surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
...and our treasonous government here in Murikkka has recently passed a bill on the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights that makes this country a fictitious battleground where the military can torture or kill anyone they assume is a "terrorist".
Not too concerned with Sony.
Not too concerned with Sony.
Soo, this lawyer wasn't paying attention when this corporate posturing was already held up as being quite legal? Sony is hardly a pioneer in this endeavor. Class action suits have been voidable through terms of service for around a year now. Frankly, I'm surprised it took Sony this long to hop on that bandwagon.
Sony kinda had this coming when they made it so hard to opt out and didn't really try to inform their customers about it.
This is a fantastic idea. Yes, both steam and ms have it, but if this even cones out as a partial victory for him it can show companies it's not okay to take away our right to be pissed that they fuck shit up, e.g. getting credit card information stolen. Way to go guy, and good luck.
This dudes a tool and I hope his lawyer takes him for every penny he's got because there is no way his lawyer thinks he is actually going to win. Also, I hate tools that try to claim they are doing this for me, just like those retarded 99%ers, stand on your own or fuck off.
bukuma:
Spoken like someone who has no idea what is going on or what they are talking about, on both counts.
Spoken like someone who has no idea what is going on or what they are talking about, on both counts.
@Insanity-Oo
He's suing them on behalf of a large amount of people, doesn't that make it a group? I'm not an expert on law, just asking.
He's suing them on behalf of a large amount of people, doesn't that make it a group? I'm not an expert on law, just asking.
I just explained this to my dad, in which he responded, "That's actually unconstitutional." I guess he was right.
I just wanted to let flintmech know that I see what you did there in your first post.
<img>http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6099/6313403040_70ba0edfa3.jpg</img>
<img>http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6099/6313403040_70ba0edfa3.jpg</img>
While I can agree with the concept of not wanting to agree to the TOS and that it's a generally shitty (albeit common) move, saying that the company didn't announce it when you have to physically agree to the TOS again when they changed it just says "I DON'T READ THESE LEGAL THINGIES! U MAEK IT 2 HARD!"
Honestly, they're not forcing it on you, and they require a legally-enforcible document that can be used without ANY contest that you've opted out of a clause... Last I checked, people don't get that many legal documents via electronic means when it's a legally enforcible, binding document. I haven't heard of people court summons and jury duty notices in their email accounts...
It's for these basic reasons I don't think this will go anywhere, but I hope it does. Corporations need fewer shelters from doing the right thing.
Honestly, they're not forcing it on you, and they require a legally-enforcible document that can be used without ANY contest that you've opted out of a clause... Last I checked, people don't get that many legal documents via electronic means when it's a legally enforcible, binding document. I haven't heard of people court summons and jury duty notices in their email accounts...
It's for these basic reasons I don't think this will go anywhere, but I hope it does. Corporations need fewer shelters from doing the right thing.
Honestly, if he agreed to the TOS, it would be the guy's own fault. In the TOS they say they can change the policies with or without notification. In this particular case, I'm mostly on Sony's side. Many people like to say that by including this "no-class-action-lawsuit" clause that Sony is eroding your consumer rights, but I fail to see how them refusing to offer you a service if you don't agree to a TOS is taking away anybody's rights. It's either you agree to having your ability to sue them in a group taken away, or you don't play PSN. You are not entitled to Sony offering PSN as you are with basic human rights. The only reason I think that TOS's shouldn't be legally enforceable is because there is no way to know who agreed to the TOS (someone else could have been using the system), or if the system displayed the TOS correctly. I mean, if I wrote out a contract that said I could kick whoever signed it in the balls upon the payment of 1$, and someone wilfully agreed to it, I think I should be allowed to kick them in the balls after paying 1$. If they don't like it, they should have never agreed to the contract. The only difference between this hypothetical contract and Sony's TOS is the uncertainty of the TOS.
My point is, Sony should never be able to enforce that clause as it was only contained in an electronic agreement (which makes it difficult to prove who agreed, if they agreed, if the agreement was delivered correctly, and whether or not Sony tampered with the records of who agreed to it). However, if this were a traditional paper contract and the man signed his name on the line, he really should be subject to the terms of the agreement.
@Wakatashi
Geohot's case is very different. There is no proof he ever agreed to the TOS. He could have bought the PS3 used (any warnings kept on the box would not apply to him), and who is to say he didn't find a way around the TOS agreement screen by way of hacking? That case was simply Sony trying to gain control over an object they no longer owned.
My point is, Sony should never be able to enforce that clause as it was only contained in an electronic agreement (which makes it difficult to prove who agreed, if they agreed, if the agreement was delivered correctly, and whether or not Sony tampered with the records of who agreed to it). However, if this were a traditional paper contract and the man signed his name on the line, he really should be subject to the terms of the agreement.
@Wakatashi
Geohot's case is very different. There is no proof he ever agreed to the TOS. He could have bought the PS3 used (any warnings kept on the box would not apply to him), and who is to say he didn't find a way around the TOS agreement screen by way of hacking? That case was simply Sony trying to gain control over an object they no longer owned.
@Wakatashi, you're such a jerk, in fact I think you deserve to lose money because of that.
BTW, that's the reason why Sony deserves to be sued, for its jerkness.
BTW, that's the reason why Sony deserves to be sued, for its jerkness.
@REWQ
You do realize that having a ToS agreement does not allow companies a free waiver from obeying the law, right? Courts can null a company's ToS if it breaks the law or revokes end user rights that are guaranteed by law. It's happened time and time again.
Sony's TOS is pretty brazen, which is why this lawsuit is happening. Whether or not the guy actually has good intentions or if he's just a douche looking for easy money doesn't really matter, Sony brought this on themselves with a legally untenable ToS policy.
Sony has a history of losing class action suits going back long before their PSN woes. Really shitty of them to try and trick people into believing they can't participate in such legal action if Sony screws them over.
You do realize that having a ToS agreement does not allow companies a free waiver from obeying the law, right? Courts can null a company's ToS if it breaks the law or revokes end user rights that are guaranteed by law. It's happened time and time again.
Sony's TOS is pretty brazen, which is why this lawsuit is happening. Whether or not the guy actually has good intentions or if he's just a douche looking for easy money doesn't really matter, Sony brought this on themselves with a legally untenable ToS policy.
Sony has a history of losing class action suits going back long before their PSN woes. Really shitty of them to try and trick people into believing they can't participate in such legal action if Sony screws them over.
@Pennywise
I'm not going to pretend to know the law surrounding contracts and TOS in great detail, but I will say that if this TOS were a traditional contract instead they *should* be allowed to enforce that clause ( I don't know if they legally could, but could and should are two different things).
I'm not going to pretend to know the law surrounding contracts and TOS in great detail, but I will say that if this TOS were a traditional contract instead they *should* be allowed to enforce that clause ( I don't know if they legally could, but could and should are two different things).
"I mean, if I wrote out a contract that said I could kick whoever signed it in the balls upon the payment of 1$, and someone wilfully agreed to it, I think I should be allowed to kick them in the balls after paying 1$. If they don't like it, they should have never agreed to the contract. The only difference between this hypothetical contract and Sony's TOS is the uncertainty of the TOS."
Been away from D-Toid in a while but just thought I'd point out that this is probably the stupidest thing I've read from anybody on this site. If I include a clause in my contract for services rendered to murder the client's daughter with a pick axe, I cannot murder the client's daughter with a pick axe.
"I'm not going to pretend to know the law surrounding contracts and TOS in great detail"
Good, because it's painfully obvious.
"I don't know if they legally could, but could and should are two different things"
Thankfully, you are likely not a legal scholar.
Pennywise is spot-on.
Been away from D-Toid in a while but just thought I'd point out that this is probably the stupidest thing I've read from anybody on this site. If I include a clause in my contract for services rendered to murder the client's daughter with a pick axe, I cannot murder the client's daughter with a pick axe.
"I'm not going to pretend to know the law surrounding contracts and TOS in great detail"
Good, because it's painfully obvious.
"I don't know if they legally could, but could and should are two different things"
Thankfully, you are likely not a legal scholar.
Pennywise is spot-on.
I hope they get sued for this. I think EA and Sony really need to be sent a message after they've been practicing shady business tactics. I'm hoping that Extortion Arts gets a boot to the ass for this, too.
Maybe while we're at it, we can sue Extortion Arts for a few other things.
Maybe while we're at it, we can sue Extortion Arts for a few other things.
Like mentioned by someone before, to sue only Sony over this clause seems kinda silly. I can understand it from a personal perspective, but his lawyer should have pointed this out. Oh well I do hope Sony in this case bites the dust, but I wouldn't make any bets on it.
follow
