This is not legal in the netherlands... Its not allowed to change anything in terms and agreements whenever people have bought a product... Unless they offer to buy back all units from people that cant agree to the changed terms and agreements... (in dutch court this would also mean that they have to pay any costs like games that the user bought and which become obsolete because he can no longer play them on his PS3)
Next to that i think the whole new terms on itselves are illegal in the Netherlands.... they just don't fit in with customer rights and comapnies obligations for customer service.
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Can't say i'm not suprised, since when has sony been a caring give a shit company.. What sucks though is that its hard to boycott sony when they have exclusive games that you wanna play.
... okay.. not that i advocate boycotting without adequate justification, although, they're definitely making the attempt.. but what games do they do that are even all that popular that it would be an issue even.. most of their games are more than a little long in the tooth, and their 'newer' games are lacking in popularity.. even DCUO is struggling to maintain a population, and failing, given the 'supermerger' they just did with the servers. SOE desperately needs that 'killer app' kind of thing that they had when EQ was in its infancy.. perhaps their hoping that Planetside 2 will do what DCUO failed to achieve... but i think its a long shot either way.
Boycott Sony... why bother.. honestly?
Uh SOE =/= Sony.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling" Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
Can't say i'm not suprised, since when has sony been a caring give a shit company.. What sucks though is that its hard to boycott sony when they have exclusive games that you wanna play.
... okay.. not that i advocate boycotting without adequate justification, although, they're definitely making the attempt.. but what games do they do that are even all that popular that it would be an issue even.. most of their games are more than a little long in the tooth, and their 'newer' games are lacking in popularity.. even DCUO is struggling to maintain a population, and failing, given the 'supermerger' they just did with the servers. SOE desperately needs that 'killer app' kind of thing that they had when EQ was in its infancy.. perhaps their hoping that Planetside 2 will do what DCUO failed to achieve... but i think its a long shot either way.
Boycott Sony... why bother.. honestly?
Errmmm, what rock did you crawl out from under. Sony is the biggest Game Platform on the market. Their competitors are Nintendo, Microsoft Xbox, and a very very small percentage in the PC industry. They are multimarket as well, not only selling gaming platforms but electronics(e.g. Sony portable music devices, Sony mobile telephones, Sony T.V.'s, Sony Computers, etc.),
and they have their own motion picture/music production department. Almost everything that has to do with entertainment, they have their hands into.
Can't say i'm not suprised, since when has sony been a caring give a shit company.. What sucks though is that its hard to boycott sony when they have exclusive games that you wanna play.
... okay.. not that i advocate boycotting without adequate justification, although, they're definitely making the attempt.. but what games do they do that are even all that popular that it would be an issue even.. most of their games are more than a little long in the tooth, and their 'newer' games are lacking in popularity.. even DCUO is struggling to maintain a population, and failing, given the 'supermerger' they just did with the servers. SOE desperately needs that 'killer app' kind of thing that they had when EQ was in its infancy.. perhaps their hoping that Planetside 2 will do what DCUO failed to achieve... but i think its a long shot either way.
Boycott Sony... why bother.. honestly?
Errmmm, what rock did you crawl out from under. Sony is the biggest Game Platform on the market. Their competitors are Nintendo, Microsoft Xbox, and a very very small percentage in the PC industry. They are multimarket as well, not only selling gaming platforms but electronics(e.g. Sony portable music devices, Sony mobile telephones, Sony T.V.'s, Sony Computers, etc.),
and they have their own motion picture/music production department. Almost everything that has to do with entertainment, they have their hands into.
i think market share, when it comes to consoles is something like this;
Nintendo Wii - Xbox 360 - PS3.. though last time i checked, the Nintendo Wii had more users than both the combined Xbox and PS3 consoles, though just to show that Nintendo can screw up too, the 3D handset they tried to flog.. bombed.. and on the PC you are correct in saying that Sony does indeed have a miniscule market share, kind of an own goal there though... as for the rest, its not like their doing all that well as the company has been losing money steadily, and that was even after having had to restructure their debts a year or so ago... Sony, in the entertainment business isnt as big of a player as they used to be.. and its their own fault, although, i have to say, in the music industry, their no better or worse than some of the others, they just failed to move with the times and adapt to modern technology, which is why Apple is making hay at Sony's expense.
Can't say i'm not suprised, since when has sony been a caring give a shit company.. What sucks though is that its hard to boycott sony when they have exclusive games that you wanna play.
... okay.. not that i advocate boycotting without adequate justification, although, they're definitely making the attempt.. but what games do they do that are even all that popular that it would be an issue even.. most of their games are more than a little long in the tooth, and their 'newer' games are lacking in popularity.. even DCUO is struggling to maintain a population, and failing, given the 'supermerger' they just did with the servers. SOE desperately needs that 'killer app' kind of thing that they had when EQ was in its infancy.. perhaps their hoping that Planetside 2 will do what DCUO failed to achieve... but i think its a long shot either way.
Boycott Sony... why bother.. honestly?
Errmmm, what rock did you crawl out from under. Sony is the biggest Game Platform on the market. Their competitors are Nintendo, Microsoft Xbox, and a very very small percentage in the PC industry. They are multimarket as well, not only selling gaming platforms but electronics(e.g. Sony portable music devices, Sony mobile telephones, Sony T.V.'s, Sony Computers, etc.),
and they have their own motion picture/music production department. Almost everything that has to do with entertainment, they have their hands into.
i think market share, when it comes to consoles is something like this;
Nintendo Wii - Xbox 360 - PS3.. though last time i checked, the Nintendo Wii had more users than both the combined Xbox and PS3 consoles, though just to show that Nintendo can screw up too, the 3D handset they tried to flog.. bombed.. and on the PC you are correct in saying that Sony does indeed have a miniscule market share, kind of an own goal there though... as for the rest, its not like their doing all that well as the company has been losing money steadily, and that was even after having had to restructure their debts a year or so ago... Sony, in the entertainment business isnt as big of a player as they used to be.. and its their own fault, although, i have to say, in the music industry, their no better or worse than some of the others, they just failed to move with the times and adapt to modern technology, which is why Apple is making hay at Sony's expense.
like i said.. why even bother boycotting Sony...
Marketshare based rankings goes Microsoft, Sony, and way way back Nintendo, but this is because, as I was stating, Sony is more than an online entity. They are multimarket while nintendo is gaming platform only. The only way you can get off of one of their gaming platforms is to download or purchase an emulator and play it on a PC. BTW, based on marketshare, Microsoft is number 1, Sony is number 2, nintendo doesn't even make it into the top 10. The only reason Nintendo continues to be compared to the other two is because their company has been around since the 1889 and therefore has a gross value that absolutely eclipses the other two who have only been around for a relatively short period of time. (Sony since 1955 and Microsoft since 1975)
It wouldn't affect my decision at all. I'm not a lawsuit freak and would most likely only file a lawsuit that can easily be done on my own due to the gravity of their actions.
Sony getting hacked is not one of those actions. I wouldn't file a lawsuite against a bank if it would be robbed either (assuming they aren't insured and i would lose some of my deposits due to it). Filing a lawsuite against the victim of a crime seems really silly.
lol so if some one stole your Id and your car and house. you would not file lawsuit. So you just let some one rob you blindly outside and no do nothing way to go bro .
It wouldn't affect my decision at all. I'm not a lawsuit freak and would most likely only file a lawsuit that can easily be done on my own due to the gravity of their actions.
Sony getting hacked is not one of those actions. I wouldn't file a lawsuite against a bank if it would be robbed either (assuming they aren't insured and i would lose some of my deposits due to it). Filing a lawsuite against the victim of a crime seems really silly.
lol so if some one stole your Id and your car and house. you would not file lawsuit. So you just let some one rob you blindly outside and no do nothing way to go bro .
If i knew who hacked sony i'd sue them. Sony stole nothing, they got hacked and info was stolen from them. As far as i know you willingly gave them your info, that's not stealing, the thieves are the hackers. So my point still stands, filing a lawsuit against the victim of a crime is silly.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
It wouldn't affect my decision at all. I'm not a lawsuit freak and would most likely only file a lawsuit that can easily be done on my own due to the gravity of their actions.
Sony getting hacked is not one of those actions. I wouldn't file a lawsuite against a bank if it would be robbed either (assuming they aren't insured and i would lose some of my deposits due to it). Filing a lawsuite against the victim of a crime seems really silly.
lol so if some one stole your Id and your car and house. you would not file lawsuit. So you just let some one rob you blindly outside and no do nothing way to go bro .
If i knew who hacked sony i'd sue them. Sony stole nothing, they got hacked and info was stolen from them. As far as i know you willingly gave them your info, that's not stealing, the thieves are the hackers. So my point still stands, filing a lawsuit against the victim of a crime is silly.
While I do agree that Sony is a victim here, they make more than enough money to employ people who could adequately secure their network. Yes you volunteered your information so that they could provide a network identity for you, however, they have have a responsibility to protect that online identity. This isn't the first major firm to be hacked nor will it be the last until they come up with a way to keep your personal information seperate from the identity that the rest of the world see's on their network. BTW, in the article, the group that claims responsibility is Lulz Security.
Concerning Lulz Security, while I applaud their ability to find and crack sites that have security issues, their method of exposing is criminal. In the U.S. they would be charged with the crime of hacking the systems and breach of the computer privacy act of 1987. Yes, we need to know about these things but have a care when you are posting information publically concerning peoples online identity. There are much better ways to handle it.
Hopefully these kinds of laws don't make it to Europe, but I fear it's only a matter of time. USA should just rename itself to UCA, United Corporations of America
Hopefully these kinds of laws don't make it to Europe, but I fear it's only a matter of time. USA should just rename itself to UCA, United Corporations of America
THIS!!! THIS!!! 100000X THIS!
Funny, but Sony is not an US based firm. They have a branch here, just like they have one in Canada and the UK and several other places around the world, but their HQ is and always will be in Japan.
Hopefully these kinds of laws don't make it to Europe, but I fear it's only a matter of time. USA should just rename itself to UCA, United Corporations of America
Oh WAAAAH, the big bad evil corporation.
Someone has to lead the sheep around -- they certainly aren't capable of doing it themselves.
I initally defended Sony to a degree. Blaming the hackers and stating that it could happen to any corporation. I still agree to some extent but wish to apologize to any other forum posters with which I debated. Arbitration agreements are bullshit and any company who uses them are pieces of shit. It's the same tactics organizations like Blackwater use on their employees to absolve themselves of any responsibility....not to mention arbitrations used in insurance and credit card contracts...bullshit. .Fuck SONY and I hope their console market crashes. Fuckers!
SOE was at one time my favourite developer/publisher,they have really stepped on their own feet as of late.I feel SOE is slowly going to dwindle into more layoffs and more profit loss,they are doing too many things to piss people off.At the end of all this is maybe what many people have asked for,Smedley will be removed "i think" not sure he is quite a powerful person ,but still money talks first.
You know what giants like SOE do with all the profits they make from your purchases,sub fees?They don't spend it on better gaming,they use it to hire the best lawyers out there to fight lawsuits and make up new documents to bind users to.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
This new user agreement stuff is all kinds of wrong, and what Sony is trying to do shouldn't even be legal.
It enables Sony to handle all lawsuits out of court, and instead through a company or whatever that both sides of the lawsuit must pay, which i'm guessing will side with Sony more often then not since they'll want them to continue using thier services (or whatever, i'm really not sure what the propper name for those types of companies).
That was bad enough, but now it is being fully forced upon us?
Atleast with other updates and such we had the option to freely ignore it if we so chose, we would just not be able to go online until we did, but with this one we will be banned within 30days if you do not agree to it..
Hopefully these kinds of laws don't make it to Europe, but I fear it's only a matter of time. USA should just rename itself to UCA, United Corporations of America
THIS!!! THIS!!! 100000X THIS!
Funny, but Sony is not an US based firm. They have a branch here, just like they have one in Canada and the UK and several other places around the world, but their HQ is and always will be in Japan.
I realise this, but there's no country quite as willing to bend over and take it for a corporation as the good ole' USA.
And I'm just cranky with corporations atm......I work for one, and it pisses me off.
I have a PS3 and this is not cool. Dick move Sony, dick move. Here's hoping the next Xbox has Blu-ray support because I will be ditching Sony and will not have anything to do with any of their hardware or Service Agreements.
Arbitration agreements are bullshit and any company who uses them are pieces of shit.
Well, that serioulsy limits your options as a consumer. Good luck with that.
Six on one hand half a dozen on the other. I understand how many corps use arbitration agreements. It's still bullshit none-the-less. I'm either limited in options or just agree to forfeit my rights as a consumer. It's all the rage these days...in every facet of life. Doesn't mean I have to like it...or that we should put up with it because it would limit our "options of as a consumer" to do otherwise. At the least I will be vocal about it...for all the good it does anyone these days.
whatever sony think they re doing clear them from responsability ,they are wrong ,if sony didnt sit with the player in front of a justice rep and did all this in front of a judge for each player ,means that this idea will not fly very high in front of court ,it will just scare some from suing but you cannot pre-protexct yourself from an issue espacailly in case like this when it is perfectly preventable(ask grc.com guru steve gibson)
This new user agreement stuff is all kinds of wrong, and what Sony is trying to do shouldn't even be legal.
It enables Sony to handle all lawsuits out of court, and instead through a company or whatever that both sides of the lawsuit must pay, which i'm guessing will side with Sony more often then not since they'll want them to continue using thier services (or whatever, i'm really not sure what the propper name for those types of companies).
That was bad enough, but now it is being fully forced upon us?
Atleast with other updates and such we had the option to freely ignore it if we so chose, we would just not be able to go online until we did, but with this one we will be banned within 30days if you do not agree to it..
That's exactly it. Sony picks the arbitrator. The arbitrator will undoubtly side with Sony because they are PAID by Sony and likely have a long lucrative contract. Historically...in cases where arbitrators side with the client...they get blackballed from being used for any other corp because they can not be trusted to side with the company. That's worst case...usually the employee for the arbitrator who rules on the individual side just gets fired and will never work as an arbitrator again..anywhere.
I wonder how well something like this would stand up in court. Its a very common tactic by companies to put tons of shit in contacts that make it look like you have no recourse. But actually in legal terms a judge would look at the shit, laugh and then reem the company a new asswhole. This is very common with labor and banking issues.
I had an issue with this for work a while back, brought the contract to a lawyer, he told me just to throw it away nothing is going to happen. ANd nothing did happen.
I wonder how well something like this would stand up in court. Its a very common tactic by companies to put tons of shit in contacts that make it look like you have no recourse. But actually in legal terms a judge would look at the shit, laugh and then reem the company a new asswhole. This is very common with labor and banking issues.
I had an issue with this for work a while back, brought the contract to a lawyer, he told me just to throw it away nothing is going to happen. ANd nothing did happen.
It took that KBR(Haliburton) employee who claimed being raped by fellow employees about 7 years to fight the arbitration clause and get her day in court. She ended up losing anyway but just to get there took almost a decade. She may have exaggerated, which cost her the case imo...but even if it started as a drunken mutual sexual encounter...she ended up needing vaginal and anal recontructive surgery so..something is definitely wrong with that.
If i knew who hacked sony i'd sue them. Sony stole nothing, they got hacked and info was stolen from them. As far as i know you willingly gave them your info, that's not stealing, the thieves are the hackers. So my point still stands, filing a lawsuit against the victim of a crime is silly.
While I do agree that Sony is a victim here, they make more than enough money to employ people who could adequately secure their network. Yes you volunteered your information so that they could provide a network identity for you, however, they have have a responsibility to protect that online identity. This isn't the first major firm to be hacked nor will it be the last until they come up with a way to keep your personal information seperate from the identity that the rest of the world see's on their network. BTW, in the article, the group that claims responsibility is Lulz Security.
Concerning Lulz Security, while I applaud their ability to find and crack sites that have security issues, their method of exposing is criminal. In the U.S. they would be charged with the crime of hacking the systems and breach of the computer privacy act of 1987. Yes, we need to know about these things but have a care when you are posting information publically concerning peoples online identity. There are much better ways to handle it.
I agree that there is a partial responsibility of Sony as they are the ones supposed to secure said info, but it is a grey area to my opinion, what is true negligence and what is not. It is practically impossible to provide 100% security and there will always be someone pointing fingers, i firmly believe that if one feels a company was being negligent they should use the market to make their point and not lawsuits as to my opinion a lawsuit has to be used when someone did something illegal or something which violates an agreement. Make bad publicity, cancel your subscriptions, etc. use money as your tool to make it clear to the company you won't let them be negligent but keep lawsuites for things which are blatantly wrong on a legal level.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
It wouldn't affect my decision at all. I'm not a lawsuit freak and would most likely only file a lawsuit that can easily be done on my own due to the gravity of their actions.
Sony getting hacked is not one of those actions. I wouldn't file a lawsuite against a bank if it would be robbed either (assuming they aren't insured and i would lose some of my deposits due to it). Filing a lawsuite against the victim of a crime seems really silly.
lol so if some one stole your Id and your car and house. you would not file lawsuit. So you just let some one rob you blindly outside and no do nothing way to go bro .
If i knew who hacked sony i'd sue them. Sony stole nothing, they got hacked and info was stolen from them. As far as i know you willingly gave them your info, that's not stealing, the thieves are the hackers. So my point still stands, filing a lawsuit against the victim of a crime is silly.
Point being missed utterly.
It's not about them getting hacked, it's about them failing to safeguard client information, YOUR INFORMATION, appropriately. It's their competence that's at issue. Using the bank analogy, I wouldn't sue one if it were robbed but my money was safe because they'd have done their job and ultimately protected my interests. I would sue however, if they'd left the front door open, the vault unlocked, fired all the security guards previously and failed to call the police immediately after the fact, THEN refused to insure anything I'd lost under their watchful gaze.
I believe in punishing the guilty. What you aren't comprehending is that SOE is also guilty, but of something altogether different from what the hackers did to them. Throw 'em to the wolves as an example to other companies that the trust their clients put in them to keep their personal and financial information safe, is not something to be taken lightly.
lol so if some one stole your Id and your car and house. you would not file lawsuit. So you just let some one rob you blindly outside and no do nothing way to go bro .
If i knew who hacked sony i'd sue them. Sony stole nothing, they got hacked and info was stolen from them. As far as i know you willingly gave them your info, that's not stealing, the thieves are the hackers. So my point still stands, filing a lawsuit against the victim of a crime is silly.
Point being missed utterly.
It's not about them getting hacked, it's about them failing to safeguard client information, YOUR INFORMATION, appropriately. It's their competence that's at issue. Using the bank analogy, I wouldn't sue one if it were robbed but my money was safe because they'd have done their job and ultimately protected my interests. I would sue however, if they'd left the front door open, the vault unlocked, fired all the security guards previously and failed to call the police immediately after the fact, THEN refused to insure anything I'd lost under their watchful gaze.
I believe in punishing the guilty. What you aren't comprehending is that SOE is also guilty, but of something altogether different from what the hackers did to them. Throw 'em to the wolves as an example to other companies that the trust their clients put in them to keep their personal and financial information safe, is not something to be taken lightly.
No point was made at all, he merely claimed sony was some sort of thief which is blatantly false.
Secondly using your analogy it would mean that i could have accessed personal info in sony's database with ease and that without having any hacking skills whatsoever which i hardly doubt. The problem here is that you're using a hyperbole to make of a grey area a black one. Sony had security, many simply think it wasn't enough, which can be true. But would you sue your bank because they didn't have the latest alarm systems and didn't arm their guards with army issue M4's with grenade launchers?
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
Comments
This is not legal in the netherlands... Its not allowed to change anything in terms and agreements whenever people have bought a product... Unless they offer to buy back all units from people that cant agree to the changed terms and agreements... (in dutch court this would also mean that they have to pay any costs like games that the user bought and which become obsolete because he can no longer play them on his PS3)
Next to that i think the whole new terms on itselves are illegal in the Netherlands.... they just don't fit in with customer rights and comapnies obligations for customer service.
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Uh SOE =/= Sony.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
Errmmm, what rock did you crawl out from under. Sony is the biggest Game Platform on the market. Their competitors are Nintendo, Microsoft Xbox, and a very very small percentage in the PC industry. They are multimarket as well, not only selling gaming platforms but electronics(e.g. Sony portable music devices, Sony mobile telephones, Sony T.V.'s, Sony Computers, etc.),
and they have their own motion picture/music production department. Almost everything that has to do with entertainment, they have their hands into.
i think market share, when it comes to consoles is something like this;
Nintendo Wii - Xbox 360 - PS3.. though last time i checked, the Nintendo Wii had more users than both the combined Xbox and PS3 consoles, though just to show that Nintendo can screw up too, the 3D handset they tried to flog.. bombed.. and on the PC you are correct in saying that Sony does indeed have a miniscule market share, kind of an own goal there though... as for the rest, its not like their doing all that well as the company has been losing money steadily, and that was even after having had to restructure their debts a year or so ago... Sony, in the entertainment business isnt as big of a player as they used to be.. and its their own fault, although, i have to say, in the music industry, their no better or worse than some of the others, they just failed to move with the times and adapt to modern technology, which is why Apple is making hay at Sony's expense.
like i said.. why even bother boycotting Sony...
Marketshare based rankings goes Microsoft, Sony, and way way back Nintendo, but this is because, as I was stating, Sony is more than an online entity. They are multimarket while nintendo is gaming platform only. The only way you can get off of one of their gaming platforms is to download or purchase an emulator and play it on a PC. BTW, based on marketshare, Microsoft is number 1, Sony is number 2, nintendo doesn't even make it into the top 10. The only reason Nintendo continues to be compared to the other two is because their company has been around since the 1889 and therefore has a gross value that absolutely eclipses the other two who have only been around for a relatively short period of time. (Sony since 1955 and Microsoft since 1975)
lol so if some one stole your Id and your car and house.
you would not file lawsuit. So you just let some one rob you blindly outside and no do nothing way to go bro 
.
.....
If i knew who hacked sony i'd sue them. Sony stole nothing, they got hacked and info was stolen from them. As far as i know you willingly gave them your info, that's not stealing, the thieves are the hackers. So my point still stands, filing a lawsuit against the victim of a crime is silly.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
While I do agree that Sony is a victim here, they make more than enough money to employ people who could adequately secure their network. Yes you volunteered your information so that they could provide a network identity for you, however, they have have a responsibility to protect that online identity. This isn't the first major firm to be hacked nor will it be the last until they come up with a way to keep your personal information seperate from the identity that the rest of the world see's on their network. BTW, in the article, the group that claims responsibility is Lulz Security.
Concerning Lulz Security, while I applaud their ability to find and crack sites that have security issues, their method of exposing is criminal. In the U.S. they would be charged with the crime of hacking the systems and breach of the computer privacy act of 1987. Yes, we need to know about these things but have a care when you are posting information publically concerning peoples online identity. There are much better ways to handle it.
THIS!!! THIS!!! 100000X THIS!
Funny, but Sony is not an US based firm. They have a branch here, just like they have one in Canada and the UK and several other places around the world, but their HQ is and always will be in Japan.
Oh WAAAAH, the big bad evil corporation.
Someone has to lead the sheep around -- they certainly aren't capable of doing it themselves.
I initally defended Sony to a degree. Blaming the hackers and stating that it could happen to any corporation. I still agree to some extent but wish to apologize to any other forum posters with which I debated. Arbitration agreements are bullshit and any company who uses them are pieces of shit. It's the same tactics organizations like Blackwater use on their employees to absolve themselves of any responsibility....not to mention arbitrations used in insurance and credit card contracts...bullshit. .Fuck SONY and I hope their console market crashes. Fuckers!
Well, that serioulsy limits your options as a consumer. Good luck with that.
SOE was at one time my favourite developer/publisher,they have really stepped on their own feet as of late.I feel SOE is slowly going to dwindle into more layoffs and more profit loss,they are doing too many things to piss people off.At the end of all this is maybe what many people have asked for,Smedley will be removed "i think" not sure he is quite a powerful person ,but still money talks first.
You know what giants like SOE do with all the profits they make from your purchases,sub fees?They don't spend it on better gaming,they use it to hire the best lawyers out there to fight lawsuits and make up new documents to bind users to.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
This new user agreement stuff is all kinds of wrong, and what Sony is trying to do shouldn't even be legal.
It enables Sony to handle all lawsuits out of court, and instead through a company or whatever that both sides of the lawsuit must pay, which i'm guessing will side with Sony more often then not since they'll want them to continue using thier services (or whatever, i'm really not sure what the propper name for those types of companies).
That was bad enough, but now it is being fully forced upon us?
Atleast with other updates and such we had the option to freely ignore it if we so chose, we would just not be able to go online until we did, but with this one we will be banned within 30days if you do not agree to it..
I realise this, but there's no country quite as willing to bend over and take it for a corporation as the good ole' USA.
And I'm just cranky with corporations atm......I work for one, and it pisses me off.
I have a PS3 and this is not cool. Dick move Sony, dick move. Here's hoping the next Xbox has Blu-ray support because I will be ditching Sony and will not have anything to do with any of their hardware or Service Agreements.
Six on one hand half a dozen on the other. I understand how many corps use arbitration agreements. It's still bullshit none-the-less. I'm either limited in options or just agree to forfeit my rights as a consumer. It's all the rage these days...in every facet of life. Doesn't mean I have to like it...or that we should put up with it because it would limit our "options of as a consumer" to do otherwise. At the least I will be vocal about it...for all the good it does anyone these days.
whatever sony think they re doing clear them from responsability ,they are wrong ,if sony didnt sit with the player in front of a justice rep and did all this in front of a judge for each player ,means that this idea will not fly very high in front of court ,it will just scare some from suing but you cannot pre-protexct yourself from an issue espacailly in case like this when it is perfectly preventable(ask grc.com guru steve gibson)
That's exactly it. Sony picks the arbitrator. The arbitrator will undoubtly side with Sony because they are PAID by Sony and likely have a long lucrative contract. Historically...in cases where arbitrators side with the client...they get blackballed from being used for any other corp because they can not be trusted to side with the company. That's worst case...usually the employee for the arbitrator who rules on the individual side just gets fired and will never work as an arbitrator again..anywhere.
I wonder how well something like this would stand up in court. Its a very common tactic by companies to put tons of shit in contacts that make it look like you have no recourse. But actually in legal terms a judge would look at the shit, laugh and then reem the company a new asswhole. This is very common with labor and banking issues.
I had an issue with this for work a while back, brought the contract to a lawyer, he told me just to throw it away nothing is going to happen. ANd nothing did happen.
It took that KBR(Haliburton) employee who claimed being raped by fellow employees about 7 years to fight the arbitration clause and get her day in court. She ended up losing anyway but just to get there took almost a decade. She may have exaggerated, which cost her the case imo...but even if it started as a drunken mutual sexual encounter...she ended up needing vaginal and anal recontructive surgery so..something is definitely wrong with that.
I agree that there is a partial responsibility of Sony as they are the ones supposed to secure said info, but it is a grey area to my opinion, what is true negligence and what is not. It is practically impossible to provide 100% security and there will always be someone pointing fingers, i firmly believe that if one feels a company was being negligent they should use the market to make their point and not lawsuits as to my opinion a lawsuit has to be used when someone did something illegal or something which violates an agreement. Make bad publicity, cancel your subscriptions, etc. use money as your tool to make it clear to the company you won't let them be negligent but keep lawsuites for things which are blatantly wrong on a legal level.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
Point being missed utterly.
It's not about them getting hacked, it's about them failing to safeguard client information, YOUR INFORMATION, appropriately. It's their competence that's at issue. Using the bank analogy, I wouldn't sue one if it were robbed but my money was safe because they'd have done their job and ultimately protected my interests. I would sue however, if they'd left the front door open, the vault unlocked, fired all the security guards previously and failed to call the police immediately after the fact, THEN refused to insure anything I'd lost under their watchful gaze.
I believe in punishing the guilty. What you aren't comprehending is that SOE is also guilty, but of something altogether different from what the hackers did to them. Throw 'em to the wolves as an example to other companies that the trust their clients put in them to keep their personal and financial information safe, is not something to be taken lightly.
No point was made at all, he merely claimed sony was some sort of thief which is blatantly false.
Secondly using your analogy it would mean that i could have accessed personal info in sony's database with ease and that without having any hacking skills whatsoever which i hardly doubt. The problem here is that you're using a hyperbole to make of a grey area a black one. Sony had security, many simply think it wasn't enough, which can be true. But would you sue your bank because they didn't have the latest alarm systems and didn't arm their guards with army issue M4's with grenade launchers?
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.