craftsman tools because when I break them I know I can get them easily replaced and don't have to go through the hassle of warranty issues. If Craftsman started playing games like Sony does I would cease to buy their tools because the initial warranty was lifetime no questions asked and that is what I expect.

Re:EULAs

[andydread]

no need to resort to lies to attack Sony. And merely stating the obvious is not an attack. Sony is the company the maliciously put rootkits on people's computers and had the arrogance to say that people don't even know what a rootkit is so why should they worry. That is Sony. That is what they do. They have behaved in some of the most fundamentally egregious ways one can imagine in the marketplace. These are the same scum that are pushing for SOPA and PROTECT-IP and other draconian laws. They are the same people who lobbied for the enactment of the oppressive DMCA laws. They are the company who want taxpayers to spend spend spend in order to protect their profits when they should be the ones footing the bill. Sony is the company that tries to monopolize the marketplace with proprietary technologies. Sony is the company that set precedent in demanding that anyone who visits a YouTube page can be at risk of infringement. And you come here claiming that people are attacking Sony with lies? Seriously what planet do you think you are on? Sony is an entity that embodies sleazyness, corruption, and gutter ethics in one neat package. Just look at how sleazy and corrupt they are. They are paying you to come on here and other sites to spread misinformation to the public.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we are concerned for the injustice of others. If they fix it for just me, that's one thing. Having a court backing it up sets a precedent that benefits others.

Re:EULAs

[mcgrew]

Anti-Sony stories are one of Slashdot's most common page-view drawing tactics

Well, after XCP, OtherOS, and sensitive customer data left unencrypted on public servers, what do you expect? Lots of Sony's victims at slashdot.

Nintendo gets a lot of love even though it has a history of being even more evil than Sony.

Submit something, then. I haven't heard about Nintendo screwing their customers, but then I haven't been one. More evil than Sony? To who, their competetitors or their customers? You're going to have to link something.

should mention that EULAs are no different from free software licenses--they are contracts you agree to the terms of in using the software.

If you're "modbombed into oblivion" (and I don't think you will be), this is the sentence that will do it. Such ignorance...

Re:EULAs

[Mordermi]

Whenever they make major changes in the new TOS, they send out an email to all users with a link to review the changes. It's not like you would only notice if you log into PSN, you should receive an email. So as long as you check your email, you should know about any changes and have plenty of time to send in your letter.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

IAAL. Exactly. They are not in most jurisdictions, unless they are emancipated minors. Tender years doctrines generally state that those under 18 are magically not able to contract, and can void their contract when they feel like it before they turn 18. Therefore, it is on Sony to prevent such contracting. It is legal douchebaggery to thing that these no sue, no ADR contracts are enforceable on adults.

Re:EULAs

[yodleboy]

"You don't have to use PSN to use a PS3"

Wait a sec...this is not entirely true. I don't game on my PS3, I DO use it for Bluray and for Netflix access. About once a month when I launch Netflix, I get a message along the lines of "Your PS3 requires a system update". You cannot use Netflix without doing the update and (here's the punchline) the update REQUIRES you to login to PSN. there may be other PS3 apps that have similar nonsense going on, i wouldn't know. I do know that I would not have a PSN account if i didn't have to have it for these damn forced updates.

Re:EULAs

[oh_my_080980980]

I didn't realize that SONY execs read slashdot. Good for them.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

Check some of your standard contract agreements, and you might be surprised at what's "legal". Now you might just say, don't do business with these companies, but that's getting harder and harder to do as more companies are including this kind of garbage.

An example from my Sprint contract:

THIS CONTRACT CONTAINS A MANDATORY ARBITRATION PROVISION THAT DISALLOWS CLASS ACTIONS, A CLASS ACTION WAIVER PROVISION, AND A JURY WAIVER PROVISION.

Credit cards, cell phones, and many jobs (lookup Halliburton for a disturbing read) now come with this sort of clause. It shouldn't stand in court, but sadly it often does.

Re:EULAs

[Lucky_Norseman]

So, the logical choice for anyone doing something shady is to pay a lawyer to start a class action suit and then botch it.
How do we know that didn't happen?

Re:EULAs

[jahudabudy]

I have 2 questions for you: 1) How does anywhere else resolve intractable differences between private parties in a manner that is better? 2) What makes you think you are, or should be, privy to the (likely) thousands of instances per day where two private citizens DO resolve their differences in an amicable manner that doesn't involve the public system?

Re:EULAs

[phorm]

May the American people wake up to what their legislators and businesses are doing to a once great nation.

Add to that: Lawyers.

Re:EULAs

[AdamJS]

Said provision is not exactly reasonable, and requires the end user to make many more additional affordances than Sony themselves have to make.
This clause should be opt-in rather than opt-out.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

They are the company that first prevented users from running arbitrary code on their consoles. it is the original sin of console gaming. If it wasn't for nintendo doing that, game consoles and PCs would have never diverged.

they were also known for being so heavy handed about piracy that they stuck with cartridges during the nintendo 64 era, which lowered the N64s usefulness and gaming capability compared to the PS1, sega CD, or Dreamcast.

Or about how they were the first company to region lock. Sony dropped the region lock, nintendo and microsoft still have it.

Also, they have no indie production capability whatsoever. If you are an indie developer and want to develop for the wii, piss off.

Sony's problems stem from the legal department and the media groups stepping on the gaming sections toes. if sony computer entertainment could tell sony music and sony pictures to go piss off, and could get the guts to tell legal to cool their jets, then they wouldn't have these PR problems.

Re:EULAs

[zzsmirkzz]

Sure it didnt do everything

Only it was, and still is, advertised as "it only does everything". I'm waiting for the suits for false advertisement to come along.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to remember ads mentioning that the online capabilities of the PS3 were key, and that people that didn't hook their PS3 to the internet were missing a key feature of the console. Wasn't it some Sony Executive? It was definitely part of a major advertising campaign.

Re:EULAs

[scubamage]

You're free to return the PS3 if you don't like the EULA? What provision of the EULA states that? You're telling me I could own a PS3 since their release date, then in september when Sony makes the change to the EULA, I am free to return it to Gamestop for a full refund? Where can I buy what you're smoking.

Re:EULAs

[shentino]

Good question indeed!

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, you have no "rights" to use Netflix on your PS3. People can get mad all they want, but Sony ISN'T breaking any laws! Yes I hate this, but:

1.) You can opt out. I don't own a PS3 so I don't know what the deal with that is.

2.) YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE PSN TO USE THE DAMN PS3. Thats like saying I bought my computer to use the internet, but because I didn't pay for my internet, it's the computer retailer's fault. Grow up.

You don't like what they are trying to enforce? STOP BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS. That is the only way you are actually going to make a difference. You have no "right" to connect to their network. I don't care how much you paid for the PS3, you don't own their network. Its a privilege to use it, therefore they can have crazy rules. They could charge $100/mo for access to the network, and you can't do anything.

If Netflix decided to pull their PS3 app, would you sue Sony? If you tried, you would be laughed out of court. The sole purpose of the PS3 is NOT to use Netflix. AND I can guarantee it says on the PS3 box that your use of the device to connect to the internet is subject to separate Terms of Agreement.

Sony has millions of dollars, and I can guarantee a kick-ass legal team. Why would they do something that had very little chance of holding up in court?

Re:EULAs

[mungewell]

You picked a bad analagy there... our 42" DLP TV has never been connected to an aerial/cable feed and we couldn't be happier (programming content is so bad these days I can't understand why anyone would put up with it).

Re:EULAs

[sjames]

It actually doesn't limit your rights at all. Without it, the default copyright law applies and you can't distribute at all. It expands your rights conditionally.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously didn't read it carefully, as if you send this in, your PSN account is immediately closed and you forfeit any money you have in your PSN wallet.

[citation needed]

Re:EULAs

[toddestan]

You have a 42" DLP TV that is only connected to a VCR?

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an American.

Many have woken up. In fact, most have--whether you agree with them or not, what do you call the Tea Party or Occupy Movements...just to name to household names currently enjoying press. But there are so many things wrong, and so many options of how to fix the problems...we are absolutely bogged down in the details of defining the problem.

The true problem comes down to this: Side A sees a set of problems and poses their solutions. Side B disagrees with the exact nature of the problem (but still says the problem is there), and poses their own solutions. Side A doesn't want to live in Side B's solutions, and Side B screams in terror of Side A's options. The "OTHER SIDE" is "nothing but a bunch of morons." The fact is, this nation is so large, and so diverse that there isn't even a consensus on what the problem is, let alone an acceptable solution/compromise/etc.

This once great nation can be great again. But it won't happen until cataclysm has engulfed it--economic collapse, and then a unifying enemy for us to fight. And even then, the danger of a Wiemar ending is very real.

Re:EULAs

[spire3661]

'I want everything'

'would that include a bullet from this gun?'

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to suck a big dick.

jaz

Re:EULAs

[man_the_king]

You obviously didn't read it carefully, as if you send this in, your PSN account is immediately closed and you forfeit any money you have in your PSN wallet.

Welcome to Slashdot, home of the anti-Sony trolls, where even the most outrageous lies about Sony will be welcomed with open arms, and has a 99.99 % chance of being modded "Informative", "Insightful" or "Interesting".

Carry on, my trolling friends, both posters as well as the Mods.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget even if you are success at returning the PS3 to Best Buy there will be a restocking fee. So you loose again (or better yet do not buy anything at Best Buy).

Re:EULAs

[willaien]

"You don't have to use PSN to use a PS3, and you are also free to return the PS3 if you don't like the EULA for its online component."

I do have to use PSN to consume some things I have purchased from the PSN. Which means that I have to agree to the EULA.

Meanwhile, can you tell me where I can return this PS3 "Fat" model?

Yo dawg

[kakyoin01]

We heard you like suing...

New XBOX LIVE EULA has a similar provision.

[Anonymous Coward]

What are the chances of a similar suit against Microsoft?

Re:New XBOX LIVE EULA has a similar provision.

[LordStormes]

I'm game. I was pissed when I had to agree to that to use my Xbox, especially since a) half of the Xbox experience doesn't work if not on a XBL Gold account, and b) MS didn't offer a "mail a letter to opt out" like Sony did. So MS' clause is actually worse, though I was willing to agree to it anyway because I don't have experience getting boned by them other than the absurd failure rate of the 360 hardware. MS got away with restricting me, because they haven't screwed me over at every turn. A novel concept - you earn goodwill in the marketplace.

To this day I have not upgraded my PS3 to the latest firmware due to that clause (haven't gotten around to mailing my +1 Postcard of Go Screw Yourself yet), rendering my PS3 a $300 Blu-ray player. In the meantime, I've not really missed it for games; I've just bought 21 more games for my 360. The postcard mailing becomes less important, and Sony loses another person who could have bought stuff, used PSN, etc.

Re:New XBOX LIVE EULA has a similar provision.

[mark-t]

I was pissed when I had to agree to that to use my Xbox, especially since a) half of the Xbox experience doesn't work if not on a XBL Gold account, and b) MS didn't offer a "mail a letter to opt out" like Sony did.

Could you please elaborate on point a) above?

Re:New XBOX LIVE EULA has a similar provision.

[Wamoc]

b) MS didn't offer a "mail a letter to opt out" like Sony did. So MS' clause is actually worse

I thought I remembered seeing that you could opt out by sending a letter in when I accepted the latest 360 EULA. I will have to check that again tonight...

Re:New XBOX LIVE EULA has a similar provision.

[jd]

See "Refund Day".

Re:New XBOX LIVE EULA has a similar provision.

[geekoid]

Send a letter. What crap.

Re:New XBOX LIVE EULA has a similar provision.

[LordStormes]

Without Gold, you can't use most of the video/audio offerings (which, after the recent Dashboard update, are in the 8 zillion range). You can't play online, and some DLC is restricted to Gold members only.

Re:New XBOX LIVE EULA has a similar provision.

[mark-t]

But, pray tell, what can you not do now that you used to be able to do?

Re:New XBOX LIVE EULA has a similar provision.

[LordStormes]

Nothing, because I accepted the updated TaCoS for XBL. I did NOT accept the TaCoS for PSN, and as such have lost all the online functionality of that device.

Re:New XBOX LIVE EULA has a similar provision.

[mark-t]

You said that "a) half of the Xbox experience doesn't work if not on a XBL Gold account". It appeared to me that you were inferring this was something reflected specifically by the new TOS, and not something that was always the case.

Re:New XBOX LIVE EULA has a similar provision.

[LordStormes]

No, I'm saying, with my PS3, when they changed the terms to be odious, I said, fuck it, I guess I won't take my PS3 online anymore. But since so much of what makes the 360 my favorite console is online/Gold only, I was willing to hold my nose and swallow the provision on the Xbox.

Re:New XBOX LIVE EULA has a similar provision.

[aitikin]

Well I didn't even notice that there was the opt out clause in Sony, so I never bothered at all with PSN. Now, I have a simple letter to draft and mail the day I sign up, so thanks for that.

Rights, in Canada

[Teunis]

One is not allowed to sign rights away in Canada, from what I heard (from lawyers, although I'm most definitely not one)
Mind, EULAs aren't normally considered binding either.

Re:Rights, in Canada

[spindizzy]

It's the same in Australia - case law here shows EULAs are [not] worth the paper they're [not] written on. Click through here is not a contract.

Doesn't stop both Australian and International companies pretending they are.

Or especially US companies thinking that US consumer laws with their appalling lack of protections apply here. They lose, a lot.

Consumer Law

[EEPROMS]

I can't speak for the rest of the world but here in Australia it is illegal to infer in a contract that a consumers "legislated" rights have been waved, from memory it's $10,000 per infringement.

Re:Consumer Law

[mattack2]

Australia it is illegal to infer in a contract that a consumers "legislated" rights have been waved

Good bye, rights. [hand waving] Byebye.

Re:Consumer Law

[Jackdaw Rookery]

It's unlawful here in Canada too. Seems like they can only apply this in the USA.

Re:Consumer Law

[jd]

I still think that plaintiffs should be able to feed CEOs of malignant companies to the salt water crocodiles. The TV coverage would be so much better than most of the regular programming and it shouldn't require that many before corporate practices clean right up.

Re:Consumer Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on the nature of the contract law. Seriously.

There's parts of the Civil Code under which Sony's license won't stand up in Texas Courts- in the large, you can't waive your rights under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA...) such as to be bound to arbitration with regards to the DTPA and where you can, you HAVE to have a Lawyer present and signing off on it as well as you doing it. This EULA change likely falls under one of the prohibited practices under which they can be held actionable under the law for. Sony has an official presence in Texas. You do the research and the math there. Willful and knowing violations of this law can weigh in with 6 times damages. Get a large enough group and you could get a class-action that can, even worse, drag any company into the Texas Federal District Courts and apply the law at the Federal level under Diversity if you can't apply it to the Texas based division.

Saying that this doesn't have legs...heh...it might.

Re:Consumer Law

[dwywit]

IANAL, but I understand, at least in Australia and perhaps the UK also, you *cannot* sign away your common-law right to sue. That means that all those so-called waivers people are supposed to sign before they can hop into a go-kart, play soccer, or whatever, are legally void. You might argue that the person signing should have been aware of the risks because they were spelled out in the waiver, but that doesn't stop the injured party from suing. All that stuff about "you can't sue us, even if we're negligent" is almost pure BS. Perhaps the same goes for Sony/MS EULA terms.

Re:Consumer Law

[Anonymous Coward]

PETA doesn't approve of cruelty to crocodiles.

Re:Consumer Law

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "imply", "waived" and most importantly, "$500,000".

Re:Consumer Law

[Taelron]

In California no clause is valid that restricts your rights to sue.

Ask IBM about this. In the early 2000's they went through and laid off a large group of workers. Many of the employees felt they unfairly were fired or forced to retire early. Many of these people had families and no other source of income. IBM offered severances to these employees but required them each to sign a waiver signing away their rights to sue the company.

Some of these employees had no choice and signed the agreement and took the meager pittance offered by IBM.

Now for the fun part, someone figured out that in California the law protects people from having their rights revoked. Those same employees joined together and sued IBM. The case lasted a couple of years. IBM even petitioned for dismissal on the grounds the former disgruntled employees signed waivers and received concessions (far below what that deserved). The California courts rejected IBM's petition and ordered them to pay up to a much higher level for all former employees. Those that had received the lower payouts received the difference.

What Sony is trying to do would be non-binding in California.

Re:Consumer Law

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not yet accept the EULA because of that specific clause, so no more online gaming for me for a while now.
I do feel cheated and would certainly put my name on a list for some compensation. Whatever is left after the lawyers get their share.
I also refused to take any of their "gift" when the service returned.

Anyway, I think the EULAs are a ridiculous idea at the base and should be regulated if they cannot be made illegal.

Re:Consumer Law

[Courageous]

Such terms could easily be void in many states. For example, I know that in California, there are employment contracts that are illegal to even try to make with a California citizen. Not that companies don't try. You'd be surprised at how many large companies can't keep track of individual state laws.

My girlfriend works in strategic HR for a fortune 500. They can barely keep track of the states where you cannot have "use it or lose it" provisions for vacation time, no less some of the more complex state laws regarding labor.

Re:Consumer Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegal yes, abused still - yes.

For example, if you read the contracts for the Vue you will find that the contract is packed with clauses for which if presented in court would result in serious infringement.

Problem is, it doesn't stop them from trying.

I could easily have signed out of these contracts, knowing that half the clauses won't stand up in court.. but I didn't because I also know that you can tie someone up in court for years for this petty mess, and in the mean time you are in financial straights with potential penalties to pay.

All in all, these people are evil.. but there is not much you can do about it.

The clause which really irked me came down to 'once the apartment has been signed off as suitable for habitation you must pay the balance within ...'
A good friend of mine found out that hard way that certificate of occupation does not mean much. It means that the building has 4 walls, doors and basic reqs - running water and sewerage.
It does not mean that the place is tiled, painted or completed in any way.
I pointed this out to the dodgy RE who were overseeing this sale.. but they don't care. They get their cut and move on.

Another was the clause where you have 10 days (!!) to inspect the new unit after they have issued notice, and if you don't inspect at the time allocated then you automatically accept and problems.

Another is where they state in the contract that you can only submit one complaint about any work issues *ONCE* and then the builder has the right to dismiss complaints.

Another where it says in the sunset clause that regardless of any of the above, legal action, or anything else, x days after being notified that you unit is ready the sale must be closed. This, btw, is the opposite of Australian law - you don't close a contract for sale of a property until all of the contract conditions are satisfied. You can't. This clause is seriously nasty as it has a penalty attached.

I would love to be able to attach a copy of one of those contracts right here.. you would really have to wonder what crack they were smoking.

Whoever drew up to contracts for Vue obviously has had great experience with screwing people over.

Re:Consumer Law

[Solandri]

IANAL, but I understand, at least in Australia and perhaps the UK also, you *cannot* sign away your common-law right to sue.

I haven't read Sony's EULA but my guess is it's probably the standard binding arbitration clause. It's not literally signing away your common-law right to sue like the summary implies. In a binding arbitration clause both parties agree to resolve disputes via arbitration instead of in the courts. You can't sue Sony, but neither can Sony sue you. You take up any issues with an arbitrator, who acts as judge and decides the case. Companies like it because it can't be dragged on for years and endless appeals like court trials.

Most states have pretty sophisticated laws regarding arbitration. So while it's not for all situations, it's certainly not necessarily slanted to favor companies. The big losers in arbitration are the lawyers who would otherwise be able to bill for months if not years of court and prep time.

That means that all those so-called waivers people are supposed to sign before they can hop into a go-kart, play soccer, or whatever, are legally void. You might argue that the person signing should have been aware of the risks because they were spelled out in the waiver, but that doesn't stop the injured party from suing.

AFAIK, that is the whole point of those waivers - written and signed proof that said person was aware of the dangers of said activities. That way when they sue, they can't claim "I never knew the playground was so dangerous!" It provides written proof that the case is not one of them being blindsided by an unknown danger, but rather one of them being aware of the danger but participating anyway. I don't think such a waiver which also gives up your right to sue would be legal anyway, unless it was a binding arbitration clause.

Re:Consumer Law

[Anonymous Coward]

I read through the PS3 EULA australian version. I did not see any reference to non class action/sue thing. my eula was last updated in 2008 according to the eula.

Re:Consumer Law

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're going to find that you will soon no longer be able to play blu rays as well...
SONY is almost fully purged from my household, now, but the last vestiges may take a while, because I rarely power them up (PS2 & 3).
It'd be nice to see them pushed from our country, one fewer set of criminals to have our government appease. Imagine how different Bill C-11 would be without SONY in the back room.

Re:Consumer Law

[Ixokai]

Umm. I can't reconcile your claims with the fact that I know Kaiser has a binding arbitration clause that has been upheld and enforced for like two decades in California.

You can't sue Kaiser here. People have tried to get around it but the courts have rejected it.

Now, perhaps there is a difference between "you may not sue me at all" and "you may only use this alternate limited resolution system which can't be appealed and which is rather stacked heavily in Kaiser's favor" to whatever this California law is that you're citing but "no clause is valid that restricts your rights to sue" seems simply factually invalid.

Re:Consumer Law

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what my Torts professor once called the 'befuddle the buffoons' agreement - he was talking about the consent form you sign when you go to the hospital for an operation - but same diff - it's essentially meant to trick the reader into thinking they can't sue. You can always sue. You may not always stand an iceberg's chance in h-e-doucle-hockey-sticks of winning, but you can always sue. The most obvious proof of that is the entire contents of Groklaw regarding the d-bags over at SCO, no? :)

Another comparable one I remember from back in Internet Explorer support days was a clause in the license agreement at the very bottom (where else) that limited M$ft's liability for problems related to IE to $5 and that by using IE (this was IE4, it was in the dark ages, yes) you agreed to that limit. Yeah right!

amigaboy

Re:Consumer Law

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the going bet that Sony will throw money at lawyers arguing that this lawsuit SHOULDN'T take place in California.

Re:Consumer Law

[VJmes]

I'd also like to point out that these offences don't require launching a civil case against the company. The ACCC (The consumer protection agency) will launch any legal case against the infringing company.

Re:Consumer Law

[Anonymous Coward]

1) PETA is a malignant organization.
2) The crocodiles would be pretty fine whether chomping on PETA or Sony leaders.

By the way, I heard that at one croc place the crocodiles were fed chicken meat for their meals, then the crocodiles ended up deformed. So the crocodiles were then fed whole chicken - bone etc (maybe even feathers? Can't remember) and the crocs did better on that.

Re:Consumer Law

[Taelron]

I dont know about the Kaiser case, but I know about the IBM case first hand...

Re:Consumer Law

[LordLimecat]

. Seems like they can only apply this in the USA.

Can a lawyer speak to this? Ive heard it depends a lot on the contract and how much pressure there is on the consumer to accept. I dont think its as clearcut as "Microsoft demands your power of attorney to use this version of Windows. Do you accept these terms? [I agree] [I decline]". Pretty sure THAT at least would be thrown out as unconscionable and nonbinding.

Re:Consumer Law

[bipbop]

Last time I was at Kaiser, they admitted me and put me on a saline IV for about fifteen minutes. Then someone came in, unhooked me, and told me I could go. I staggered to my feet, vomited blood on their floor, and protested, "but I'm still vomiting blood!" They replied, "Don't worry. We'll send someone to clean it!" and left.

Maybe I just had food poisoning and they couldn't do anything. I don't know, and I don't think they know either, because they didn't particularly try to figure out what was wrong, as best as I can tell. But hey, I survived! And I managed not to puke in the cab that took me back home.

Plus they billed me $1000 for 15 minutes of a saline IV.

Re:Consumer Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell this to AT&T and the supreme court...

Re:Consumer Law

[jimicus]

You're not going far enough.

First, you need to give the CEO something they'll like the look of and wrap it up in an EULA that includes a clause to the effect that "licensee may be fed to saltwater crocodiles on national television". That way, not only do you feed them to the crocodiles, they've explicitly agreed to let you do so.

Re:Consumer Law

[jimicus]

What Sony is trying to do would be non-binding in California.

It'd be non-binding in any sensible part of the world, I'd think. The whole point of many laws - particularly those designed to protect individuals - is to redress the balance when there's an otherwise uneven playing field; what's the point in having such laws if they can easily be signed away?

Re:Consumer Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes ... because there are only 3 countries in the WORLD where they sell play stations. The USA, Canada and Australia.

Re:Consumer Law

[GNious]

Good thing Sony US is not based in California!

Re:Consumer Law

[AmiMoJo]

Ditto the UK. Amazon did the only legally acceptable thing when they issued a partial refund for the loss of the Other OS functionality, and it would seem that the loss of PSN access and the ability to play games that need it is similar.

Re:Consumer Law

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the contract may be specifically under Californian Law and the specified court used to be the Northern California Federal Court (I think this was an issue in the George Hotz case) so I would be very surprised if Sony hadn't checked this.

Re:Consumer Law

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't speak for the rest of the world but here in Australia it is illegal to infer in a contract

The word infer makes no sense there. Not sure if you meant "imply" or "state" or what.

Re:Consumer Law

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you have against crocodiles?

Re:Consumer Law

[speedlaw]

Here in the US, that is any "new construction" contract for a NYC apartment. The best part is that during the bubble, most had "no contingency" for mortgages, so if you couldn't get the loan, the seller kept your 10% earnest money deposit.

Re:Consumer Law

[zzsmirkzz]

I still think that plaintiffs should be able to feed CEOs of malignant companies to the salt water crocodiles.

They are perfectly capable of doing so. Just not without consequence.

Re:Consumer Law

[jd]

Ooooh! I like! Shouldn't be that hard - you have to have some sort of business license, right?

Re:Consumer Law

[Ixokai]

I'm not saying the case doesn't exist, but that "no clause is valid that restricts your right to sue" doesn't seem to be accurate.

Perhaps there was something specific about the IBM case which in those specific circumstances the contract not to sue was invalid. Employment is a complex thing with a lot of laws, both federal and state, protecting and defining the relationship. Or, perhaps its the inverse, and in health care you have less rights then other places. But that seems wrong. Or, perhaps arbitration is special-cased as an alternate to suing that's just as good (though that is a joke) so it doesn't count as "restricting".

Either way though: /no clause/ is a very broad statement and seems quite demonstrably false.

Bought a Sony product?

[Ossifer]

Too bad, you got screwed... Now, do you plan on buying their products again?

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[future assassin]

>Now, do you plan on buying their products again?

Have you looked at the world lately? Some or really a lot of people will look the other way for what the stand for if it means a new shiny to show off to their friends.

My wife gave me a weird look when she said she was going to get the daughter a Sony eBook reader and I told her that there will be no Sony products in this house , ever.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[geekoid]

That's too bad, Sony makes some great products. So tell me, what bastion of perfection do you buy your goods from?

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forcing your view of Sony on others to the point your wife cannot own a Sony product should get you weird looks.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Anonymous Coward]

No they don't.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Anonymous Coward]

While no business is perfect and all engage in some form of legal ass-hattery, Sony is one of the absolute worst offenders.

A applaud the OP for his firm rejection of Sony. I also do not allow Sony products in my house.

My e-reader is a Kindle. Yes, I know Amazon has pulled their share of crap. But Amazon has not secretly installed a harmful rootkit on audio CD's I buy from them (as Sony did, and got sued for, and did again after that). Also, Amazon doesn't have a "you can't sue me" clause that comes along with the Kindle.

I choose the lesser of two evils, in hopes of punishing the greater of two evils until it lowers its evil back to a more acceptable threshold.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[tantaliz3]

Nope! I'm buying a Wii!! :D

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[tantaliz3]

Google.... (tongue in cheek)

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Anonymous Coward]

OpenBSD?

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony MADE some great products. That stopped around 2004.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Anonymous Coward]

To show our disapproval to Sony for it's attacks on consumers over the years, we should simply keep buying products with a shiny Sony badge on the front and ignore it ever happened? WTH? Here's a hint: other companies also make great products, and without Sony's shit-on-consumer baggage. Why is perfection a requirement? Other companies piss me off too from time to time. If they do it enough I stop buying from them too.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Anonymous Coward]

would you say the same if the same deal was perpetrated by a small business with an individual owner?

when its a big player, its a "shonky business practice", when its a small player, its "attempted fraud".

I'm glad sony got done.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a fallacy of excluded middle to me. A company doesn't need to be a "bastion of perfection" to be significantly preferable to (and less evil than) Sony.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[drinkypoo]

I'd say 1984. Some would say 1994, and I do have a receiver that does support that allegation. But 2004? [citation needed]

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Hatta]

I'm guessing he's a fan of the fat model PS2.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Anonymous Coward]

Recall that George Hotz was targeted by Sony because he revealed that their security model relied on a not so-random number generator that always returned the same value. It was a clear case of a corporation bullying someone who rightly criticized their system software and who had nowhere near the resources to fight back.

They then followed up by supporting the Protect-IP and SOPA acts.

I have no trouble finding alternatives to Sony products given their attitude towards their customers.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[BronsCon]

Amazon *has*, however, deleted books from peoples' Kindles (yes, I know they credited everyone for the deleted book, that's not the point). Meanwhile, Barnes & Noble has never done this *and* is standing up to MS regarding their Android patent trolling.

That, and Amazon stiffed me on some commission I earned a few months back. I'm still a bit butt-hurt about that.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[TheGratefulNet]

no, you first. what does sony make that you MUST have - that others don't also make?

this is not the sony of 20 or even 10 years ago. a lot has happened and sony is pretty damned evil, even by evil standards.

I'm a techie and I like modern toys; but I can't see any sony gear being in the must-have-it group. its really easy to not buy sony. really easy. if you can't, its because you simply choose not to vote with your wallet and are only interested in short-term gratification.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[TheGratefulNet]

I do remember the late 60's and all of the 70's and 80's. sony was huge during my lifetime. they were a proud brand, an honorable brand and their customer service was pretty good (I was able to buy schematics and parts over the phone, not even being a 'repair center'). build quality was something you could count on and the brand *meant* something. it had high value.

cut to today: they lost all of that. all of it. I go out of my way to avoid sony and their products and fees (which means I boycott BD software and players and anything that licenses blue ray). dvd is fine and I'll wait for the next format 'jump' and see if its worth moving to.

sony needs to break up. they can't be so many things and get any of them right. until then, its no sony for me, sonny.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Rik Rohl]

Anyone but them.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[aztracker1]

Honestly, I always liked a lot of Sony's hardware (outside their computers). But after the CD rootkit, and a few other similar infractions and having to uninstall their rootkit on a few dozen machines, create temp email account, install more crapware ActiveX via IE, agree to forfeit my email address to Sony, state again I want the rootkit gone, delete email account... On a few dozen computers...

I vowed to *NEVER*, *EVER* buy any Sony product again. I did buy a DVD box set of a TV series that was backed by Sony, before I knew a couple years ago. They have a history of doing crap like this, and really should not be a company that makes hardware *AND* media.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[virtualflesh]

I think this is a subtle, simple, and excellent question. To every business, the only vote that counts is the greenback vote. If a company is so distasteful that it goes against your very nature/religion/values, then *don't buy anything from them*. It's your choice. Soon they will go out of business or change their business to your liking. The only thing that matters to any company is the bottom line. It is a simple concept, upon which every simple or complex business decision is made. When they claim customers are #1, why do you think that is? Because customers vote with money. It is very simple - the consumer is in control. Consume deliberately.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's too bad, Sony makes some great products. So tell me, what bastion of perfection do you buy your goods from?

Satan offers awesome products as well, it will only cost your soul. For you, that would be totally worth it apparently.

Those who trade essential liberty for shiny bullshit deserve the police state they build around themselves.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Anonymous Coward]

more to the point: I don't buy sony not because they're evil, but because they screwed me and caused me to loss some money.

no need to include morality into the equation.

same apply to EA protected game or Sega half assed attempt to money grab with the total war franchise. I don't buy them either, not because I stand on a higher moral ground, just because I value my money.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[91degrees]

I refuse to buy Sony products because they *keep* pulling this sort of shit!

Shame really. I actually like the look of a lot of their products.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be comforting for you to live in a world where a) there is an unblemished supplier of consumer electronics and b) it's normal for a wife to unconditionally accept the edicts of her husband.

Or maybe b) was what the weird look was about, huh?

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[shentino]

According to the gaming crowd drunk on Sony's FUD, Geohot was a pirate who deserved every bit of what he got and is the lowest piece of scum that ever walked the earth.

Seriously, the gaming crowd HATES hackers, and I've been roasted and burned simply for defending them.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Keen Anthony]

I'd say Sony has made some great products beyond 2004, speaking strictly of television and audio. I still use my mini-Disc. It's still one of my favorite tools despite the availability of more expensive flash or SD card based audio recorders. I also prefer it for playback over my iPods. Software is a pain in the ass, but I digress. My Sony Bravia TVs from around 2006 still work very well despite heavy use. My fat PS3 is a great machine, well except for the matters being discussed here.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Aladrin]

Actually, over this and other recent actions by Sony, I won't. I cancelled my Vita pre-order.

I will be buying a few more ps3 games, and renting a few others... But I'm mostly moving away from consoles thanks to attitudes like this. And I won't buy Sony hardware at all. A company can make a few mistakes, but Sony has made just too many, and shown what they think of their customers.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowhere, maybe. I will gladly endure a lower-quality product or simply have nothing at all when the alternative is to purchase from Sony. Some people have principles, some don't. I have even committed to skipping this entire generation of video discs, as they are just as inferior as every other failed Sony format has been - Sony simply purchased market dominance for their inferior product. Sony, and everyone who supports them, can DIAF.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll be divorced soon. You're the nerd equivalent of the rednecks who are Ford people and refuse let anyone in their family to buy a Chevy product.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't buy any products because (according to you) he is only allowed to buy perfect products and all real products all have flaws. Right?

Oh wait, that is stupid and unrealistic. I mean that he is aware of the concept of "lesser of two evils" and buys from whoever he wants while avoiding the worst offenders. Sony is definitely one of the worst offenders.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[neonKow]

Still not Sony.

Honestly, if what Amazon did is enough reason to NOT buy their products, then you probably shouldn't be using any Apple, Microsoft, Cicso, Yahoo, IBM, or RIM (Blackberries) products. Their violations of people's rights go far beyond taking away a book you bought. Good luck keeping up a ban on those products in your house.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[neonKow]

What are the advantages of mini-Discs?

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[neonKow]

....and those people are all divorced? I would guess you're more likely to be divorced if you can't brand-hate a single company to support your spouse even if you think it's for an air-headed reason.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Agent0013]

Or getting a Sony flat screen TV that starts loosing the picture after two years. My In-Laws were bit with that and now Sony is on their shit-list. They aren't even techie slashdoters that would follow all the crap that Sony pulls on their customers. But now that they have been hit by a crap product with no support, they won't fall for that again.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's too bad, Sony makes some great products. So tell me, what bastion of perfection do you buy your goods from?

The one that doesn't feed money to Sony.

Re:Bought a Sony product?

[Keen Anthony]

A miniDisc player is both an audio player and an audio recorder. Providing you have the mic on you, you can make studio quality PCM recordings anywhere that are incredibly hi-fi. Using the stereo line-in input, you can record from just about anything, and using the line-out, you can playback through anything. So, strictly speaking, the recording power bests what you can do with any other DAP on the market. DAPs clearly offer more uninterrupted music due to large capacity internal storage, and I rely on removable storage (disc cartridges).

I use Hi-MD format miniDisc 1GB cartridges. That's it, there will be no better in the market place since miniDisc is officially dead. I get roughly 94 minutes PCM wav recording or more possibly using ATRAC Advanced Lossless, but if I use a lossy format like ATRAC (modern ATRAC sounds as good as LAME MP3), I can get about 7 hours in HI-SP mode (256 kbps) or 64 hours in HI-LP (60 kbps) which sounds good for spoken word (lectures, etc). Clearly, a FLAC or Apple Lossless based DAP with even 16GB flash memory is technically superior. I find that technically superior isn't all that. If a DAP gets data corruption, you're done listening to music until you fix it. The worst that can happen to me is that one of my cartridges is corrupted, leaving me with whatever I have remaining. I usually carry several cartridges. If I'm recording a performance, I don't worry about losing the entire set as I would with a DAP. The MZ-M200/MZ-RH1 supports MP3 too, though it's not gapless as with ATRAC or PCM. I can playback LAME 320kbps MP3s. Oh, I can also record data.

Beyond that, it becomes a matter of preference.

DAPs are all in one now with fancy UIs. That's superior to what I have. I've got a long stereo cable for my mic and I have a tethered remote where most of the MZ-M200's features are accessible. If there's an advantage, I suppose it's that fact that my spartan setup doesn't impact battery life. My screen is just two small OLED displays. Being used to interfaces like this on stereo hi-fi, I'm comfortable with not having album art or desktop metaphors.

Sony's equalizer actually is useful. It's just presets, but I've found enjoyment in each of them for different types of material. My iPod Touch and iPhone 4 have equalizer presets too, and I believe I've only ever found one that sounded like an improvement. The BBE in Cowon is probably better than what I have though.

A clear disadvantage is software. The only official application for transferring recordings to and from miniDisc is SonicStage, a dead Windows only product. I am a Mac user. I couldn't get SonicStage working with Wine. I have Sony's Hi-MD Music Transfer app which does the bare job of moving recordings around. SonicStage was deeper, allowing me to convert music to other formats from within, create titles, groupings, etc. In miniDisc, you aren't limited to just track numbers, You can group tracks together and move between groups. This gives you the effect of moving between albums. There is an FOSS project for getting miniDisc Hi-MD and ATRAC support in Linux, and I have heard you can do most of what SonicStage does now. But really, Windows is the best platform for miniDisc users.

So yeah, you have to be nuts to pick miniDisc for MP3 playback, but if you want lossless recording and playback, and you don't mind carrying cartridges, miniDisc sounds better than an iPod and gives far better recording options than any DAP once you get over the hump over internal storage. I come from the mix tape 70s/80s generation though. When I realized a few years back that I didn't *need* to have every album I own with me everywhere I go, it became easier for me to stick with miniDisc for playback.

Is this US only?

[Nick Ives]

I looked in the PSN agreement last time I updated a couple of days ago and couldn't see it; I live in the UK though. This sounds like it would be totally unlawful here.

Re:Is this US only?

[Narishma]

It is US only, and it's not just Sony, at least AT&T, EA and Microsoft have clauses like that in their recent updated terms of use. Microsoft doesn't even give you the option of opting out of it like the others.

Re:Is this US only?

[Wamoc]

It is US only, and it's not just Sony, at least AT&T, EA and Microsoft have clauses like that in their recent updated terms of use. Microsoft doesn't even give you the option of opting out of it like the others.

When I accepted the recent changes I thought I saw something about sending in a letter to opt out of that clause for the 360. I will have to see if I can find the text of it to check.

Re:Is this US only?

[msobkow]

It's illegal in Canada, too.

Only Americans, once the land of the free protected by their constitutional rights, are now willing slaves to corporatism. The rest of the world does not suffer CEO's who get paid 800% of what their employees do. The rest of the world does not allow EULAs and such to override constitutional rights.

Sorry, but the US is screwed. Big time. Your nation has gone so far off it's ideals and once shining examples that it's literally scary to the rest of the world, because you're trying to shove your fucked up legal approaches on the rest of us.

We won't have it. Screw the american system -- you DO NOT rule the world.

Re:Is this US only?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ever ran a business you would know that, in the US, it costs a shit load of money just to go to court over a measly little complaint. Like this crap with Sony.

In the normal course of Justice, a judge will look at people who actually were affected by it; that is, if someone DID try and sue Sony and Sony just told em to go away. In that case, someone else, like a lawyer or _another_ court, didn't do their job.

A court can only give damages to people who were affected, that is, the people who tried to sue. This class action lawsuit may result in a fine for Sony, maybe in a couple million, but the amount would be less than a few dollars per person affected.

Re:Is this US only?

[aztracker1]

Not everyone here wants it this way...

Re:Is this US only?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're indignant at CEO's *only* receiving 800% of what their employees receive?

Try 8,000% or even 80,000% for large companies.

$50,000p.a. * 80,000% = $40,000,000p.a. which is not uncommon.

(Unless you meant 800% of their total employee salaries.)

Re:Is this US only?

[Confusador]

And yet all of us accept it...

Re:Is this US only?

[RogerWilco]

The rest of the world does not suffer CEO's who get paid 800% of what their employees do.

Yes they do. 800% isn't that much, it's only a 8x difference. Try a 200x difference (20000%) and we're getting in the area of compensation of the directors of large multinationals.

There are plenty of corporations with a few thousand employees where the CEO makes more than a million a year. Inside and outside the USA. If the average wage is 50,000, then you already have the 800% mark up.

Re:Is this US only?

[Anonymous Coward]

it is illegal here in the UK, see the unfair contracts act:

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1074405689&type=RESOURCES

Re:Is this US only?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's illegal in Canada, too.

Only Americans, once the land of the free protected by their constitutional rights, are now willing slaves to corporatism. The rest of the world does not suffer CEO's who get paid 27000% of what their employees do. The rest of the world does not allow EULAs and such to override constitutional rights.

Sorry, but the US is screwed. Big time. Your nation has gone so far off it's ideals and once shining examples that it's literally scary to the rest of the world, because you're trying to shove your fucked up legal approaches on the rest of us.

We won't have it. Screw the american system -- you DO NOT rule the world.

FTFY

Re:Is this US only?

[Anonymous Coward]

800%.... LOL I think you mean 800x. Minimum wage in most areas is $7.25/hr. 800% of that is only $58/hr (~$120K/yr). Now if you move that decimal a bit, then you start seeing those fat CEO paychecks.

Side note: The US does kind of rule most of the world. It's pushed all kinds of BS legislation down the throats of other nations, as well as intimidated and even opressed others.

Re:Is this US only?

[Anonymous Coward]

...You know Sony is a Japanese corporation right?

Oh I see, shake your fist at the US and it's free mod points.

Re:Is this US only?

[Anonymous Coward]

800% is only 8:1, which the rest of the world does appear to suffer. You were probably thinking 800:1, but in that case you'd still be wrong as it's only the low low ratio of ~325:1.

Re:Is this US only?

[oreiasecaman]

800% = 9x, not 8x

Re:Is this US only?

[alexo]

It's illegal in Canada, too.

Only Americans, once the land of the free protected by their constitutional rights, are now willing slaves to corporatism. The rest of the world does not suffer CEO's who get paid 800% of what their employees do. The rest of the world does not allow EULAs and such to override constitutional rights.

We're getting there too, give us time...

Sincerely,
A disillusioned Canadian.

Re:Is this US only?

[VisceralLogic]

"800% more than" would be 9x, with an 8x difference. "800% of" would be 8x, with a 7x difference.

Re:Is this US only?

[DarthVain]

HA!

They don't even rule America!

Re:YourACoon

[Anonymous Coward]

No EULA is required to use free software. DISTRIBUTING software is a different matter. It's an important difference.

Not entirely. The EULA (that is, the GPL) is why I can make copies of my Linux install CDs and give them to friends. It is legal and it is not piracy because of the "EULA". You don't have to be a developer for this to apply to you.

Whereas with the EULA that comes with Windows, no such right is granted and doing that would be illegal piracy and could land you in court.

I understand the part about "must distribute source if you distribute binaries" gets all the attention but it is NOT the only clause of the GPL.

Common Nonsense

[WarpedCore]

I agree it's an unfair act to strangle customers with new provisions to older purchases. I don't believe I have a working system that could log onto PSN currently to accept those provisions but I'm considering sending an opt-out to Sony's legal department just in case because I have a lot of older digital purchases from the Playstation Network dating from 2006-2009. If a lawsuit does happen over the EULA and it works in the favor of people that are entitled to class action ability (or even the ability to launch a lawsuit on my own), I want to be a part of it.

You can't get a refund for anything on the Playstation Network. Trust me, I tried. After SCEA turned the keys over to SNEA (or whatever abbreviation Sony's using for their digital networking division) and the hacking that bought PSN down for a month, I wrote a letter to Sony explaining that I've lost faith in their digital service and their ability to secure vital financial and personal information and could no longer A) Be their customer B) Agree to their new terms because it's not the service I signed up for in November of 2006 (and it might have never been with the way EULAs are crafted). I can either have to forfeit your ability to log in or accept the new terms.

EULAs have become this living contract that only favors the company and totally, unconditionally screws the customer. Period. Sony is a case example of excessive abuse of EULAs because of their management and business shortcomings and have a total disconnect with their customers.

Re:Common Nonsense

[mattack2]

Yup, which is why A) I despise the concept of a "Living Constitution," and B) I feel those who support constant re-writing of what I once agreed to can go piss up a rope.

Yeah, 3/5 of a person forevermore, right?

Re:Common Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

You *never* agreed to the Constitution unless you're a lot older than I think you are.

Re:Common Nonsense

[mr1911]

Off topic, but a valid point.

Re:Common Nonsense

[ceswiedler]

I support modern interpretation of the Constitution (what the GP hates). But 3/5 of a person was changed in an amendment, which I'm sure he fully supports, not an interpretation.

Re:Common Nonsense

[king neckbeard]

That's a rather moot point, given that nobody in the US is LEGALLY a slave anymore, and the 14th amendment changed that anyway. Also, it's probably worth remembering who was on each side of the 3/5 compromise. The slaveholders were the ones wanting slaves to count as whole persons, and abolitionists were the ones wishing for them to not be legally counted as people at all. Counting slaves as whole persons gave an advantage to the slave states.

Re:Common Nonsense

[mattack2]

He said "re-writing". It seems to me that an Amendment is exactly re-writing, and not interpretation of what is already there. Especially since the 21st repealed the 18th.

Re:Common Nonsense

[geekoid]

Yes, screw what the fore fathers expected with what they wrote! I'm sticking with only men voting, and some people only being counted 3/5ths.

Racist Idiot.

Re:Common Nonsense

[Nutria]

Yeah, 3/5 of a person forevermore, right?

That's not what "Living Constitution" means.

Re:Common Nonsense

[geekoid]

every living constitution hater I have talked to do not agree with you. Only the original version.
Of course I have only talked to about a dozen of those fools so my sample size is tiny.

Re:Common Nonsense

[zippthorne]

You do know why that was in there, right? To prevent states from claiming proportionately larger representation in the national congress based on a population of people with no voting rights, and limited or no rights whatsoever. In short it was there to limit the representation of slave states, and without it, slavery may well have continued even longer due to the extra representation secured to slave states.

People bring up the 3/5's of a person argument as if it should've been 1, but really it should've been zero. And also included women, and all others permanently without franchise due to policies of the state.

Re:Common Nonsense

[ILongForDarkness]

So you were there and accepted the Constitution as it was originally written? Good for you.

Re:Common Nonsense

[ILongForDarkness]

But the Founding Fathers were never wrong.

Funny thing, I'm Canadian. We've been pandering to the french in Canada since at least 1970's when they had a lot of turmoil about losing their culture to the anglophones even though we won the war against the french. So we got language laws in the rest of the provinces that Quebec doesn't have to follow, government spends ~50% of the time speaking in french even though only ~30% of the population understands it well (and of those the majority would understand english too) etc. The US since the Civil War has been pandering to the south: agricultural subsidizies for crops that serve little use (really how much soy/corn should be in your diet and how much is subsidized to be grown? crazy), slow as hell getting civil rights laws passed even though that was at least partially the issue for the war in the first place, resistance to moving away from coal and oil, etc. Got to love them spoils the victors get, eh?

Re:Common Nonsense

[AK Marc]

There's no corn in the south. The subsidies are all for Iowa because Iowa votes first in the primaries.

Re:Common Nonsense

[atfrase]

Can any legal types comment on whether it would be viable to fight back with our own Service Provider License Agreements?

"By providing me, <NAME> with service, you, <COMPANY> agree to be bound by this Service Provider License Agreement (SPLA)..."

Could we craft a generic boilerplate SPLA with provisions that nullify these kinds of anti-consumer restrictions, and just all print them out and mail them en masse to the legal dept. of any company we do business with? Would it be considered legally binding on them, just exactly the same way EULAs are legally binding on us? Has this already been done?

Re:Common Nonsense

[Courageous]

It's called an Amendment.

Re:Common Nonsense

[Courageous]

He meant whole cloth reinterpretation, bypassing the constitution without amendment, which is the problem we have today.

Re:Common Nonsense

[Raenex]

You can't get a refund for anything on the Playstation Network.

I managed to get around $3 back when I declined one of their EULA updates, which was the amount left in my virtual "wallet" (leftover from renting movies, as they charge in minimum $5 increments). I also got a good price on eBay by selling my PS3.

Re:Common Nonsense

[Toonol]

Did you know that was only for purposes of census taking? There's no voting prohibition on race or gender in the constitution. That was completely left up to the states.

People are frequently taught the constitution was amended to allow blacks and women to vote. It wasn't. It was amended to force the states to allow blacks and women to vote.

Re:Common Nonsense

[aztracker1]

I think the disagreement with "Living Constitution" isn't with regards to being amendable so much as being re-interpreted in different ways than original intent. Such as glossing over the first amendment (which should take priority, as it came later) over international treaty (not amended into the constitution)...

Re:Common Nonsense

[Bob the Super Hamste]

The agricultural subsidies for the south are cotton and tobacco, not corn and soybeans. Corn and soybeans are because of Iowa going first in the presidential primaries. This is also why we have ethanol subsidies for ethanol from corn. Also dairy subsidies are based off of how far you are from Eau Clair, WI so you now have lots of dairy farms out in California in what use to be desert.

Re:Common Nonsense

[CanHasDIY]

He meant whole cloth reinterpretation, bypassing the constitution without amendment, which is the problem we have today.

Precisely what I meant, thanks for reading what I wrote instead of developing your own "modern interpretation."

Re:Common Nonsense

[CanHasDIY]

A) was off topic, yes, But B) was spot on.

Re:Common Nonsense

[CanHasDIY]

Hilariously, an apparently large demographic seems to think I was referring to A) when I wrote B)...

Obviously an indication of the failure of schools to teach reading comprehension.

For the record, no, I never meant that the Constitution shouldn't be amended, that would just be stupid (which, consequently, sums up my opinion of those who think that's what I inferred).

The term "Living Constitution" is often used by subversives who want to change the meaning of what was originally written to fit their idea of how things should be; the best example is how the 2nd Amendment, specifically the term "well-regulated," is reinterpreted by those who seek to disarm the populace. You see, when that document was originally written, well-regulated was a term defined as "functioning properly;" a clock that kept perfect time would have fit the description. Today, the subversives want us to believe that the founders actually meant to use the modern definition of regulation (which, consequently, did not exist in the 1770's), i.e. suffocation by bureaucratic red tape.

So, while many of you were too busy getting offended and calling me a racist (which I find quite funny, thanks for the chuckle), you completely missed the point I was making. I'm sure your current and former educators are beaming with pride.

Re:Common Nonsense

[neonKow]

You can change the constitution without using the Living Constitution argument, which is basically to try re-interpret the constitution for modern times.

The Supremes already ruled on this

[artor3]

The Supremes already ruled on this, and unsuprisingly we got a 5-4 ruling that corporations are better than people. Until the conservative stranglehold on the SCOTUS is broken, Americans won't be allowed to sue any company they've entered into a contract with. Now, maybe EULAs don't count for this. But given the court's corporatist bent, I wouldn't count on it.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[mattack2]

Why do you say they ruled that corporations are _better_ than people?

I would say that they argued that corporations are "essentially" (my term) people, legally, for some purposes.. and I think that's good. Money == speech, and I think the political donation rules should actually be relaxed a lot further, if not completely done away with, EXCEPT that all donations should be made public, regardless of size.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[bogie]

"If you think that Liberal or Conservative means anything other than flip sides of the same rotten corrupted coin, you're kidding yourself and lying to everyone including yourself."

They both may be greedy to the core parties when it comes to staying in power and doing favors, but if you paid even the slightest bit attention to how they vote on many key issues your statement couldn't be further from the truth.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[geekoid]

"... ruling that corporations are better than people."

sigh...Please just stop posting. If you stop posting on /., and start posting on FARK you would raise the average IQ of both places.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[Anonymous Coward]

"Money == speech."

Citation needed.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[DrGamez]

(This is how the Supreme Court ruled, they equated money with free speech)
I'd look up the exact ruling but if you can't be bothered to attach a name to your post I can't be bothered to google that for you.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that if I give money to a political candidate, it's MY money. If I, as a corporate officer, give corporate money to a candidate, it's SOMEONE ELSE's money. I think this is a crucial distinction that should not be overlooked.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[mattack2]

Yes, I know. (Not relevant to the legal decision, but I agree that money == free speech.)

What I'm asking is how that makes corporations _BETTER_ than people. It makes them _equal_ to people, in this specific instance (regarding this ruling).

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[wilder_card]

So we get to choose a candidate based upon which corporation has him or her in their pocket? Great.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[AK Marc]

SCOTUS = scrotum. Supremes - people who are supreme. That includes supreme singers and supreme court justices. Possibly not the most accurate term for justices, but not inaccurate, and you knew what he meant, so it was correct.

I am a Citizen of the State of Texas

There is no such thing. If you move away, your residency expires without any other actions. That's not citizenship, that's simple residency, same as any other state.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[Anonymous Coward]

Between two individuals with theoretically equal rights, the richer one is "better" -- they can more effectively defend their rights ... or trample on the rights of the other guy with a better chance of getting away with the abuse.

Between an individual and a corporation, when the corporation is afforded all the same rights as an individual, their massive money supply gives them pretty much free reign to trample the rights of real people. All in the name of "fiduciary responsibility to The Shareholders".

It's such a obvious logical progression that I'm astonished that I need to explain it to you.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[AK Marc]

Why do you say they ruled that corporations are _better_ than people?

All the rights, none of the responsibilities. It's impossible to send a corporation to jail for illegal acts that would get a person sent to jail. Many times if the corporation was a sole propriatership the owner would have been jailed for hundreds of years, the corporation gets a fine less than a month's profit (about a day's income). When the fine (no jail time, no felony conviction) for murder by a regular person is under $100 if they kill a manager in a publicly traded company, then there'll be some parity.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[artor3]

Corporations can, at will, strip any human of their constitutional rights, simply by inserting a clause in a contract. They can give unlimited, anonymous bribes to politicians. They pay little to no taxes. They can never be sentenced to prison. If by some miracle you do manage to sue them, they can give you the legal run around for decades -- they don't have a biological clock ticking away.

If you could be granted the legal rights of a corporation instead of those of a human, wouldn't you spring for the chance? In the eyes of modern American law, they are better than us in every way.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[mattack2]

Oops, sorry, I thought you were responding to me. I now see you were responding to a score 0 Anonymous Coward.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[cbhacking]

Well, I don't think they can get married. Of course, something approaching 10% of people can't either, at least not to the partners they would want to (not in any way that is recognized by the federal government).

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[PickyH3D]

I guess that depends on whether you are picking your candidates based entirely on their unlisted advertising budget, or based on other sources.

If you mandate that all donations must be made public, then you are going to see that Candidate X is donated to by any corporation, or individual in any amount.

I might take it a step further and create a government entity, or a new part to the GAO, whose sole purpose is to monitor political donations and act as a funnel to and from the money. All donations go through this service, untaxed, and they are explicitly selected by would-be donators for candidates. Candidates must register with the service to receive donations.

Then, all political activity must be done with funds from here, and all transactions are publicly displayed immediately. Candidates can self-donate to fuel their own campaigns, but suddenly that too is traceable. All political activity must then be driven from these accounts, which cannot be overdrafted against (requiring candidates to get real loans to go into the red). No exceptions. I would avoid exceptions to avoid gaming the system (e.g., "under a threshold" could be gamed by having multiple people pay for it).

It would likely be hard to prove that a given meeting was or wasn't political, but it would help to keep more people honest, and that could be further developed.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[JBMcB]

It's impossible to send a corporation to jail for illegal acts that would get a person sent to jail.

Then why is Bernie Madeoff in jail? His company was an LLC.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[aztracker1]

A corporation cannot vote... only a registered voter should be able to donate to a campaign. If a company wants to donate, give it to their employees, and state that they'd like them to support candidate X.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please!

If you can't understand the implication of this ruling, please kindly go back to being the City Manager of Tuttle, Oklahoma.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh. Because a human being can be imprisoned and a corporation can't.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[Ash-Fox]

It's impossible to send a corporation to jail for illegal acts that would get a person sent to jail.

I don't think having a certificate of incorporation put behind prison bars is going to do anything.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[shentino]

Some will even do you the favor of firing you if you don't.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly offtopic but why can't internet be a right? http://viboot.com/

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[Tim C]

They can't get married, but they can partner or merge with, or buy out, other corporations; that would be the equivalent at least conceptually.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[neonKow]

People only marry because we haven't developed the technology to merge conciousnesses, bodies, and property with our loved one(s). While laying off our subsequently extraneous appendages.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[AK Marc]

They managed to identify some illegal acts by a particular person in the corporation and convicted him. That is about the only exception. Even all the Enron execs had their convictions vacated.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[AK Marc]

When you are in jail, can you freely conduct business? No? Then "jail" should be the same for a corporation. Like a forced bankruptcy.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[Ash-Fox]

When you are in jail, can you freely conduct business?

Yes.

Then "jail" should be the same for a corporation.

Considering "jail" isn't the same as "prison" and rights have not necessarily been removed when in "jail", you have your wish.

With regards to putting a corporation in prison, I don't see how that stops anyone from creating a new corporation on the fly to do the exact same violation then. Having a corporation temporarily suspended for say... 50 years for the act of one person is non-sense.

This is why when a given person is found responsible, that person is sent to prison instead of the corporation.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[AK Marc]

Putting the piece of paper behind bars would be silly. Placing the corporation under receivership is the corporate equivalent.

Re:The Supremes already ruled on this

[JBMcB]

That is about the only exception.

Tell that to Bernie Ebbers, Ivan Boesky, Tony Rezko, Lou Pearlman, Michael Miliken... I could check the references in my business law book and pull out a couple of hundred more.

Even all the Enron execs had their convictions vacated.

Skilling is in jail. Fastow is almost done with his term. Causey just finished his term. Lay's sentence was vacated after his death. Not sure where you are getting your information.

what i don't get about eulas

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree lots of EULAs these days are one sided crap, with terms like, "We can change these terms any way we want and all you can do is suck it up".

I even see that often you can't see the EULA until you buy the product, which seems horribly unfair to be "bound" by it then. I should think that would be found illegal, even.

But once these terms are well known and publicized, what I don't get is, why does ANYBODY else ever buy that product again? Why would any otherwise sane person buy a product which to continue using as intended, you have to give the company you bought it from that much control, and the ability to *change the terms* later on without you being able to to jack except stop using the thing?

If people just woke up and said, "hey, that's idiotic!" and stopped forking over $$ for that particular item of entertainment, the terms would change within days. Nobody *needs* a PS3. It's a luxury item and there are plenty of other ways to scratch a gaming itch without agreeing to such terms.

It seems to me like, I say, "Hey, I'll sell you this sandwich for 5 bucks". You say, "OK". I say, "Wait, there's more. You have to agree to anything I tell you to do ever again". Why in the name of sanity would you say OK to that too?

Re:what i don't get about eulas

[cryoman23]

because that someone already paid for and ate the sandwich before you told then the second part of the terms, thus to "return the product" get rather messy...

Re:what i don't get about eulas

[cheros]

That's what is so wrong about the Sony "Other OS" change. I didn't sign for them having the ability to damage my goods on remote later, so I'm amazed they got off scott-free.

XBOX 360 NEXT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft just added this to their agreement this month.

Re:YourACoon

[Bert64]

If you are making copies of Linux CDs then you are DISTRIBUTING...
As XanC said, you don't need to agree to the GPL if you only want to use or modify the software yourself... Its terms only apply if you distribute it, and giving copies to friends counts as distribution.

Re:YourACoon

[Fred Foobar]

No EULA is required to use free software. DISTRIBUTING software is a different matter. It's an important difference.

Not entirely. The EULA (that is, the GPL) is why I can make copies of my Linux install CDs and give them to friends. It is legal and it is not piracy because of the "EULA". You don't have to be a developer for this to apply to you.

You're stating the exact same thing as the parent you replied to. What are you doing when you "make copies of my Linux install CDs and give them to friends"? You're DISTRIBUTING it. The GPL (which is not a EULA because it doesn't apply to the end-user but to anyone distributing it) gives permission to distribute the software with a few conditions on such distribution.

Whereas with the EULA that comes with Windows, no such right is granted and doing that would be illegal piracy and could land you in court.

Even in the absence of an EULA, it's still illegal. (Of course, an EULA almost invariably does not grant the user any additional rights (eg, to use the software) beyond what they already had in the absence of the EULA. But I'll save that discussion for another time.)

There's the legality of EULAs

[jd]

That is something the courts have been hesitant to rule on but I believe that the US courts have ruled things like First Sale Doctorine, etc, take precedent over any such agreement. (ie: the EULA can't violate the law or otherwise impose a system contrary to the law.) Not being able to sue Sony in the event of Sony violating civil law - ie: denial of access to any system that can give relief - is usurping the courts entirely. This might not go down too well with judges, since if it's allowed, any product could have such a provision. If they allow one company to exempt itself from the legal system, they create a precedent (something judges are VERY loath to do) and case-law which would essentially state that any company could stipulate that a purchaser can't sue.

The civil court system depends heavily on people being able to sue each other. If the civil court system were to allow one party to opt-out, those judges and lawyers dependent on the lawsuits for work would be out of business. I just can't see the judges voluntarily writing themselves pink slips.

Personally, I think there's way too much litigation in the US, but this isn't the right way to reduce it. Especially in Sony's case, when fewer rootkits and more security admins might have been cheaper and have produced better results than hiring lawyers.

Re:There's the legality of EULAs

[Simply Curious]

I believe they get around it by saying that all disputes must be decided by arbitration, and not by a class action lawsuit. Therefore, it is not depriving someone of the court system, only of the most useful part of it.

Heh.

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can't sue me, you signed a contract saying you wouldn't!"

"Oh yeah? We'll see who's right... IN COURT! Buahahaha!"

In New Zealand

[viperidaenz]

The only way you can contract out of law is if it is expicitly stated in the law that this can be done.

Re:In New Zealand

[Master Moose]

Except if a big player like Warner Brothers makes enough of a stink about it. . Then you just change the law to suit.

Re:In New Zealand

[viperidaenz]

Perhaps in other countries...
All they do in new zealand is force upon us idiotic online piracy legislation

Re:In New Zealand

[Master Moose]

Do you not remember the concessions made to the current employment law specifically around the Hobbit Filming?. . Or am I rememberising things wrong?

Re:In New Zealand

[viperidaenz]

I blame that on the unions. The actors were always independent contractors, not employees. They just changed the law to reflect that. Its stupid to assume someone hired for a time limited project should be covered under normal employment laws.

disclosure: I despise unions. they do nothing to help workers - their only purpose for being is to fund those who manage them.

Re:In New Zealand

[Master Moose]

I agree with the principles of unions but agree totally about the way they are run and thusly despise them also.

Disclaimer: I work in HR.

Sony will win

[bigsexyjoe]

Think about it. To get a job you have to sign an "at-will" contract waiving your employment rights. So now you will have to waive rights to sue and waive consumer protections when you buy products. I suppose you will eventually have to make a similar agreement when you buy food to agree to waive FDA regulations.

No more rights. We shall live in a libertarian paradise in which artificial entities will have unlimited freedom to take liberties with you and you will have an unlimited liberty to eat their shit.

Re:Sony will win

[ledow]

I don't know what country you live in, but in mine you can't sign away rights. Especially employment rights. This is why HGV drivers *can't* drive for more than X amount of hours no matter what they sign, or why employers can't force you to lose membership of your union if you work for them, or why you're not just given a "Health and Safety Exemption Disclaimer" on your first day at work, etc. It is illegal for a corporation to try to take away the option to use an assigned right. They can say it, they can make you sign every bit of paper in the world, it means nothing in court.

If you have a right, it's unassignable, even if you sign it away. The signing away means nothing in itself because you *can't* forgo a right, which is why a lot of contracts remind you that your "statutory rights" are still applicable. They don't even need to say it, like saying something is "copyright" - they automatically are anyway. If someone sells you something that blows up in your face when you open it, you can still sue them under a million and one laws and rights given to you EVEN IF you agreed to the EULA that said it will maim you when you open it.

Some people, it seems, think that because something looks legal and binding that it somehow is, or that signing that you agreed to it means a court can't just say "No, sorry, doesn't work like that". Otherwise, you would have no rights AT ALL. Just because I sign a contract saying that my employer can whip me if I don't perform well enough at my job (because otherwise they wouldn't let me HAVE the job), doesn't mean it would actually be LEGAL for them to do so or that it's not ILLEGAL to have that clause in there in the first place. And just because a prostitute signs a bit of paper with her pimp that says she has to has sex with him for the next 20 years doesn't mean it's at all binding - the contract in itself is invalid and illegal whether it exists or was signed consensually or not.

That's how the law system works - there are hierarchies of the law and, sensibly, at the top are fundamental rights (and this is why it's STUPID to talk of things like Internet access becoming a "right", even in the modern age). Of course it's a money-spinner, but only if you're stupid and don't understand the law yourself. Even countries have to abide by the laws and rights they agree to - ask the UK about their opinion of the EU Court of Human Rights that overrides just about every "contract"/idea they come up with to screw the public sector, taxpayer, etc. for example.

My own country banned prisoners being able to vote and because it infringed on a fundamental right given to them, it was overruled. You can make all the laws you want, but it doesn't infringe on your rights. It'll be hassle, cost money, maybe cost you vast portions of your life to fight it, but it's still a right.

Sony will almost certainly lose if they don't forfeit early. Some things you just cannot sign away so easily, and some things you *can* sign away but only in certain ways (i.e. a blanket "can not sue" on a consumer product is a bit ridiculous, legally, but might apply if they were to narrow the terms and negotiate a business deal with a corporation, for example). The problem is, because people are just that stupid to think that it was in any way legally binding, the lawyers will be very rich before they do

Re:Sony will win

[Courageous]

As a refinement, there are many states where making the employment sign the agreement to give away their assigned rights is itself both illegal and actionable. Although if there was no other harm done (other than the illegally made agreement), I won't go so far as to say that damages are particularly likely.

Re:Sony will win

[slothman32]

Mostly offtopic but why can't internet be a right?
Can electricity be a right?

As for costing "vast portions of your life", if it does then is it really a right?
A technical right and a useful right are different.
The right to free press only applies to those who can afford a press, not poor people.

I do like you country's idea of allowing prisoners voting ability.
Of course I am for absolute "no taxation w/o representation."
Even a baby or child or insane person shouldn't have laws apply to them if they can't vote.

Re:Sony will win

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree with all your post - which if I had mod points, I'd certainly boost - apart from one minor point. It's the European Court of Human Rights and has nothing to do with the EU.

It covers more than the 27 member countries of the EU (see European_court_of_human_rights for details.

I feel a bit pedantic raising this and only mention it because in the eyes of some (particularly the Daily Mail) there's a general conflation of Europe as a geographical entity, the EU, European Parliament, European Commission and Euro currency -- virtually all are seen as the source of all the world's ills.

The ECHR was a shining example of multiple parties wanting to behave in a civilised way after the carnage of the Second World War.

Re:Sony will win

[ledow]

Because it trivialises other rights, and would mean that your ability to get on the Internet trumps your ability to, say, earn money (which *isn't* a right), or have a house, or be given food when you have no money - and a million and one other things that *aren't* rights and are vastly more important than being given a connection to the Internet.

Rights are the top of the pyramid. To put things like "Internet access" up there just trivialises everything below it and there are still a million problems below it that people *should* be given before they start demanding that their ISP's *can't* cut them off even if they pirate movies.

I'd much rather see much more important things such as "the right to be fed, no matter what", "the right to free healthcare", etc. up there.

GameStation EULA collects 7,500 souls

[oaksey]

I liked what GameStation did last year :)

GameStation EULA collects 7,500 souls from unsuspecting customers
http://www.geek.com/articles/games/gamestation-eula-collects-7500-souls-from-unsuspecting-customers-20100416

Re:GameStation EULA collects 7,500 souls

[forkfail]

Did you know that GameStation is an anagram for Mite go Satan?

Small loss

[tgibbs]

For the most part, class action suits over consumer electronics are a lawyer scam with little if any benefit to the consumer. The lawyer files a class action suit for a huge amount of money and calls a press conference, then offers to settle for a much lower amount of money. The company almost always settles regardless of whether the suit has any real merit, because it is cheaper than going to court, and ends the bad publicity sooner. Individual users get a pittance, like a discount certificate for more of the company's products. Most of the time, the benefit to the individual consumers isn't worth the time it takes to fill out the paperwork (after all, the price of a game console isn't that great, so how much can you expect to get from a "defect" that only partially compromises its functionality?). But the lawyer gets a slice of all of those piddly little settlement, and takes home a nice bundle for very little work.

Re:Small loss

[91degrees]

The benefit to the customers here though, is that Sony will be forced to remove that clause, with additional benefit that other companies will be deterred from doing this.

So even if the console owner gets nothing, they're back in the position they were in before which is what the court should be doing.

Re:Small loss

[tgibbs]

So the benefit to the consumer is that other companies will be deterred from prohibiting class action suits that benefit nobody except lawyers? Wow, huge benefit!

Re:Small loss

[91degrees]

No. No benefit at all. Why should you benefit? You haven't lost anything.

Re:Small loss

[forkfail]

Not really. What about if Sony's poor account security leads to a million customers having their debit card accounts cleaned out?

Not so trivial then.

Re:Small loss

[tgibbs]

In which case they'd be far better off suing or pursuing arbitration individually than hoping for a class action settlement from a lawyer with a financial incentive to settle for pennies on the dollar

Sony Never Has Been A Consumer Friendly Company

[TheAppalasian]

Bottom line: Sony does not care about customers. Since the "Sony/BMG root-kit" fiasco, it was clear to me that the ethics and the consumer friendliness of Sony didn't deserve my business. I've boycotted Sony products since then. I even don't buy blu-ray discs because Sony benefits from the licensing. What else, oh yeah, the lack of security and failure to protect consumer personal information and your credit card data is more proof that they aren't doing the right thing for the customer. Now this. Sony doesn't want to respect your rights, too. Seriously Sony, WTF. In my opinion, I was right to boycott Sony before, and this doesn't change anything.

fsck sony

[Anonymous Coward]

eom

Re:YourACoon

[Toonol]

Thr GPL isn't a EULA. You do not have to agree to any terms to use GPL'd software. The licensing terms are only relevant if you wish to redistribute in a manner that you wouldn't be allowed to under normal copyright law.

All those programs that make you agree to the gpl at installation are wasting time, and may not even understand their own license.

WTF, "illegal to infer"? Is it 1984 down in Oz?

[Anonymous Coward]

You inadvertently made a (chilling, big-brother-esque) joke, but infer does not mean what you, or indeed, many people, think it does.

There's actually quite a bit to making a law...

[bratwiz]

Companies don't get to arbitrarily make laws.

I should say not! There's actually a lot more that goes into making a law. First you have to buy yourself a politician. For some laws you might need to buy several. Then you'll need to write the text for your new law and give it to your politician's staff so they can get it ready for passage. Then you'll need to tell your politician which way to vote-- it might help to pin a note to their shirt and make arrangements for transportation to and from the voting place as politicians are notoriously useless without proper handling.

Trade it

[Stratus311]

Seriously, if what Sony does pisses you off, do what I did and put your PS3 up on Craigslist to trade for a 360. I personally didn't use it for Blueray functionality and if I really needed it in my office (where my 360 lives), I can pick up a cheap Blueray for next to nothing now.

EULA's are garbage

[Uberbah]

Contractual terms have to be mutually agreed to before money changes hands. And unless you're spending a serious amount of money (corporate site licensing for Windows, Oracle database) you're probably not doing that.

Intimidation only

[wye43]

Obviously the "no sue" provision cannot be enforced since its illegal. In any country. They've put it there to intimidate some people. For them, its all about the bottom line. If even 5% of people get intimidated and they don't sue Sony because of that clause, its a win for them.

And Sony is not the only company that does stuff like this.

The only way to get rid of such crap are suits like this one. If they realize such provisions are biting their ass causing losses instead of guaranteed wins, they will stop putting them.

Re:YourACoon

[maxwell demon]

Indeed, as long as you don't distribute the result (and don't violate any proprietary EULA in the process) you can even legally combine GPLed and proprietary code into one program.

Which ones?

[Anonymous Coward]

> So tell me, what bastion of perfection do you buy your goods from?

I have to check, because I don't remember..... looks like it was from Westinghouse? At least, that's who I chose instead of Sony just the other day. I don't know about GP, but they could always get one of the other ebook readers, or hell, why not just get a tablet? It's not like it's Sony or nothing... though I might just choose nothing if it were.

I don't need a "bastion of perfection" really, but I do require that the people I purchase from to not be actively screwing me. Sony tried to give people rootkits, mishandled the PSN hack in almost every possible way, took away OtherOS and has taken away any legal recourse. I'm sure as hell not going to give Sony my business. At this rate, they're going to have a hard time becoming any more evil. I think they'd have to start filling their boxes with fire ants and forcing us to pay them to send an exterminator to top all the crap they've already pulled. And someone would probably just point out that it'd still be fewer bugs than Microsoft has shipped out....

It's not 6 years old

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they changed the agreement less than 30 days ago. Therefore the product is now a new product and only 30 days old.

If the retailer is not a party to the transaction, then the retailer is guilty of theft: they had no right to ask for money since they were not part of the transaction.

I prefer the luddite approach

[sarbonn]

I know this isn't going to be popular with a lot of people who like to be a lot more reactive, but having been screwed by Sony (and its affiliates) in numerous different areas (their tendrils stretch pretty damn deep), I've made all attempts to separate myself from anything that has the name Sony on it. I went into buy a new TV a few months ago, and at the end, I chose a different brand than Sony mainly because it had the name Sony on it. I own a Playstation 3, which I've pretty much stopped using other than to watch DVDs on it. Recently, I bought a non-Sony Blu-Ray player; my Playstation 3 may be disconnected and stored in the closet forever very soon. When this whole EULA thing came along, I just attributed it to anti-customer behavior that Sony has displayed EVER SINCE I'VE EVER DONE BUSINESS WITH SONY. So, little by little, Sony is making it very easy for me to avoid suing them in the future because at every turn, I avoid buying anything with the name Sony on it. Hell, not so long ago, I decided NOT to play an online game that was being distributed by Sony (not made by them, but just distributed), so because their name was attached to a game I thought about playing, I boycotted it instead. May not have hurt them in the long run, but it made me feel good, and in the end, their game tanked as well. Probably not from my actions, but had the name of Sony been better, they would have gotten my business, and maybe (along with many other people) we would have done something about making sure it didn't tank.

Can't you guess?

[bigsexyjoe]

I live in the US. The land of the free, the home of the brave (is becoming more and more irrelevant). What country are you in? Do they have a liberal immigration policy?

Take it back to the store

[Anonymous Coward]

I think people should take their playstations back to the store and ask for their money back in stead. This would create real preassure on sony withouth wasting my resourses on lawsuits and enforcements. I do not want to have a playstation. That is the ethical and correct way to do this.

It is just a lot easier to sue, but if one can come together for suing, one can also all go back to the store, and if they refuse, stop shopping there. But sadly people are lazy, and they just want to keep on playing on sonys machine.

Uh, yes they do.

[AdamJS]

One way or another, their laws will eventually be your laws. You can whine about it all you want, but the American corporations run the whole world, not just one continent.

The Reason for a You Can't Sue Me Provision

[Nom du Keyboard]

Why would Sony feel the need to include a You Can't Sue Me provision in their ToS?

Common Sense sez: Because they are already planning to be doing things to you that you will want to sue them for.

-- you DO NOT rule the world.

[ace37]

Who said we did?

Hint: not us.

Sony should counter-sue

[Shompol]

For breaking their "no suing" provision

Nope, GP is right.

[zooblethorpe]

Using absurd generalizations when describing people that live in the US is an example of your ignorance. The US takes a heap load of shit when making generalizations about Arab countries but generalizing about the US population is always justified and proper according to your warped reasoning. I am glad you didn't get your permanent US citizenship but why did you apply in the first place? Do you consider yourself so smart that all your generalizations about the US would never apply to someone as exceptional as yourself? The US is the most diverse society on the planet in religion, race, and ethnicity. I don't know when the US was ever a "great nation" because it has always had it's problems and incompetent leaders just like every other country. US equality, justice, and democracy is just a goal that should be worked towards. This process has been ongoing since the birth of the nation and it has had mistakes and triumphs in trying to reach the goal. Thankfully the US public is slowly but surely reaching the point where they don't give a shit about foreign countries problems and desires. You think the US has been making unilateral decisions but you have not seen anything yet. And the US did over react to 9/11, especially with the Iraqi war and extended Afghanistan operations but at least the US did react while other countries just set around with their thumbs of their ass criticizing US decisions.

I live in the US. I grew up here. My family has been here for at least four generations, with some branches being here longer than the country has (one branch in particular, for millenia).

The GP is right. Things here are ugly, and getting uglier. Meanwhile, your post is confused and self-contradictory.

• You think the US has been making unilateral decisions but you have not seen anything yet -- this is not apologia, this is "hey, we're only getting started being assholes!" -- which seems to fully back up the GP's points.
• The US takes a heap load of shit when making generalizations -- and well we should, especially when those generalizations lead to bombs and massacres. We're the biggest bully on the block, and we're so odious that we don't even like ourselves, and a growing portion of us citizens are beyond fed-up with the situation, as amply demonstrated across the political spectrum by the Tea Party, the Occupy movement, and even by nutters going after members of congress.
• US equality, justice, and democracy is just a goal that should be worked towards. This process has been ongoing since the birth of the nation and it has had mistakes and triumphs in trying to reach the goal. -- As numerous other threads and posters have pointed out, wealth distribution in this country is, or at least is approaching, the most unbalanced it's been in the whole of US history for which we have broad-based statistics. That's bass-ackwards from trying to reach that goal -- the powers that be here are going full-steam in the opposite direction.
• Thankfully the US public is slowly but surely reaching the point where they don't give a shit about foreign countries problems and desires. -- The world is increasingly interconnected and interdependent, and you hold up this rise in US public apathy, self-isolation, and and self-absoption as a good thing??? (And if you didn't intend to suggest this is good, your writing could use some help.)

Ah, fuck it. "Rah, rah, USA!"

... now where were those Canadian immigration papers...

Re:Nope, GP is right.

[cavreader]

My writing could be better but I struggle when using my phone to post messages. The small keyboard and limited amount of text that can be reviewed without scrolling is a pain in the ass. And don't confuse isolationist with non-intervention. The US leaves Iraq and the very next day the chances of civil war take center stage. The US should ignore it and let it play out without bothering to get involved at any level. The same thing will happen in Afghanistan when NATO leaves except it will end up impacting Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. The Israel/Palestinian conflict should also be ignored since if any agreement is ever reached it will be the Israelis and Palestinians making the decisions. One potential drawback of staying neutral in this particular conflict is that the US will not have any influence on Israeli military actions. Isreal is perfectly capable of handling 3 Billion dollars in aid. They could recoup any shortfall by selling advanced weaponry to countries like China which the US now prevents. There is certainly no other country willing to stand up to Israeli military actions outside of using heated rhetoric and meaningless UN agreements. So once again the US should let the situation play itself out. Any foreign conflict that does not have a direct impact on US interests should be ignored. If the winners of these foreign wars form a formidable block aimed at harming US interests at least they will be a well defined target when push comes to shove. Commercial ties should be maintained where possible but any other problems should be ignored. Any international agreement's should be handled bi-laterally. It is what the world is asking for so the US should oblige. The US is not in military danger except for ICBM based weapons and only a few countries possess that ability. Russia and China have proven themselves very sensible when it comes to nuclear weapons but the hot heads and non-government militant groups in the middle-east are entirely another matter.

Serious question

[zooblethorpe]

So if a parent sets up a PSN account for their minor, does that minor have legal authority to accept EULA updates?

Re:YourACoon

[sjames]

Further, unlike a EULA, the GPL grants additional rights you wouldn't otherwise have (distribution modified or not with conditions) while a EULA typically seeks to revoke rights you already have.

It's more like a distributor/developer license grant.

Hate some of these comments.

[Anonymous Coward]

In particular, the "I'll never buy sony again" ones.
...why do you care? Move on.
Now, there are people like me who DO plan on buying sony products again and would rather this attitude of Sony's be fixed rather than just saying, in essence, "Oh i give up"