Sony asks gamers to sign new terms

[soda72]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14948701

Sony is preparing to ban gamers from the PlayStation Network (PSN) unless they waive the right to collectively sue it over future security breaches

I don't own a PlayStation, but was wondering how many here do and will be planing on signing this new agreement?

[Flipperk]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14948701

I don't own a PlayStation, but was wondering how many here do and will be planing on signing this new agreement?

Just because you sign a waiver does NOT mean you can not sue. You can still sue the company if they are negligent are their part, if there is another breach and it was something they could have prevented, or known about...this waiver is then useless.

[Tyrannis]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14948701

I don't own a PlayStation, but was wondering how many here do and will be planing on signing this new agreement?

I already did this morning. I can understand why there doing this.
First of all, PSN is free. Sony takes good care of it, But like they say you get what you pay for.

Second, when you decide to use your credit card that should be at your own risk. especially when you have playstation network cards which are 100% safer than using your credit card.

Third, This is cutting off one of the ways for Hackers to go after sony. One of the biggest ways sony was hit was when everyone tried sueing for the security breach.


Personally, i thing Sony should just ban the use of CC's all together and have people just buy the network cards. its so much safer, and costs no additional money.


Just my thoughts.

[VonMessa]

Just because you sign a waiver does NOT mean you can not sue. You can still sue the company if they are negligent are their part, if there is another breach and it was something they could have prevented, or known about...this waiver is then useless.

 ^  This

I wonder about the legality of a company asking it's customers to give up their rights to file a class action suit

[soda72]

 ^  This

I wonder about the legality of a company asking it's customers to give up their rights to file a class action suit

from the BBC article they state, that those who want to opt out will have to send a letter to Sony's Los Angeles headquarters in the US.

Once you do, you will be able to keep the right to file a class action lawsuit without any need for arbitration..

[VonMessa]

from the BBC article they state, that those who want to opt out will have to send a letter to Sony's Los Angeles headquarters in the US.

Once you do, you will be able to keep the right to file a class action lawsuit without any need for arbitration..

but one must agree to the new terms or otherwise they will not be able to use the online service... 

[soda72]

but one must agree to the new terms or otherwise they will not be able to use the online service... 

If you don't use a credit card you probably don't have anything to worry about...

hmmm maybe...

 

[Flipperk]

This new agreement seems useless to me, they still have an obligation (by law) to safeguard all information they use from their clients. By breaching this obligation then the clients have the right to filing law suits against the company, regardless of any signed agreement.

As I stated before above, just because you sign a waiver or agreement, the company IS STILL liable in making sure its clients are protected. If they are negligent and let this happen again, the agreement is then useless and they better bring out the checkbook and start writing in zeros until I say stop.

[wil3ur]

There was a similar situation at work where they were making us sign a sheet of paper they said was to make us 'aware' of our rights for breaks and lunches.  On the paper, they had added a 'by signing this you agree to waive your right to additional breaks or lunches if while working overtime'.  Basically, after 8 hours, you're allowed another 15m break, and after 10 hours another 30m unpaid lunch...

I thought this was lame and said I'll sign the area that says I'm aware of my rights, but I will not sign away my rights.  I made a copy of the paperwork for my own records and returned it unsigned, and as a manager I told my employees they should avoid signing that as well.  Needless to say, we had corporate HR down a few weeks later, that notice was removed from all records and another merely informing employees of their rights was distributed and we no longer have our HR person...

[VonMessa]

If you don't use a credit card you probably don't have anything to worry about...

hmmm maybe...

 

Basically they are trying to absolve themselves of all responsibilities if someone pisses in their sandbox again, even though they do not police it thoroughly enough to begin with...

[soda72]

This new agreement seems useless to me, they still have an obligation (by law) to safeguard all information they use from their clients. By breaching this obligation then the clients have the right to filing law suits against the company, regardless of any signed agreement.

As I stated before above, just because you sign a waiver or agreement, the company IS STILL liable in making sure its clients are protected. If they are negligent and let this happen again, the agreement is then useless and they better bring out the checkbook and start writing in zeros until I say stop.

The BBC article also states that once you sign the agreement you will have to try to resolve any legal issues with an arbitrator picked by Sony, before being able to file a lawsuit.  

I'm not  a lawyer so I don't know of any specific written statutes state or federal that would prevent this.  I also don't know of any case examples showing a history how similar cases were handled in the past.  If anyone here knows of a similar case or a law that's on the books to prevent this it would be interesting to learn more about it.

[Shuffler]

A contract in the US is not worth the paper it is written on.

Any judge can completely reauthor it and you are held to it even though you did not sign what he changed it to.

[Penguin]

A contract in the US is not worth the paper it is written on.

Any judge can completely reauthor it and you are held to it even though you did not sign what he changed it to.

I'm confused, would you care to provide a link so that I may better understand?

-Penguin

[Karnak]

Binding arbitration per contracts such as that have been upheld in the US, I think as high as the SCotUS.

There are some serious consumer protection issues with binding arbitration, but I don't think this forum is not the place to discuss it.

[Penguin]

Ooh, you have a point there.

-Penguin