Man Sues Sony for Changing T.O.S. to Prevent Lawsuits

[Albino Boo]

The only people who like class action lawsuits are the lawyers who administer them, because they are the ones who see the real payoff. I've gotten two checks so far because I happened to be a "victim" of some corporations muckup. One I put in my savings account because those few pennies do help to savings. The other I think got me a candy bar.
Taking Sony, EA, Activision, Nintendo, or any other gaming business to court because of some flaw in the game is just fallacious. You know the lawyer will want to make it class action, will sell you on it with some quickspeak, and then you end up with enough money for the subway while they get another condo in South Beach.
It is better to just try your best to get the issue fixed, and when that fails, give up and don't give business to that company again because they don't deserve it. Getting worked up because Sony doesn't want you to get yourself screwed is just plain silly. Corporations step on the little guy. Usually because the little guy would rather go through the hassle and money to call a lawyer than to make the same effort to get their issue fixed. Sony wants you to buy more Playstations and games for the Playstation. Tying them up in class action suits doesn't let them make more Playstations and games for said Playstation, and then that pisses off more people. Arbitration actually takes lawyers out of the equation as well in a lot of cases, as those same retired judges chosen to arbitrate the case want to hear from those involved directly. The plaintiff may not walk away with bundles of cash like their inner greed expects to happen, but there is actually a better chance where you get the issue that brought up the affair gets fixed.
I have to wonder when more people say enough is enough with the lawsuit option. It hurts consumers more than it does the companies in the long run.

Isnt US the pretty much only place where EULA is legally binding?

I'm going to deal with both these at once. Eulas are technically binding world wide but in reality they are not. The day that Sony obtains a court ruling protecting IP, in say China, is the day that Satan skates to work, but pretty much everywhere in the developed world the are. Different jurisdictions have varying interpretations of Eulas, but those differences are of detail not principal. The common misconception is that the support of Eulas means governments are in the pockets of big business and against the little guy. In the real world, away from the slogans and the wedge issues so beloved of spin doctors and pollsters, governments are doing two things.

1. Protecting the their are own tax revenues. If governments make changes to regulations that make sectors of business less profitable they pay less tax. Which means they either have to borrow more, thus dedicating ever higher proportions of national wealth to the payment of interest, or to cut public services. Precisely how many teachers are you willing to sack to keep happy the small number of people who think the current IP system is wrong?



The next point is going to come as shock, I know, but before jumping into instant slogan mode think about it.

2 Protecting the little guy. The reason why Eulas and Tos exist is to protect the investment of 100s of millions of small investors. The vast majority of the corporations are owned by institutional investors. Those institutions are investing the life savings, pension funds, collage funds and health insurance of 100s of millions of poeple from all over the world. Do you think its fair to wipe out 5% of the life savings from a guy who works 50 hour weeks in near sweat shop conditions to please people who don't like current IP laws.

 

[seraphy]

I hope that man wins actually.

Corporates should not be allowed to put any crap they want in their EULAs, certainly not when it starts to conflict with consumer rights and laws.

 

[Strazdas]

i liked sony in january. i ended up hating sony in december. this was a dreadful year for them.
it is my belief however that the guy will loose the lawsuit, the practice of laughing lawsuits out of the court will be set in stone and corporations will continue taking over the world

Has the world really gotten to the point where brand-loyalty is so intense that people would rather file lawsuits against their preferred brand than switch to their competitor's product?

What competitors? there is no other company that provides identical service.

 

[ckam]

Gosh, why does all the crazy shit happen in California? Is being warm the only thing that's good there?!

 

[Eve Charm]

I hope he wins, hell I hope it gets into the Class action phase so I can sign my name on it to.

If I had a right to do something, or a feature when I bought it and signed you contract, you have no right to change it by force. And Yes by force I mean telling me I can't go online anymore, Telling me I can't get or install new needed firmware and last but not least, telling me if I don't like it, F off and stop using the console then.

Protect your investment if you own a console before your signing to give up some other feature or pay additional fees Cause the sony demands it and you can't do anything about it.

R.I.P. Linux on the PS3, if only more people cared.

 

[Draconalis]

The mind-blowing irony of this whole thing is that frivolous, pointless class-action lawsuits like this one here is the very reason Sony created the clause in the first place.

If people don't like Sony's policies, stop using their products. Has the world really gotten to the point where brand-loyalty is so intense that people would rather file lawsuits against their preferred brand than switch to their competitor's product? Buy a damn Xbox or gaming PC and move on. Sheesh.

It's not really Brand loyalty... I bought my PS3 like... 6 years ago... and I'll be damned if I'm not going to use it.

Why should *I*, a customer who purchased something a long time ago, be stuck with a, then 700 dollar, paperweight because they changed the ToS ridiculously six years later?

 

[krellen]

The vast majority of the corporations are owned by institutional investors.

No, not quite.

Over 80% of all stocks in the US are held by 10% of the population. Source 1 [http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html] Source 2 [http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-14/markets/29956234_1_stock-market-real-crash-sales-fall].

And that is the top 10%, as defined by wealth.

There are no "little guys" here.

 

[Albino Boo]

The vast majority of the corporations are owned by institutional investors.

No, not quite.

Over 80% of all stocks in the US are held by 10% of the population. Source 1 [http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html] Source 2 [http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-14/markets/29956234_1_stock-market-real-crash-sales-fall].

And that is the top 10%, as defined by wealth.

There are no "little guys" here.

And of course all the money invested in US stocks, t bills and real estate is American. The Chinese government alone owns $388 billion dollars of US securities. You know the whole rise of India and China in the last 20 years, where do you think the money ends up? The standard of living of India's middle class my be far lower the average in the US but the make up for in numbers. In India's case the total savings each for each year is just under $500 billion.China's savers have total of around $2 trillion dollars or twice the US debt.


When I come across posters like you I am reminded of Deng Xiaoping's comment when asked about American culture "It would be a good idea"

 

[krellen]

The Chinese government alone owns $388 billion dollars of US securities.

US securities are not stocks. They are purchases of US debt - essentially loans to the US government. They have nothing whatsoever to do with corporations.

I provided sources with statistical evidence of my claims. You are pulling your claims of Chinese and Indian "little guys" owning multinational corporations out of thin air.

 

[Albino Boo]

The Chinese government alone owns $388 billion dollars of US securities.

US securities are not stocks. They are purchases of US debt - essentially loans to the US government. They have nothing whatsoever to do with corporations.

I provided sources with statistical evidence of my claims. You are pulling your claims of Chinese and Indian "little guys" owning multinational corporations out of thin air.

So ok in your world only Americans buy Americans stocks, hmmm just stop to think for 5 milliseconds before reaching for the post button do you really think thats likely? But if you want facts just look the number of articles about the operations of sovereign wealth funds http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/sovereign_wealth_funds/index.html?offset=150&s=newest , page after page. All referring to activates of governments alone . The how much is owned by the small saver is hard to say because its all tends to be indirect. People in India and china will invest their money by and large in domestic institutions i.e banks, pension funds and insurance companies who will in turn invest the money in number of markets across the world. Those institutions don't directly invest in shares in those markets but by investing in other institutions in those markets. So say textile worker in Shanghai makes provision for his old age and puts a little away each month in a bank. The bank will invest that money together with 100 millions other in say 30 or so other institutions in Europe and the US, who in turn invest some in shares, some in commodities and some in hedge funds. What that total is difficult to quantify especially since some of the money is invested in domestic government bonds which in turn provide the part funding of sovereign wealth funds. Then you have US based institutions who will then invest the money in the emerging nation were is came from. Then to top if off you get non US based companies are listed on the stock exchange. There 50 Chinese companies listed in New York and rising.

Globalisation has taken place and despite the screaming and shouting from the anti-globalisation mob its the developing world that's done the best out of it. Every year since 2008 the world has got richer but during the same period the west has got poorer. Those depressed share and assets prices means that the developing world is buying them at fire sale prices. Its very much like the position that US was in during and shortly after WW1.


The reason why savings rates in India and China are so high compared to the west because they have to be. Both those states provide, by western standards, minimal safety nets. There is no free health care and minimal state pensions. Which forces poeple to save because if they didn't there is nobody to bail them out. The Indians middle class is now roughly he same size as the population of the US and provides vast sums all of which is search of yield. The best bargains to be had to the world are in the markets in New York and London.

 

[BRex21]

I cant believe that there are people who come here and support a company who is re-negotiating contracts with its users to take away what is essentially a civil right. Of course it only applies to the USA because, lo and behold, if its illegal in your country just ignore it. For the love of god you should not need this level of legal understanding to purchase software.

Why should *I*, a customer who purchased something a long time ago, be stuck with a, then 700 dollar, paperweight because they changed the ToS ridiculously six years later?

And herein lies the issues with EULA in a nutshell. By purchasing a product without knowing what the terms are you are pretty much signing a blank piece of paper and handing it to SONY. Since Sony can change the terms of the agreement at any time they could *technically* insert a clause say, allowing them to enter your home and drink all your dairy products, and your only recourse at that point would be to abandon the product you have already payed for.
It would not be legal to sign a blank piece of paper and hand it over, but for some reason it is legal to agree to a document that allows them to unilaterally change the terms of the contract.
This pushes EULA into a nearly unenforceable zone in which only a companies basic rights, usually already given through basic copyright law, are being upheld by courts. Only a select few US states will uphold a EULA beyond someone making illegal copies or modifying and reselling the product, but it does not stop companies from trying.

 

[krellen]

The how much is owned by the small saver is hard to say because its all tends to be indirect.

And yet you continue to insist that there are hundreds of millions of "little guys" that would be horribly affected should a company like Sony have a drop of stock price due to a class action suit. Forum rules prevent me from using the language I would wish to, but you are full of something, sir.

 

[Albino Boo]

The how much is owned by the small saver is hard to say because its all tends to be indirect.

And yet you continue to insist that there are hundreds of millions of "little guys" that would be horribly affected should a company like Sony have a drop of stock price due to a class action suit. Forum rules prevent me from using the language I would wish to, but you are full of something, sir.

Ah yes the typical response of the slogan chanting, placard weaving fools who blindly repeat other peoples ideas. When confronted with reasoned argument you respond with cheap abuse and ignore the last 30 years of globalisation. If the only Americans invested in the New York how come the wall street crash of 80 years ago set of a GLOBAL depression. Stop chanting four legs good two legs bad but I doubt you even understand the reference.

 

[krellen]

Stop chanting four legs good two legs bad but I doubt you even understand the reference.

The reference is Animal Farm.

I have seen evidence of foreign investment in firms (in Sony's case, it's a Japanese company in the first place, which is a point you seem to have overlooked). What I fail to see evidence of is middle class investment in firms. You really expect me to believe that all these middle-class people in China and India are investing their savings heavily in stocks? Where's your evidence of that?

Foreign investment is not the point I contest. I contest the point that foreign investment means "little people".

 

[Zer_]

The clause is not in the Canadian version of the TOS since it IS Illegal here. Thumbs up to Bacon land!