surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
@hardy83; BEFORE america gets real fucked up? Lol, I think its a little late for that, my friend. I think what you meant is "before it becomes more fucked up than it already is". Which is very possible, and pretty much guarenteed to happen with the gap between the rich and the poor growing larger each day. The middle class is an endangered species
Indeed, I can do nothing about this, which is why I don't own a PS3 or sony products, so hey that's a start
it also frequently occurs that 'big corporations' tend to use child-like arguments to get away with bullshit shat onto customers, that's why I replied like that.
it also frequently occurs that 'big corporations' tend to use child-like arguments to get away with bullshit shat onto customers, that's why I replied like that.
@ Tristrix
yeah this is true, i guess my response came across as being more directed at the recent PSN outages, but i'd say the bigger issue is of course the fact that sony has shielded themselves from the repercussions of potential future negligence.
in a roundabout way though, yes, all is right. people have this opportunity to preserve their rights to seek recompense for any wrongdoing past or present in whatever way they choose. glad someone (jim, gaming media in general) is making people aware of that opportunity.
yeah this is true, i guess my response came across as being more directed at the recent PSN outages, but i'd say the bigger issue is of course the fact that sony has shielded themselves from the repercussions of potential future negligence.
in a roundabout way though, yes, all is right. people have this opportunity to preserve their rights to seek recompense for any wrongdoing past or present in whatever way they choose. glad someone (jim, gaming media in general) is making people aware of that opportunity.
I agree with looking at this as a bit sketchy, but because of the AT&T case a publicly held company could open itself up to suit by its shareholders for not properly protecting their investment in the company.
The AT&T case is going to bring about many changes in terms of use agreements by just about every major corporation in the United States.
The AT&T case is going to bring about many changes in terms of use agreements by just about every major corporation in the United States.
@badoli
"Your grumply old neighbor fart ordering tons of party-noise-retaliation pizza with your stolen creditcard?"
Well if you didn't take precautions on your own in the first place that's your problem. If you did call your bank. Problem solved.
"Your grumply old neighbor fart ordering tons of party-noise-retaliation pizza with your stolen creditcard?"
Well if you didn't take precautions on your own in the first place that's your problem. If you did call your bank. Problem solved.
Also, it's not asif I don't care, I do care, absolutely, but the way how they get away with this is just misuse of capitalism, ofcourse you could say 'hey I'm not buying this out of principles, vote with your wallet, etc' but what effect will it have?
Atleast the law doesn't apply in europe, hooray us(for now anyway)
Atleast the law doesn't apply in europe, hooray us(for now anyway)
None of us has any "rights" according to this Bush-Obamamerica.. Patriot Act and executive orders up the ass say anyone can be thrown in jail forever for no reason other than suspicion of being a "terrorist".
But yeah, write Sony your little letter. Fuck yeah!!!! You are a freedom fighter.
9/11 inside job. If you haven't figured this out yet, consider yourself kind of delusional and a little stupid.
But yeah, write Sony your little letter. Fuck yeah!!!! You are a freedom fighter.
9/11 inside job. If you haven't figured this out yet, consider yourself kind of delusional and a little stupid.
I don't think you understand the Supreme Court. They don't make rulings just to support one side or the other, all they do is interpret the laws as they stand. If you have a problem with those laws, then you need to criticize the politicians in control.
And class action lawsuits with massive lists of "unnamed plaintiffs" desperately need to be revised. There is an entire laundry list of criticisms for class action lawsuits, not the least of which is that they sometimes come down to a settlement where law firms bargain in their own interest for a huge fee while the plaintiffs receive very little benefit.
And class action lawsuits with massive lists of "unnamed plaintiffs" desperately need to be revised. There is an entire laundry list of criticisms for class action lawsuits, not the least of which is that they sometimes come down to a settlement where law firms bargain in their own interest for a huge fee while the plaintiffs receive very little benefit.
@ BrainWasherAttendent
oh fucking BOOYAH! SLAM DUNK!! write your dumbass conspiracy theories on the internet STICK IT TO THA MAN BROTHA!
at least writing a letter to sony will actually preserve people's rights, whereas your inane psycho-babble accomplishes nothing.
oh fucking BOOYAH! SLAM DUNK!! write your dumbass conspiracy theories on the internet STICK IT TO THA MAN BROTHA!
at least writing a letter to sony will actually preserve people's rights, whereas your inane psycho-babble accomplishes nothing.
@BrainWasherAttendent
Feelsbadman.jpg :(
Anyway, everyone sign those damn letters, and ofcourse they can screw yo over by saying 'hey, we never received it!'
lol
Feelsbadman.jpg :(
Anyway, everyone sign those damn letters, and ofcourse they can screw yo over by saying 'hey, we never received it!'
lol
Well, there are 2 opposing points here: the TOS is taking out a costumer right, but this right is not always that effective. There are many cases of class action suits being only beneficial to the lawyer than to the clients, apart from other exploits.
On the other hand I can see Jim's point over corporations becoming overpowered. And it is quite disturbing, indeed.
Still, it is important to say that one can still sue Sony, just not via class action suits. So this TOS is not as "evil" as some people are making it look like, even though I respect their point of view.
On the other hand I can see Jim's point over corporations becoming overpowered. And it is quite disturbing, indeed.
Still, it is important to say that one can still sue Sony, just not via class action suits. So this TOS is not as "evil" as some people are making it look like, even though I respect their point of view.
I'm so tired of talking capitalism and government, what with all of the other gravely important issues we as a species are facing, so this is just another load on the pile. The only comment I feel I need to make is in regards to the people who seem to thrive on conflict. If you really read the TOS you would know that you can still sue on an individual level, as well as simply opt out and say fuck all to the TOS.
We should be warring against congress and the rich white power structure that we face on a daily basis, not pissing about over a company basically saying, "don't everyone sue all at once".
We should be warring against congress and the rich white power structure that we face on a daily basis, not pissing about over a company basically saying, "don't everyone sue all at once".
@Mr Polite
Thing is, it's not just that class action suits are ineffective. They're potentially downright detrimental to consumers. For example, and I've mentioned this before, but I recently won a whole $10 in a class action suit against classmates.com. I had no idea this class action suit existed, or why.
Thing is, the suit is over now, and I've been awarded a settlement. Legally, this means I'm not able to sue classmates.com over whatever it was the suit was about. In other words, I can't pursue a solo lawsuit against them because I've already gotten my 10 bucks in a class action suit I had no idea existed.
Thus I see no reason to throw a fit over losing my consumer right to engage in a class action suit when class action suits themselves notoriously curtail consumer rights themselves. It strikes me as similar to suddenly losing my right to smack myself in the face with a claw hammer. Sure, losing any right is an affront to mankind and all that, but it's still a pretty silly thing, in my opinion, to fuss over.
Thing is, it's not just that class action suits are ineffective. They're potentially downright detrimental to consumers. For example, and I've mentioned this before, but I recently won a whole $10 in a class action suit against classmates.com. I had no idea this class action suit existed, or why.
Thing is, the suit is over now, and I've been awarded a settlement. Legally, this means I'm not able to sue classmates.com over whatever it was the suit was about. In other words, I can't pursue a solo lawsuit against them because I've already gotten my 10 bucks in a class action suit I had no idea existed.
Thus I see no reason to throw a fit over losing my consumer right to engage in a class action suit when class action suits themselves notoriously curtail consumer rights themselves. It strikes me as similar to suddenly losing my right to smack myself in the face with a claw hammer. Sure, losing any right is an affront to mankind and all that, but it's still a pretty silly thing, in my opinion, to fuss over.
Thanks for covering this Jim.
@Gorescream
"Anyway, everyone sign those damn letters, and ofcourse they can screw yo over by saying 'hey, we never received it!'"
Document the letter then send it via certified mail. Anything important should be handled this way, if you have a paper trail the 'we never received it' excuse won't work.
@Gorescream
"Anyway, everyone sign those damn letters, and ofcourse they can screw yo over by saying 'hey, we never received it!'"
Document the letter then send it via certified mail. Anything important should be handled this way, if you have a paper trail the 'we never received it' excuse won't work.
Yeah dude, that's totally what I said. Did you read the post or just look for something to make a smartass remark about? Don't be a dick, please.
@tristrix: "Luckily, ToS changes aren't retroactive"
<blockquote>THIS PROVISION DOES NOT PRECLUDE YOUR PARTICIPATION AS A MEMBER IN A CLASS ACTION FILED ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 20, 2011.</blockquote>
It's past Aug. 20. It's retroactive.
<blockquote>THIS PROVISION DOES NOT PRECLUDE YOUR PARTICIPATION AS A MEMBER IN A CLASS ACTION FILED ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 20, 2011.</blockquote>
It's past Aug. 20. It's retroactive.
@ Tristrix
well yeah it was obviously a joke, however the point stands - $10 is better than nothing. the expense and hassle of litigation would have been enough of a deterrent to prevent you from receiving anything at all had you even been aware of the problem to begin with.
$10 may not seem like much to you, but i wouldn't turn my nose up at it.
well yeah it was obviously a joke, however the point stands - $10 is better than nothing. the expense and hassle of litigation would have been enough of a deterrent to prevent you from receiving anything at all had you even been aware of the problem to begin with.
$10 may not seem like much to you, but i wouldn't turn my nose up at it.
I apologize, I didn't get the joke. I'm kinda used to be attacked on this subject.
And you're right, I had no intention of suing classmates.com in the first place so yeah, woohoo 10 bucks, right? The whole debate on this topic has been a matter of principle though. I don't think anyone posting on this topic has any REAL intention of suing anyone for anything. We're just arguing hypotheticals, and that's fine, I'm all for it.
So, hypothetically speaking, IF I wanted to sue classmates.com, I'm no longer legally allowed to do so, because I have 10 bucks. I could potentially have been entitled to thousands, but I'll never know because I have 10 bucks. See my point?
And you're right, I had no intention of suing classmates.com in the first place so yeah, woohoo 10 bucks, right? The whole debate on this topic has been a matter of principle though. I don't think anyone posting on this topic has any REAL intention of suing anyone for anything. We're just arguing hypotheticals, and that's fine, I'm all for it.
So, hypothetically speaking, IF I wanted to sue classmates.com, I'm no longer legally allowed to do so, because I have 10 bucks. I could potentially have been entitled to thousands, but I'll never know because I have 10 bucks. See my point?
@ Tristrix
no offence taken.
as i may have mentioned, (or perhaps you took a wild guess) i'm not a lawyer or an expert on the subject of class action law suits, but i imagine there is a way to opt out and retain the right to sue by refusing to accept the settlement check. i say this because otherwise a big company internally aware of a major liability with a product or service could have a class action suit brought against themselves which awarded all customers a minimal settlement, potentially saving millions of dollars.
perhaps class action suits can be used as a form of damage control. people seem to suggest the system needs reform, but IMO that does seem like a legal loophole so big that it couldn't possibly have existed for so long without reform.
no offence taken.
as i may have mentioned, (or perhaps you took a wild guess) i'm not a lawyer or an expert on the subject of class action law suits, but i imagine there is a way to opt out and retain the right to sue by refusing to accept the settlement check. i say this because otherwise a big company internally aware of a major liability with a product or service could have a class action suit brought against themselves which awarded all customers a minimal settlement, potentially saving millions of dollars.
perhaps class action suits can be used as a form of damage control. people seem to suggest the system needs reform, but IMO that does seem like a legal loophole so big that it couldn't possibly have existed for so long without reform.
This won't be the last of these by a long shot. Our government effectively decided that if a company doesn't want to be subject to a class action suit, they can simply opt out of them through forced ToS. America, fuck... yeah?
@psycho
There is a way to opt out, but it's when the suit is filed, not when the settlement is reached. Like the Sony ToS, there's a window of opportunity when one can mail a letter to someone and say "take me out, yo" and they'll exclude you from the class action.
That, however, would require that the person in question was aware of the suit in the first place. In this particular case, I was not. By the time I knew the suit existed, it was over and I'd "won" and was WELL past my window of opportunity to opt out.
There is a way to opt out, but it's when the suit is filed, not when the settlement is reached. Like the Sony ToS, there's a window of opportunity when one can mail a letter to someone and say "take me out, yo" and they'll exclude you from the class action.
That, however, would require that the person in question was aware of the suit in the first place. In this particular case, I was not. By the time I knew the suit existed, it was over and I'd "won" and was WELL past my window of opportunity to opt out.
This is what happens when you let corporate greeds take over the entire freaking system.
Then again we Americans are known for our trigger happy lawsuits; it's only obvious corporations will try to cover their asses.
Then again we Americans are known for our trigger happy lawsuits; it's only obvious corporations will try to cover their asses.
@ Tristrix
see this is where i fail to understand. if you agree to settle in any way, you forfeit your right to sue again - that makes perfect sense. if you don't agree to litigate in the first place, then how can you legally be accountable for being involved in the lawsuit? it just doesn't make sense to me, so i suspect there is another way.
i guess if that is the case it certainly isn't openly advertised after the fact to people involved in a class action suit such as yourself.
see this is where i fail to understand. if you agree to settle in any way, you forfeit your right to sue again - that makes perfect sense. if you don't agree to litigate in the first place, then how can you legally be accountable for being involved in the lawsuit? it just doesn't make sense to me, so i suspect there is another way.
i guess if that is the case it certainly isn't openly advertised after the fact to people involved in a class action suit such as yourself.
@Rekreatur: "Well I wasn't planning to sue them anyway so I'm gonna continue not caring."
Have fun when all your PSN content vanishes and they won't restore it. Or did you somehow manage to plan for something like that?
Have fun when all your PSN content vanishes and they won't restore it. Or did you somehow manage to plan for something like that?
@hardy83: Don't know if Jim heading back to UK would be better, seeing how the fuckers in government now are destroying the UK and its people due to wanting to save money, how corporate can you get than the Cameron Government? They are corporate, pure and simple. I am surprised at the Sony reasoning behind this TOS. I am sure they can write anything in their TOS including you can't take a shit without their knowledge, but it sure as fuck doesn't mean people are going to follow it or the courts. It is not a law, the law allows you to have class action lawsuits.
These types of clauses are common, some states don't even allow class actions at all. As a consumer, you're probably waiving your right to sue more than you will ever realize. Read the fine print. It's almost always binding, it's called 'click-wrap'.
@Jim,
Thanks for explaining where you were coming from. I see what you mean and don't have an issue anymore.
@DasPooch,
I never mentioned or alluded to the idea of a magical switch. I'm not ignorant enough to believe that without work things will get better. I get what you are saying regarding awareness, but we've been brought awareness multiple times on this issue, in which case, to me, this article doesn't bring more awareness, just confirmation. Honestly, no one can honestly say that they were expecting Sony to have a profound reason for this move. I'm actually rather surprised that they did explain themselves when really they didn't have to.
To tie this up, I feel that after awareness there needs to be more action. Awareness only goes so far. For example, someone could be completely aware of a ball hurtling towards their face, but if they don't take the extra step by dodging (or being lucky enough for someone to push them out of the way) then the end result will be a lot of pain. So yes, I'm not impressed with just awareness and I still stand by my earlier comment. I could really care less what you think about it.
Thanks for explaining where you were coming from. I see what you mean and don't have an issue anymore.
@DasPooch,
I never mentioned or alluded to the idea of a magical switch. I'm not ignorant enough to believe that without work things will get better. I get what you are saying regarding awareness, but we've been brought awareness multiple times on this issue, in which case, to me, this article doesn't bring more awareness, just confirmation. Honestly, no one can honestly say that they were expecting Sony to have a profound reason for this move. I'm actually rather surprised that they did explain themselves when really they didn't have to.
To tie this up, I feel that after awareness there needs to be more action. Awareness only goes so far. For example, someone could be completely aware of a ball hurtling towards their face, but if they don't take the extra step by dodging (or being lucky enough for someone to push them out of the way) then the end result will be a lot of pain. So yes, I'm not impressed with just awareness and I still stand by my earlier comment. I could really care less what you think about it.
@Tristrix:
I accept the EULA today (without opting out). I can't join a class action suit that was filed August 21st. For it to be not retroactive, I should be able to join any suit that was filed before the date of agreement.
I accept the EULA today (without opting out). I can't join a class action suit that was filed August 21st. For it to be not retroactive, I should be able to join any suit that was filed before the date of agreement.
@sqlrob That doesn't make it "retroactive." That sets a firm date where the rule comes into effect. Likely the date it was first drafted.
Retroactive would be Sony cutting off your service for being in violation of the ToS because you were in a class action against them a year ago.
@Psycho somebody can file a lawsuit "on behalf of all subscribers of X" and if that suit were to result in judgement, X is then legally held responsible for compensation of everybody who falls under that umbrella.
Since Tristrix never explicitly said "I'm not a part of this suit" in writing he was assumed to be part of the litigation.
Incidentally, the particular settlement in Tristrix case is described...
"The settlement is for anyone residing in the United States who were registered with or subscribed to www.classmates.com at any time beginning on October 30, 2004 through February 23, 2011. The lawsuit claims “Classmates sent e-mail to subscribers of www.classmates.com that violated the law and the privacy rights of subscribers”, among other things."
That kind of law buttfuckery is why Sony is specifically requesting the opt-outs in written format. The mailed letter part is the hoop you need to jump through that makes it inconvenient.
Retroactive would be Sony cutting off your service for being in violation of the ToS because you were in a class action against them a year ago.
@Psycho somebody can file a lawsuit "on behalf of all subscribers of X" and if that suit were to result in judgement, X is then legally held responsible for compensation of everybody who falls under that umbrella.
Since Tristrix never explicitly said "I'm not a part of this suit" in writing he was assumed to be part of the litigation.
Incidentally, the particular settlement in Tristrix case is described...
"The settlement is for anyone residing in the United States who were registered with or subscribed to www.classmates.com at any time beginning on October 30, 2004 through February 23, 2011. The lawsuit claims “Classmates sent e-mail to subscribers of www.classmates.com that violated the law and the privacy rights of subscribers”, among other things."
That kind of law buttfuckery is why Sony is specifically requesting the opt-outs in written format. The mailed letter part is the hoop you need to jump through that makes it inconvenient.
@ Zephreus
that would all make sense if he had been offered the chance to opt out in writing. it doesn't make sense to me that a person can be any part of any legal preceding at all without their knowledge and consent, whether implied or explicit.
that would all make sense if he had been offered the chance to opt out in writing. it doesn't make sense to me that a person can be any part of any legal preceding at all without their knowledge and consent, whether implied or explicit.
@Tristix: I believe your example confirms my suspicions. I am not fully aware of how the legal system work, and from what I can see you are quite familiarized with the subject. Thank you for shedding some light on the subject.
I do have a question, though: Is that valid for all Class Action Suits? Aren't there some customers who prefer this method and are now upset that this option isn't there anymore?
I do have a question, though: Is that valid for all Class Action Suits? Aren't there some customers who prefer this method and are now upset that this option isn't there anymore?
Already wrote up my letter to opt out. This is absurd, and you can bet it's a direct knee-jerk reaction to the class action against them over the PSN hack. I love how they say "benefit both the consumer..." Sure Sony, how exactly does not being able to do anything legally if they are wronged benefit the consumer?
Just as troubling, however, are the new language changes in the ToS, where all mentions of "purchases/ing" have been changed to "leasing" and "licensing." Yep, you don't own anything and they can take anything away from you whenever they want :-)
Just as troubling, however, are the new language changes in the ToS, where all mentions of "purchases/ing" have been changed to "leasing" and "licensing." Yep, you don't own anything and they can take anything away from you whenever they want :-)
If not for this post, I may never have known about what the hell is going on in Wall Street. Now I'm dedicated a good part of my afternoon to tell people about it.
follow
