Playstation Network Gets Revised, More Restrictive ToS

LordDax writes "Sony just rolled out their new Terms of Service for the Playstation Network. The new ToS features additions about the Master & Subaccount relationship, specifically that you can only 'legally' create a sub account for your own child. No friends allowed. Where it really gets interesting is when you get to the additions to section 3.0 Community Code of Conduct. You now can't tell anyone your real name, where you live or basically anything besides your PSN ID. The new ToS also brings to light that SCEA is going to be monitoring every piece of communication and activitiy, and reserves the right to remove any content or communication they find objectionable without having to tell you in interests of SCEA, its users, or licensors. Another addition is: 'Some content may be provided automatically without notice when you sign into PSN. Such content may include automatic updates or upgrades which may change your current operating system, cause a loss of data or content or cause a loss of functionalities or utilities.'"

Pretty typical legal butt-covering

[Dutch Gun]

Well, Sony is just telling us that it's *their network*, and they can do whatever the hell they want with it. It's a closed network. Is anyone surprised?

Naturally, no company in their right mind would create a closed network without asserting control over it. After all, whatever happens on the network, they'll likely held responsible for it to some degree. They're a big company with deep pockets, so they cover themselves like this.

The whole notion of users not broadcasting their real name - well, that's a pretty good idea in general, right? But by codifying it into the terms of service, they protect themselves when some idiot smack-talking kid actually gets the crap beat out of him when someone learns his real name and home address. Or is the target of a scam. Or any number of a thousand bad things that can happen if you aren't careful with your identity online.

Re:Any..

[Cerium]

Oh no! We'll have to resort to using local multiplayer and actually socializing with REAL people! Clearly such a platform would never succeed.

Seriously though, the hell are you even ranting about? Where is DRM even presenting a problem here? I'm fairly certain my PS3 doesn't have net access from time to time, yet everything I've downloaded from the PSN still works great. The only thing even remotely related to DRM in this change is the ability for them to push and kill content without the end-users direct approval (Which, I see there being some minor problems arising out of this, but honestly -- aside from force-killing homebrew hacks, what's the worst that could happen [heh]?).

I think what you're trying to be upset about is the whole net-nanny crap they're introducing. I don't agree with it either, but I also understand how many idiots have PS3s and how many of them are likely to do something stupid which somehow results in someone trying to sue Sony for a ridiculous amount of money. Care to take a wild guess what happens after that?

I get it, everyone hates Sony because they're ZOMG SPYING ON THE INTERNETS THROUGH THE PS3. Whatever. If they want to take extra measures to make sure two trash-talking jackasses don't end up killing each other, fine by me -- so long as I can still smoke you fools in some Wipeout HD.

Re:The point to subaccounts

[Martin Blank]

Sony isn't a monopoly. They've always had competition for their gaming consoles. They're one of four major music labels. There are plenty of other movie companies. Their electronics division operates with tight profit margins because of the other players in the field.

Large corporation with lots of fingers in lots of bowls of pudding? Sure. But a monopoly? Not even close.

Typical Sony Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Once, a long, long time ago I liked Sony. That time is past.

Why do they think they can do this to their customers? Unfortunately, they think they can do this to their customers because too many of us have kept coming back for more. When they would not honor their warranty on my laptop a few years back, I finally had enough. I have not regretted my decision one bit. Life is better without Sony.

Where do we draw the line?

[AbRASiON]

Do we sit and whine about our rights, complain about big brother spying on us or what?

I don't know, I realise some of these things are 'bad' in their TOS but really as has been stated, it's THEIR network and it's very very likely this is to cover their ass from litigation and kids being on the system.

I think you'll find it's unlikely that 2 conscenting (sp?) adults will be banned or in any real kind of trouble if they strike up a genuine friendship and swap names on the system, this is purely due to our modern, over litigous (sp?) society unfortunately

Disclaimer: I own a PS3 and hell yes, I do like it.

Only typical for Sony, in this scope

[Lonewolf666]

I've read a lot of agreements where the company in question did their best to get as favorable terms as possible when it comes to things like warranty and possible lawsuits. Read the typical Microsoft EULA for an example of this.

But the "COMMUNITY CODE OF CONDUCT" goes far beyond the typical asshattery of such EULAS. Sony reserve the right to censor your communications, and I suspect some rules, like
"You may not use, make, or distribute unauthorized software or hardware in conjunction with PSN, or take or use any data from PSN to design, develop or update unauthorized software or hardware, ..."
might even be illegal as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_of_trade [wikipedia.org].

Section 11 "MAINTENANCE AND UPGRADES", finally, goes beyond protecting the network and allows Sony to change data on your PS3. They also claim they are not liable for damage in the case of a botched upgrade.
It seems Sony executives have not learned anything from the rootkit affair (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit [wikipedia.org]).

There are two different properties in question

[HalAtWork]

Yeah sure, what they do with the network is fine. But control over a network and control over a device are two different things! If they modify pieces of data that pass through them, I guess it's their right as we are using them as a conduit and they say there is no guarantee that it should behave in a way we expect it to, it's their property and they set it up to behave the way they want. However if they're sending us data that modifies our device without consent, no, that's not their right. It's my property. Our device can behave however we want it to and choose to modify it. They can block it at the server or alter data in their own server that we choose to send to them. But they cannot just take over our devices and change things around and delete shit and alter functionality.

Re:The point to subaccounts

[UncleTogie]

One day it might be easier to escape the reach of a country than it is a corporation.

One day, there may not be much of a difference...