EA copies Sony's "Can Not Sue Us" clause

EA is at it, too.

Basically, it screws people in the US, because the US government allowed it with the AT&T ruling.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to what your elected officials are up to. Good job.

I forget. What was it that I usually say to EA?

Well someone's a mister grumpypants.

It's not just the US.

Despite Canada not having such a ruling, the updated clause on PSN was spread up here, too.

Also, wasn't it a Supreme Court ruling? The Supreme Court justices are NOT elected.

edited 24th Sep '11 12:25:38 AM by burnpsy

Yeah, if it goes all the way up to SCOTUS, it's guaranteed to be official.

Judges aren't elected. And because of the distinction with the AT&T case (employees as opposed to customers), it's plausible you could appeal this. Not sure what your chances of winning are, but the outcome is not set in stone.

Doesn't affect europe right?

Well, it would if you tried to sue them in American courts for some reason.

Oh, okay, yay :D

Well, it could be worse...

I bet hacktivists will have a field day. Y'know, after the government stops hunting them.

Supreme Court Justices are not elected, but they are appointed by people who are. So when you have to replace someone who wasn't a corporatist hack and your entire executive and legislative branches are packed with people who are...

The judges are lifetime appointees.

Which I think is bullshit.

Funny thing, Supreme Court Justices aren't necessarily loyal to the presidents who appointed them.

Truman was furious when two of his Justices ruled against him in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

Justices Stevens and Souter were both Republican appointees, but they generally sided with the liberal branch of the Court.

edited 24th Sep '11 12:53:59 PM by lrrose

^^ It's to keep them from valuing their political careers over their decisions.

edited 24th Sep '11 7:51:52 PM by RTaco

What R Taco said. A few States do elect their Justices though.

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/State_supreme_court_justices_chosen_in_partisan_elections

My opinion on electing Justices is best not expressed in civil company.

I believe that this whole thing is Sony and EA attempting to try and get away with treating the consumers as employees with a $0.00 wage.

Yes, you read that right. The AT&T case was over a contract between them AND THEIR EMPLOYEES. WHICH THEY PAY. Sony's using that as an excuse to force the same on their consumers, which they DO NOT PAY, and now EA's following suit.

edited 25th Sep '11 11:28:09 AM by kitsunezeta

I'm sure someone will figure out a way to make Lawsuit By Proxy work to circumvent this madness.

The system is flawed either way. sometimes free of political pressure, a hardcore republican or liberal judge will take a more moderate stance. sometimes,. they instead will do their damndest to stack the courts opinions towards their ideology, like the current court.