Sony outrage: Sign this legal waiver or you can't use PSN anymore

WTF, Sony?

My collegue Jordan Lund wrote that at Game Stooge. Here's my interpretation at Strategy Informer.

If you don't want to click on either link, here's the relevent parts of the PDF file:

"NOTE: THIS AGREEMENT CONTAINS A BINDING INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER PROVISION IN SECTION 15 THAT AFFECTS YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT AND WITH RESPECT TO ANY “DISPUTE” (AS DEFINED BELOW) BETWEEN YOU AND SNEI, SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC., SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC, THEIR AFFILIATES, PARENTS OR SUBSIDIARIES (ALL ENTITIES COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO BELOW AS “SONY ENTITIES”). YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF THE BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER PROVISIONS AS FURTHER DESCRIBED IN SECTION 15."

As the PDF TOS document states, again, in all caps, "ANY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEEDINGS, WHETHER IN ARBITRATION OR COURT, WILL BE CONDUCTED ONLY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND NOT IN A CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION OR AS A NAMED OR UNNAMED MEMBER IN A CLASS, CONSOLIDATED, REPRESENTATIVE OR PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL LEGALACTION, UNLESS BOTH YOU AND THE SONY ENTITY WITH WHICH YOU HAVE A DISPUTE SPECIFICALLY AGREE TO DO SO IN WRITING FOLLOWING INITIATION OF THE ARBITRATION. THIS PROVISION DOES NOT PRECLUDE YOUR PARTICIPATION AS A MEMBER IN A CLASS ACTION FILED ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 20, 2011."

Jeez, Sony's sure been doing a lot to piss people off lately.

I mean, you'd think getting hacked by people angry with your policy once would be enough to make you stop doing things that make people very upset, but no...

So, this some kind of DRM??????

Wow... that's a pretty terrible policy right there.

I don't speak legalese. Could someone give me a bulleted list of what rights this tramples on?

Usually I'm good with weaseling out the bad parts of contracts, but I seem to be unable to with this one. Care to explain?

Hmmm...looks like you can't sue them, but it only applies to class actions, i.e. where you're sort of part of a group who are suing them.

Wouldn't that make things harder for Sony, as if they did something that screwed over a large group, they'd have to deal with a bunch of separate cases at once?

edited 14th Sep '11 8:47:30 PM by INUH

Maybe but remember that people couldn't pool money to get a really good lawyer.

I personally think that some angry folks over at Anonymous are going to try to hack the PSN again.

After all, it can't be a coincidence that the PSN hack occurred shortly after Sony removed Linux support, and that really isn't even that much compared to having to surrender your rights to even play online at all.

^Bear in mind that PSN security is a thing that exists now, unlike then.

@Kostya: Unless they find some very generous Pro Bono lawyers or something.

Still, blocking class-action suits in the first place seems...skeevy.

Oh, I won't deny that it's a massive dick move.

Kinda curious whether it's enforceable, actually. Just because you agree to a contract doesn't mean it's legally binding.

Huh? I thought that was the point of contracts.

Well, the contract has to be approved by a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that they are legally binding.

I just had a thought:

Do you need PSN to use Steam on the PS 3?

^^^,^^Not necessarily. There are circumstances under which a contract isn't enforceable. According to my dad, who is a lawyer, at least. I'd have to ask him for more detail.

edited 14th Sep '11 8:57:10 PM by INUH

According to Jordan, Blockbuster tried this and failed.

Jordan says:

I did some additional digging and it turns out Blockbuster was sued over almost this exact same thing. The plaintiff referred to it as an “unconscionable contract”.

http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Harris_v._Blockbuster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_v._Blockbuster_Inc.

“the court found that Blockbuster’s arbitration provision was illusory, because there was nothing in the Terms and Conditions that would prevent Blockbuster from “unilaterally changing any part of the contract.””

The PSN is a free privilege any way, it is not a right and you don't have to pay for its use, I don't see what the big deal is, you did not pay for it, you don't have to pay for it..

^^But that was Blockbuster, and look where they are now! SCEA isn't heading the way of the Dodo, let alone Sony Corp.

^There's the fact that it comprises the entire online component for PS 3 (I think, dunno how how Steam integrates with it), so that creates a few problems for conscientious objectors who still want to play online.

edited 14th Sep '11 9:06:02 PM by RocketDude

It seems like an overly cautious thing. Did anybody actually sue them over closed accounts?

And for the most part, this'll more than likely just annoy people.

It's a completely overreaction to the hacking from earlier. Presuming that's the reason, of course.

"The PSN is a free privilege any way, it is not a right and you don't have to pay for its use, I don't see what the big deal is, you did not pay for it, you don't have to pay for it.."

Try playing online games on the PS 3 without PSN. And by the way, ever heard of PSN Plus?

They made it - their words - an "intergral part of the PS 3 experience".

You're right, it's a privilege, but people can say, "It's our privilege to sell our PS 3 and hop ship to Microsoft, who didn't let our personal info get stolen".

^Or get a PC, or get a Wii, or get a Smartphone...

Well, yeah, a PC. Kind of hard for Microsoft to prevent online use on that platform.

I'm not sure if it's bad that I knew who posted this thread before I even clicked on it.