It's not as iron clad a protection as they'd hoped it was, turns out. Not that i'm intrested in suing, but, no, that won't nessessirly save them.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
Sony's Station.com Taken Offline
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I doubt anything actually happened, but seeing as all my friends who play any SOE game have had their account hacked at least once, I'd say Sony's security consultants have pointed out that their security sucks bollocks there, too.
um... I've been off line from sony for two weeks now... Why would people crack PSN? is it for power trip? pride? vengeance? profit? it's bad taste... I hope it have nothing with that one hacker, who's bitching about sony, taken the money, and use it to gather resource to break in to SONY, thinking that he's on some kinda crusade, but in fact, he's just making all the players mad... (at SONY? um... his motive?) I donno... just a thought... I could be wong...
I belive if you start to post comments in a row they appear.Korten12 said:No but I mean like, do they post and then suddenly in their post is the recaphtcha?cWg | Konka said:they are bastards, ive had letters from the greek alphabet and hebrew stuff. Its fucking shitKorten12 said:I don't get it, do those recaptcha thing, just appear..?IamQ said:Sony just can't catch a break, eh?
I hope that after this, the hackers will focus on the WBC instead.
Also:
What?
like so
The terms of the PSN's TOU are rendered null and void because the system experienced a data breach? Did you just make that up? Or do you have some kinda legal authority, like a court case or statute or even the opinion of a legal scholar, that supports that claim? I'm thinking it's made up. In fact, I'm calling "bullshit!" on that one.Ghostwise said:
Either they're beefing up security on Station.com as well as PSN, there's another breach, or the investigators need something from the servers to work on the PSN breach.
Not fussed until there's an update.
Captcha: barley trithers, sounds like a crappy Enid Blyton book.
Not fussed until there's an update.
Captcha: barley trithers, sounds like a crappy Enid Blyton book.
Sony has been sued as a result of the data breach and the resulting service downtime. That fact doesn't do a thing to support your claim that the "terms and conditions are null and void if [Sony] break it themselves by allowing their systems to be hacked into and your personal information stolen." Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Anyone with the filing fee and the ability to properly draft the required paperwork can file a lawsuit. So what? Does the fact that someone has filed a lawsuit against Sony mean that the terms of their TOU whereby users waive the right to file suit for damages against Sony are somehow "null and void?" Not at all. Not even close.Ghostwise said:
What does the UCC say? Because I just read the recently issued Supreme Court decision in ATT v. Concepcion and it says that if you agree to a contract clause waiving your right to bring a class action lawsuit and, instead, requiring that any claim you may have be submitted to arbitration, then you're stuck with that agreement and to arbitration you must go. No class action for you!! Next!!Elementlmage said:
The ATT case does suggest that you can agree to waive your rights to sue for damages, at least as part of a class action.
Part of the UCC defines what is and is not a legitimate contract. And, an EULA does not meet those requirements. Therefore, an EULA is not a contract an will not hold up in court.JDKJ said:
Why is it that a major, global corporation can be hurt so easily (it seems) by a few hackers?
Are the big corps bleedin' morons with no security what so ever, or are the hackers that skilled?
Are we playing Uplink? Is this Shadowrun?
Are the big corps bleedin' morons with no security what so ever, or are the hackers that skilled?
Are we playing Uplink? Is this Shadowrun?
Wrong. Just plain wrong. A sampling of the many court opinions to the contrary are listed below.Elementlmage said:
See ProCD, Inc., v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (upholding the validity and enforceability of a shrink-wrapped EULA).
See Hill v. Gateway2000, Inc., 105 F.3d 1147, 1149 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that contract terms inside a box of software were binding on consumer who subsequently used it).
See Mudd-Lyman Sales and Serv. Corp v. UPS, Inc., 236 F.Supp. 907 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (ruling that plaintiff accepted terms of license by breaking shrink-wrap seal and by its on-screen acceptance of terms of software license agreement).
See M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568 (Supreme Court of Washington, 2000) (holding that the licensing agreement set forth in the software packaging and instruction manuals was part of a valid contract).
See Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 421 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding the validity of a shrink-wrapped license because the box provided clear notice of the terms and the box had been opened).
See Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (New York Supreme Ct. App. Div. [Aug.] 1998) (holding that a shrink-wrapped contract was formed when the plaintiffs retained the software for longer than the 30 day "approve or return" period).
See Rogers v. Dell Computer Corp., 2005 WL 1519233 (Okla. June 28, 2005) (holding that a contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).
See Levy v. Gateway 2000, 1997 WL 823611 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997) (holding that consumer assented to EULA by keeping the product).
See I-Systems, Inc. v. Softwares, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6001 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2004) (denying summary judgment in part by upholding I-Systems' click-through and shrink-wrap licenses).
See Net2Phone, Inc. v. State ex rel Consumer Cause, Inc., 109Cal. App. 4th 583 (Cal. App. June 9, 2003) (implicitly upholding Net2Phone's forum selection clause, even though the user agreement was formed only through a hyper-linked contract with the language "by using the site or materials, you agree . . . .").
See Lively v IJAM, Inc., 2005 OK Civ. App. 29 (2005) (holding that an enforceable contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).
See Rinaldi v. Iomega, 1999 WL 1442014 (Del. Super. Sept. 3, 1999) (enforcing a disclaimer of warranties contained inside product packaging when there was a refund opportunity).
See Westendorf v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 2000 WL 307369 (Del. Ch. Ct., March 16, 2000) (enforcing licensing agreement contained in the packaging even though the computer was paid for by someone else).
See Vernor v. Autodesk, No. 09-35969. DC No. 2:07-cv-01189-RAJ (2010) (concluding that a shrink-wrapped EULA created a license rather than a sale of the underlying software with the consequence that copyright law's first-sale doctrine did not apply).