surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
@Kilvaskills
Yeah, pretty much. Steam has a similar clause as well. I think just about every major company that provides a service applies the same principals.
@ ANYONE WHO ISN'T PAYING ATTENTION
YOU CAN STILL SUE, JUST NOT IN A CLASS ACTION. THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN YOUR STEAM ACCOUNT, YOUR XBOXLIVE ACCOUNT, OR YOUR DAMN CELLPHONE SERVICE. GOT A PROBLEM WITH IT? OPT OUT.
I'm just sick of reading "good luck suing sony next the network gets hackked!!1!"
Yeah, pretty much. Steam has a similar clause as well. I think just about every major company that provides a service applies the same principals.
@ ANYONE WHO ISN'T PAYING ATTENTION
YOU CAN STILL SUE, JUST NOT IN A CLASS ACTION. THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN YOUR STEAM ACCOUNT, YOUR XBOXLIVE ACCOUNT, OR YOUR DAMN CELLPHONE SERVICE. GOT A PROBLEM WITH IT? OPT OUT.
I'm just sick of reading "good luck suing sony next the network gets hackked!!1!"
Found this on a site in regard to the non-existent PSN ID number:
"Okay, just got off the phone with Sarah from PSN support. She said it is probably a typo and to include your email address used on psn and your user id, aka your psn username.
I assume there will be a correction to the terms at some point, because there literally is no such thing as a PSN Account Number. Either that or they will use that fact to make any letter they receive invalid. I wouldn't put it past them. Good times."
"Okay, just got off the phone with Sarah from PSN support. She said it is probably a typo and to include your email address used on psn and your user id, aka your psn username.
I assume there will be a correction to the terms at some point, because there literally is no such thing as a PSN Account Number. Either that or they will use that fact to make any letter they receive invalid. I wouldn't put it past them. Good times."
I like how people can't even post something helpful without taking a petty cheap shot. That's in reference to the person you're quoting btw, Sniper Bob, not you. Thank you for posting this.
The thing that bothers me is that I have a suspicion that there is an ulterior motive to prompting reaction to this, as though it's Sony's way of "outing" what would be in their eyes the potential "pirates" of their software and whatnot.
Because from a PR standpoint, I can't imagine anyone wholeheartedly recommending this as a good idea, except for the legal department. Anybody with basic sense of good publicity would point out that this shit had "bad" written all over it from how it would impact Sony's PR with its customers. Then again, copyright law nowadays seems to have placed blinders on a lot of eyes that were once sensible.
Because from a PR standpoint, I can't imagine anyone wholeheartedly recommending this as a good idea, except for the legal department. Anybody with basic sense of good publicity would point out that this shit had "bad" written all over it from how it would impact Sony's PR with its customers. Then again, copyright law nowadays seems to have placed blinders on a lot of eyes that were once sensible.
I can't really even fathom a scenario where I would sue a company over a product unless it brought me bodily harm (ie, it exploded upon opening or caught my house on fire) and this arbitration clause wouldn't affect your ability to sue in either of those cases.
Even if my identity was stolen (which, guess what, happens every day to tons of people for various reasons), it would be a hassle for me, but ultimately I would likely only lose the time it took to deal with it (and if your bank holds you liable for any stolen identity shenanigans then you're with the wrong bank).
The most I could ever see is my system breaking with the company at fault and me wanting a new system. In such a case, a formal lawsuit would be FAR more work than the cost of replacing a system, and arbitration would, in fact, be easier and probably give you just as much chance of getting something for it.
I mean, people say that arbitrators generally side with the company, but what they don't tell you is that the high-priced lawyers employed by the company have just as much chance of squashing your puny consumer attempts at a lawsuit as well, and at a much higher cost for you.
Even if my identity was stolen (which, guess what, happens every day to tons of people for various reasons), it would be a hassle for me, but ultimately I would likely only lose the time it took to deal with it (and if your bank holds you liable for any stolen identity shenanigans then you're with the wrong bank).
The most I could ever see is my system breaking with the company at fault and me wanting a new system. In such a case, a formal lawsuit would be FAR more work than the cost of replacing a system, and arbitration would, in fact, be easier and probably give you just as much chance of getting something for it.
I mean, people say that arbitrators generally side with the company, but what they don't tell you is that the high-priced lawyers employed by the company have just as much chance of squashing your puny consumer attempts at a lawsuit as well, and at a much higher cost for you.
@ Tristrix
funny that in a tightly worded legally binding contract, an error that potentially makes the only absolving part of the offending clause invalid exists.
i think people are within reason to see that as mildly suspicious, even though it was probably written by a lawyer with little knowledge of the less essential parts of the PSN mechanics.
funny that in a tightly worded legally binding contract, an error that potentially makes the only absolving part of the offending clause invalid exists.
i think people are within reason to see that as mildly suspicious, even though it was probably written by a lawyer with little knowledge of the less essential parts of the PSN mechanics.
@SayWord: Because internetz, I think? Sony have being kicked around this whole generation and became an easy target. it have a smaller user base in the west, so gaming sites do not get the ire of most players, while pleasing the larger pc/360/nintendo users. So it is easier to pick on them.
That said, I still think this clause is illegal and shouldn't be added and that it was a bad idea from Sony, even if the others do it in the same way.
And I still think if this is such a problem to anyone, do not buy Sony products.
That said, I still think this clause is illegal and shouldn't be added and that it was a bad idea from Sony, even if the others do it in the same way.
And I still think if this is such a problem to anyone, do not buy Sony products.
@ ManWithNoName
it's a big deal because it happened recently, and people noticed. not much explanation required beyond that...
it's a big deal because it happened recently, and people noticed. not much explanation required beyond that...
@ silentdawn7 probably because his name was used for substantial gain of someone else (law firm) without his knowledge or consent.
Also, that ain't workin that's the way ya do it. You getcha money for nothin and chicks for free... Maybe get a blister on your middle finger, maybe get a blister on your thumb. We got to install microwave ovens, custom kitchen deliveraye-aye-ay!
Also, that ain't workin that's the way ya do it. You getcha money for nothin and chicks for free... Maybe get a blister on your middle finger, maybe get a blister on your thumb. We got to install microwave ovens, custom kitchen deliveraye-aye-ay!
"Section 15 of the TOS includes a class action waiver and requires that most disputes be resolved through arbitration."
so it doesn't JUST cover class action. it requires even individual disputes be bound to arbitration except in certain cases. this is for youngskeltor who feels a need to correct people when he is actually partially incorrect himself.
so it doesn't JUST cover class action. it requires even individual disputes be bound to arbitration except in certain cases. this is for youngskeltor who feels a need to correct people when he is actually partially incorrect himself.
Luckily in Canada it's impossible to sign away any of your rights, including council. Any government that allows you to do that is fucking mental.
Okay another one of my serious questions, and this time I know the thing I'm asking about wasn't a joke.
My question is about the language used in the opt out: "that you do not wish to resolve any potential legal disputes with Sony through an arbitrator"
To me that sounds like we're supposed to tell them directly, with all our information attached, that we're not going to sue at all; since an arbitrator is usually meant to be a judge in a dispute, and so in this case a judge in a court somewhere, and your saying you won't use one to mitigate your qualms with Sony.
This has to mean I'm reading it wrong, because telling them you won't sue and giving them info to put on file so they can quickly make reference to you and your promise if you do file a case against them, seems to be playing right into their hand, and effectively openly giving up your rights instead of just getting them stripped by the ToS. It sounds counter productive to preserving anything.
So I don't know, can someone clear it up for me a little? I'm guessing the main thing I'm getting mixed up on is what an arbitrator would be in a situation like this, cause if the usual "judge" is wrong then could it mean whoevers fighting the class action case for the plaintiffs? Or has the class action itself become the arbitrator? (and thus somehow sentient, which is scary in and of itself)
My question is about the language used in the opt out: "that you do not wish to resolve any potential legal disputes with Sony through an arbitrator"
To me that sounds like we're supposed to tell them directly, with all our information attached, that we're not going to sue at all; since an arbitrator is usually meant to be a judge in a dispute, and so in this case a judge in a court somewhere, and your saying you won't use one to mitigate your qualms with Sony.
This has to mean I'm reading it wrong, because telling them you won't sue and giving them info to put on file so they can quickly make reference to you and your promise if you do file a case against them, seems to be playing right into their hand, and effectively openly giving up your rights instead of just getting them stripped by the ToS. It sounds counter productive to preserving anything.
So I don't know, can someone clear it up for me a little? I'm guessing the main thing I'm getting mixed up on is what an arbitrator would be in a situation like this, cause if the usual "judge" is wrong then could it mean whoevers fighting the class action case for the plaintiffs? Or has the class action itself become the arbitrator? (and thus somehow sentient, which is scary in and of itself)
It basically tells them that you won't use a 3rd party arbition in any of your disputes... IE: You can use a lawyer who directly represents YOU, but you still can't use a lawyer who represents multiple people, nor will you use arbitration.
That you can opt out is due to the fact that they cannot FORCE you into arbitration, but you can AGREE to it. (and you do so by agreeing to ToS and not opting out- ergo, you have a choice AND you're not forced to not use their service.)
As a result, you can go to court, but if you lost, you'd be responsible for ALL the legal fees because that's how corporations tend to roll. If you win... well, more power to you.
Also, the primary reason companies like arbitration is that it's quicker, overall cheaper, companies can put some pressure on arbiters to affect outcomes and probably most importantly, you can make the awards confidential. In other words: Jon Q over there wins an award of $5million, but he legally cannot tell anybody. That way, Jane C with the same claim wins, but she only gets $1million and nobody is the wiser.
That you can opt out is due to the fact that they cannot FORCE you into arbitration, but you can AGREE to it. (and you do so by agreeing to ToS and not opting out- ergo, you have a choice AND you're not forced to not use their service.)
As a result, you can go to court, but if you lost, you'd be responsible for ALL the legal fees because that's how corporations tend to roll. If you win... well, more power to you.
Also, the primary reason companies like arbitration is that it's quicker, overall cheaper, companies can put some pressure on arbiters to affect outcomes and probably most importantly, you can make the awards confidential. In other words: Jon Q over there wins an award of $5million, but he legally cannot tell anybody. That way, Jane C with the same claim wins, but she only gets $1million and nobody is the wiser.
Now isn't is just "funny" how the site where one might find this mysterious "PSN Account Number" just happens to be "Down for Server Maintenance"?
Now isn't this just "funny" how the site where one might find this mysterious "PSN Account Number" just happens to be "Down for Server Maintenance"?
Hello, we are America. We created loopholes. Sony's just biting our junk right now. Deeez nutz, SCEA...Tabernacle.
For everyone concerned with the PSN account number, the TOS says you have to provide it if you have one. IF you have one. It's even posted in these comments.
@BoomingEchoes:'since an arbitrator is usually meant to be a judge in a dispute, and so in this case a judge in a court somewhere'
Nah, I know it sounds like that's it, but the term 'arbitrator' has a different meaning in legalese. An arbitrator is a third-party who attempts to bring two parties to a resolution through non-binding means, ie. discussion. As opposed to a judge, who wields the law and makes a binding decision.
So, it looks like you're just opting out of the wish for third-party arbitration and with the only form of dispute resolution to be through the courts themselves. That doesn't sound too bad, to me, but the fact you have to opt out anyway shits me. (And it shits me about XBL and Steam as well, before the Sony Defense League gets on my back. Even moreso with them, as there is no opt out.)
Nah, I know it sounds like that's it, but the term 'arbitrator' has a different meaning in legalese. An arbitrator is a third-party who attempts to bring two parties to a resolution through non-binding means, ie. discussion. As opposed to a judge, who wields the law and makes a binding decision.
So, it looks like you're just opting out of the wish for third-party arbitration and with the only form of dispute resolution to be through the courts themselves. That doesn't sound too bad, to me, but the fact you have to opt out anyway shits me. (And it shits me about XBL and Steam as well, before the Sony Defense League gets on my back. Even moreso with them, as there is no opt out.)
follow
