Court Rules Sony Can Change PlayStation Terms of Service

[viranimus]

No. You do not own the Playstation Network. You own the Ps3, and thats the extent of it. They can dictate how you use your Ps3 to interact with their network.

Your exactly right, you dont own the PSN. you own the PS3, however this patch can make it so that the software you bought to play exclusively offline and not attached to the PSN unplayable because of mandatory software contingencies from individual PSN firmware updates.

Ill give you an example. Dark Souls utilizes network access for extra features. If you did not agree to having your PS3 fully updated, you will not be able to access portions of the content of the game you bought. However, we will not focus on that even if its utter bullshit because free network play IS a selling feature of the device. But I digress, The problem is, that Dark Souls requires a certain level of PSN firmware to even be playable. I Repeat, if you want to play the game you bought in a single player offline capacity you have to update your firmware. Now, the firmware the game requires does not require the patch that forces you to waive your legal rights in order to get the patch, however if you try to update your firmware directly via PSN, you will be given the newest most up to date patch which includes the waive your legal rights provision. Thus Sony is doing MUCH more than dictating just how you access their network, they are dictating how you utilize your hardware as well as non proprietary software. That is exactly what is wrong, That is WHY this needs to be fought because this has to be stopped because its already out of hand.

So therefore the legal responsibility there does not fall to Sony. It falls to the publisher of Dark Souls, as they are the ones who sold you the product that won't work for you. You and Sony have an agreement - you keep your right to sue them, Sony don't let you on their Network. Namco have sold you a game that requires you go onto their network to be able to play it single player. So therefore, take it up with Namco. Your agreement with Sony remains exactly the same as it was before, now you need to make Namco not force you into that decision.

You are trying to take the wrong person to court, here.

No, because its still Sony putting that into place and holding it over the heads of the developers to include a requirement for that patch based on design elements. Also it is Sonys responsibility to enforce on its third parties its disclosure notices on packaging, and at no time ever has the outside packaging of any Sony game first party or third party ever detailed "Requires Patch X.YZ" So as to warn people what freedom they have to sign away in order to utilize the software. Basically leaving the consumer in a situation they simply will not know until they crack the cellophane thus making the software un returnable. Other details and applications of this are listed in my prior posts edit.

EDIT:
Now my question is, do you hear yourself? Your actually suggesting that Sony is not to blame for this even though Sony is the one who created this problem by implementing this provision to their network access. All this does is gives Sony the freedom and protection to swat away any sort of litigation by forcing it to be handled on an individual basis rather than a group representation. This is exactly the same tactics that was used in the 20s in the coal and steel industries, the same sort of tactic used in the 50s in the communications industries All of which had to be stopped by legal means and it is being used again today. The strategy is well know and has been since the times of Ceasar. Divide and conquer. So unless your a Sony CEO you have no reason to defend this because this resistance benefits you. Allowing this to stand only serves to benefit one small group of already wealthy people who are simply concerned with ensuring the retention of their wealth and not be held accountable for their mistakes.

 

[CapitalistPig]

I believe, and I stress believe, that this is the natural evolution of Capitalism. Capitalism needs a reboot.

Quite possibly. Or is it that capitalism is already being rebooted. This is just the first steps of the dark and gritty reboot that we have seen so much of as of late?

You could just not buy their products. That's kinda how the checks and balance system works in capitalism. If a company sucks, a new one comes along and does better then the last. Hell they make it real easy in this case, most of the products and services offered by sony can be found on xbox......and they don't get hacked.

Its not at all too hard to see a future without Sony Playstation. especially since last month the new CEO of Sony announced they were looking into the medical industry anyway. And if that just warps your mind too much remember that at one point SEGA pretty much ran the gaming world and robbed people at the arcades for $10 a day for "hardcore" gamers.

But your right, its obviously more fashionable to just blame everything on capitalism when the state judical branch of the government is the ones who ruled on the case. California reaming their constituents without batting an eyelash for money, I'm soooooo surprised. I'm not saying an injustice wasn't done here, but come on the judges are the ones who are supposed to be impartial not the people being tried in court.

Besides, he agreed to the contract, reread it and was pissed he agreed. That's a facepalm moment if I ever saw one.

Dirty tactics? maybe. but you don't HAVE to have a PS anyway so if they want to run their company into the ground that's just fine. They wouldn't be the first and certainly not the last.

But please don't use crap like this as a soap box to say that by default every crappy business in the world is part of some evil plan to turn us into herded cattle. Its saying things like that, that furthers the cause of crappy business tactics. If anything this is a reflection of the poor business environment created by the politicians that govern the state of california and has 1,000 businesses leaving the state every month.

 

[DanDeFool]

Just another brick in the wall that is the oncoming State Corporatisim. Because capitalism simply was not sufficient enough to only be a economic structure, it now has to be a system of government too. It saddens me to see people still have not stopped this sort of nonsense. When exactly was it that branches of the government forgot that the only reason they exist is to do what is in the best interest of the people.

No kidding. I wonder if it's too late to apply for citizenship with Google?

 

[viranimus]

Besides, he agreed to the contract, reread it and was pissed he agreed. That's a facepalm moment if I ever saw one.

'

Well I do agree with some of the points you bring up. This quoted one is what catches my eye. I thought the same thing too. By agreeing to the ToS and then trying to back out of it fucks his credibility. Sort of like the pothead who cries how its wrong to keep pot illegal while hes in cuffs for smoking a joint in the face of a cop.

Under normal circumstances I would be dismissive of the situation based on that fact because the guy dunfukdup. However I take this one to heart because honestly the underlying issue of Sony doing this and enforcing it (by preventing you from accessing your network profile and any of your purchases you made through it) is still the greater of the two evils.

No kidding. I wonder if it's too late to apply for citizenship with Google?

It was my understanding that Corporate statism views individuals as commodities and as such you likely would have no control over where you go. You and your services would be traded around until you found the right fit for your skillsets sort of like pro athletes only less glamorous . So you might want to be tied to google, you might be just as likely to end up swabbing the booths out at a porn shop just outside of Ypsilanti, but I guess thats all humorously theoretical... for now.

 

[CapitalistPig]

Besides, he agreed to the contract, reread it and was pissed he agreed. That's a facepalm moment if I ever saw one.

'

Well I do agree with some of the points you bring up. This quoted one is what catches my eye. I thought the same thing too. By agreeing to the ToS and then trying to back out of it fucks his credibility. Sort of like the pothead who cries how its wrong to keep pot illegal while hes in cuffs for smoking a joint in the face of a cop.

Under normal circumstances I would be dismissive of the situation based on that fact because the guy dunfukdup. However I take this one to heart because honestly the underlying issue of Sony doing this and enforcing it (by preventing you from accessing your network profile and any of your purchases you made through it) is still the greater of the two evils.

Right like I said, it obviously a real issue, but a judge would scratch his head looking at this and a defendant lawyer would out right laugh in your face if you brought this into a court room. In fact the precedence you would start by ruling in favor of the plaintiff in this case would further poor business tactics because after this, you wouldn't be able to keep people in contract by siting this case in court. That could spiral drastically out of control making businesses go for a "grab and run" business model where they would milk you and leave you. And consumers would do relatively the same. Is the housing market bubble not an obvious enough reference to state consumers will twist legislation in their favor to increase risk/reward scenarios.

I don't mind the idea of this kind of business tactic being overturned, but it has to be done right. Just because people are pissed doesn't mean the company can't do what they want with their own products and services. And certainly after the fact of agreement to that clause you are well outside your means to sue them for doing just that.

 

[grigjd3]

The actual validity of these TOSs and EULAs have never really been tested. Certainly, there would be conditions under which giving up the right to file a class action law suit would be considered an unconscionable contract. For instance, if Sony started selling our credit card numbers or their products were causing house fires (which some of the PS2s actually did), this clause in the agreement would not hold up.

It's worthwhile to actually listen to the wording the judge used. It seems clear as day that the judge believes that if Sony causes financial harm, they are liable to face such a law suit. My guess is that Sony has included this to try to weed out some of the more silly class action law suits that come up.

 

[Callate]

This case may have been pre-determined from the moment the SCOTUS decided the AT&T case that allowed "no lawsuit" stipulations to be part of contracts.

Which was, to my mind, an incredibly awful decision on their part... but what else is new.

Really getting tired of "entitlement" being used as a slur in lazy arguments...

 

[OniaPL]

Lol, I can just see Sony execs doing this at the customers...

This just feels like slightly silly, if they can just change their ToS like that.

 

[FoolKiller]

Sony's TOS update is in even murkier waters, because it's actually a contract they're foisting upon you, the consumer, after you've purchased the product in order to keep using the product you've already purchased.

Wrong. The TOS is about accessing a free service you didn't pay for, didn't purchase, and don't therefore have any legal right to - its an extra by every single understanding of the word. As such, restricting you from accessing it if you don't agree to the TOS is not in any way unethical or illegal.

Are we talking about the free service that is required for updates that allow you to play new games? Because if so, that makes it a whole lot less cut & dry, as far as I'm concerned.

Not quite. But that is another portion where I think they managed to screw consumers. Certain games have the updates built in even if you weren't online. Basically messing with your product whether or not you wanted to update or not. Even the lawsuit regarding backwards compatibility was mishandled by the courts because they didn't quite grasp at some of the nuances that Sony were abusing.

 

[xPixelatedx]

So how long before the anti-Sony movement starts and then the anti-anti Sony movement tells them they are entitled for complaining about the all mighty, infallible Playstation?

 

[idarkphoenixi]

lol, some people out there actually thought they could sue a multibillion dollar international comany and win? Hold on a sec...


Arn't corporate loopholes a wonderful thing?

 

[Simalacrum]

Well, this has reminded me why I put Sony in the black list of corporations I don't buy from...

Might be time to sell my PS3 too.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Oh look, the ninth circuit has once again proven they're only liberal when Hollywood or Silicon Valley isn't involved. If they are, suddenly they become pro business arch-conservatives. I am so sick of these "look at the shiny! It's new technology so it's different!" rulings.

Edit: Excuse me, it was the district court for Northern California. So even more blatant pandering to Silicon Valley.

 

[Esotera]

Spoiler: Reminds me of this quote from bash.org

I will write on a huge cement block "BY ACCEPTING THIS BRICK THROUGH YOUR WINDOW, YOU ACCEPT IT AS IS AND AGREE TO MY DISCLAIMER OF ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS WELL AS DISCLAIMERS OF ALL LIABILITY, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL, THAT MAY ARISE FROM THE INSTALLATION OF THIS BRICK INTO YOUR BUILDING."
And then hurl it through the window of a Sony officer
and run like hell

This is complete bullcrap, along with them forcing users to choose between using the PSN or booting Linux, after they specifically marketed it as a computer, not a console. I'd be quite surprised if this isn't overturned within a few years.

 

[emeraldrafael]

maybe im issing it, but sonys not really doing anything... evil.

They're saying you can go ahead and sue, but we'll go through with this so youd better be fucking ready, or you can just take the smart route and take out of settlement if we deem it the right course of action.

really the only way they could make this easier if they gave you a chart saying how long you keep this court case dragging on and how muc it will cost you. and the only particularly "evil" thing they're doing is saying we'll pick the arbitrators but its not that means they are going to pick some homeless asshole of the street to represent you or that you cant question it and say youd like someone else if you feel youre being fucked.

and really, if youre saying you want to sue a company cause tehy MAY stack the deck against you or MAY do wrong, then you may as well let anyone sue anything for saying that they MAY do something in the future. Hell, just start suing companies cause tehy MAY release defective prodcuts.