Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sony Games Technology Your Rights Online

Sony Sued Over PSN 'No Suing' Provision 384

Posted by Soulskill
from the had-to-see-that-coming dept.
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from the Examiner: "In a grand dose of irony today, Sony was sued over a term in the PlayStation Network's End User Agreement that states that users cannot sue Sony. These terms were added in September, after a long string of Sony hacks (the official count is that Sony got broken into 17 times in a space of about 2 months), which included a massive outage of the PlayStation Network itself. The suit that was filed today is a class action suit for all of those who bought a PS3 and signed up for the PSN before the September update to the EULA. The suit also claims that this is a unfair Business practice on Sony's part, and requires users to forgo their rights in order to use the device that they purchased."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Sued Over PSN 'No Suing' Provision

Comments Filter:
  • EULAs (Score:3, Informative)

    by bonch (38532) * on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:01PM (#38441692)

    "The suit also claims that this is a unfair Business practice on Sony's part, and requires users to forgo their rights in order to use the device that they purchased."

    I don't know about the rest (avoiding legal culpability isn't exactly uncommon in EULAs), but this part is untrue. You don't have to use PSN to use a PS3, and you are also free to return the PS3 if you don't like the EULA for its online component.

    Anti-Sony stories are one of Slashdot's most common page-view drawing tactics, so I'm always a little suspicious of any stories Slashdot posts. Not to automatically dismiss this one, but lawsuits are filed literally every day for every reason imaginable, and this one is only getting reported because it's "ironic" and it's a well-known company that Slashdotters love to hate. Strangely, Nintendo gets a lot of love even though it has a history of being even more evil than Sony.

    No doubt there will be comments about the evils of EULAs following mine (assuming I'm not modbombed into oblivion), but I should mention that EULAs are no different from free software licenses--they are contracts you agree to the terms of in using the software. The majority of U.S. courts have upheld the enforceability of EULAs.

    • Re:EULAs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by XanC (644172) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:05PM (#38441728)

      No EULA is required to use free software. DISTRIBUTING software is a different matter. It's an important difference.

    • Re:EULAs (Score:5, Interesting)

      by InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:06PM (#38441746)
      In this specific case Sony also allowed you to opt-out from that specific provision and still accept the rest and use PSN, you only had to give them written notice about it. So if you want to bash Sony, it would be good to at least stay in truth.
      • Re:EULAs (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @08:40PM (#38443324)

        In this specific case Sony also allowed you to opt-out from that specific provision and still accept the rest and use PSN, you only had to give them written notice about it. So if you want to bash Sony, it would be good to at least stay in truth.

        You obviously didn't read it carefully, as if you send this in, your PSN account is immediately closed and you forfeit any money you have in your PSN wallet.

    • Re:EULAs (Score:5, Informative)

      by dan828 (753380) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:06PM (#38441758)
      A EULA, like any other contract, is only enforceable if it's provisions don't break the law. A company can put whatever they want into them, but that doesn't mean it has legal standing. Companies don't get to arbitrarily make laws. They could add a provision that you'll give them your first born son, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't stand if challenged in court.
      • Re:EULAs (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:14PM (#38441864)

        A EULA, like any other contract, is only enforceable if it's provisions don't break the law. A company can put whatever they want into them, but that doesn't mean it has legal standing. Companies don't get to arbitrarily make laws. They could add a provision that you'll give them your first born son, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't stand if challenged in court.

        You clearly don't live in the USA.

        • Re:EULAs (Score:4, Informative)

          by labnet (457441) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @07:39PM (#38442770)

          In Australia (and most commonwealth countries) Common Law always trumps contractual agreements.

          Even so, my business partner always reads every line of a contract (I'm talking genuine contacts, like trade accounts, NDA's, BtoB agreements, not software EULA's).
          The notorious ones are courier companies that have clauses like, 'You make available your personal assets for compensation in case we have an accident while carrying your goods'. We send back those contracts with the stupid clauses crossed out. If they don't like it, we don't complete the contract.

      • And, IIRC, didn't the Supreme Court recently rule that an AT&T provision in their contracts did not violate the law? If you are an AT&T customer, your lack of right to sue them (for any reason, no less) has apparently been upheld by the courts. Your sole method of redress is binding arbitration with, as I recall, some sort of liability cap.

        • Re:EULAs (Score:5, Insightful)

          by causality (777677) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:28PM (#38442068)

          And, IIRC, didn't the Supreme Court recently rule that an AT&T provision in their contracts did not violate the law? If you are an AT&T customer, your lack of right to sue them (for any reason, no less) has apparently been upheld by the courts. Your sole method of redress is binding arbitration with, as I recall, some sort of liability cap.

          What's the good, compelling reason that anyone is allowed to forfeit (or demand another party forfeit) what is otherwise a legal right? What was the justification given for considering this a legitimate part of contract law? Especially in one-sided, non-negotiable contracts of adhesion?

          If there are any lawyers who can answer that, I'd really like to know. It seems like one of those incredibly short-sighted ideas that does more harm than good.

          • Re:EULAs (Score:5, Insightful)

            by AngryDeuce (2205124) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:37PM (#38442180)

            What's the good, compelling reason

            What on earth makes you think there was one of those involved?

          • by mattack2 (1165421)

            What's the good, compelling reason that anyone is allowed to forfeit (or demand another party forfeit) what is otherwise a legal right?

            IANAL, but the logical reasoning (yeah, that doesn't usually any similarity with the law...) is: That some users may be willing to give up a legal right in exchange for something that they wouldn't otherwise be able to get (or not at that price)?

            Just like I can pay $x for a good or service, I might be willing to give away some other intangible item for it.

            It seems to me simi

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Anonymous Coward

              And some people might be willing to sign themselves up for slavery. Doesn't mean it should be allowed.

              That said, how many people actually read EULAs? There are simply too many, and they are always long and filled with legalese.

              • Re:EULAs (Score:5, Insightful)

                by ILongForDarkness (1134931) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @07:08PM (#38442448)
                Not to mention it seems like my PS3 every other time I turn it on wants to either update its OS or update the game I'm currently running before letting me use it. It is like the Windows box from hell (KB 1010283 ready to install don't do anything and don't shut me off while I spin for 20min installing another .00.01 release of a feature you don't use). It isn't just a matter of reading the EULA, I think I did when I opened my box. It is the biweekly OS updates since this problem, each with an EULA warning, which may are may not be different from the original one (and if it is the same is a complete waste of time to read again) but which I'm not willing to spend the 20 minutes I was planning on spending playing a game reading it instead. I'm not sure couldn't they just have sort of a release note? Ie. "all previous rights and terms as before except ... you can't sue us". Would save a heck of a lot of reading/might actually get read/might actually fit on one screen.
            • Re:EULAs (Score:4, Insightful)

              by causality (777677) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @07:01PM (#38442382)

              IANAL, but the logical reasoning (yeah, that doesn't usually any similarity with the law...) is: That some users may be willing to give up a legal right in exchange for something that they wouldn't otherwise be able to get (or not at that price)?

              I understand why it could be tempting. But there are lots of tempting things the law does not allow (eh use your imagination if you like).

              What makes this one special? Especially considering the nature of a contract of adhesion and the tendency for all companies in a given market to use extremely similar agreements? It's just a bad idea. I see no benefit to it being allowed by law. That's especially true in the USA which is founded on the concept of natural inalienable rights. It would be more understandable in a country where rights are considered something granted by law.

          • by Hatta (162192)

            It seems like one of those incredibly short-sighted ideas that does more harm than good.

            There's no time to worry about that. We have quarterly projections to meet!

        • by russotto (537200)

          And, IIRC, didn't the Supreme Court recently rule that an AT&T provision in their contracts did not violate the law? If you are an AT&T customer, your lack of right to sue them (for any reason, no less) has apparently been upheld by the courts.

          That's because there's a law, the Federal Arbitration Act, specifically allowing that. The idea is to reduce the courts' workloads so the judges could spend more time admiring themselves in their robes and less time actually doing their job.

      • Companies don't get to arbitrarily make laws.

        I should say not! There's actually a lot more that goes into making a law. First you have to buy yourself a politician. For some laws you might need to buy several. Then you'll need to write the text for your new law and give it to your politician's staff so they can get it ready for passage. Then you'll need to tell your politician which way to vote-- it might help to pin a note to their shirt and make arrangements for transportation to and from the voting place as politicians are notoriously useless witho

    • Re:EULAs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NoobixCube (1133473) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:07PM (#38441770) Journal

      I'd like to see my local EB Games accept my PS3 return now, after the EULA updates, even though I bought it years ago...

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        If this EULA update worries you, then just give them a written notice that you don't accept that clause. They allow it as long as you notice Sony, and they still let you accept rest of the EULA and use PSN. It's even written there right next to the clause. Read it.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          No.

          Sony gave 30 days written response from the time the EULA was accepted..

          Outside of that time, Sony considered the EULA to be accepted in full by the user.
           

        • I'm just saying, I don't think an entirely unrelated retailer is actually legally obliged, or inclined, to accept my four year old game console back, no matter who signs a note for me. One might be able to return directly to Sony, but I just doubt a shop that could have changed management or even franchisee in all this time is going to care.

          • by geekoid (135745)

            Sony would be forced to pay the retailer for their efforts in accepting returns. then the retailer is out nothing.

            And if I know how these thing work, after about a month Sony will tell the retailers to just destroy the unit and throw it away.

        • Re:EULAs (Score:5, Insightful)

          by causality (777677) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:40PM (#38442208)

          If this EULA update worries you, then just give them a written notice that you don't accept that clause. They allow it as long as you notice Sony, and they still let you accept rest of the EULA and use PSN. It's even written there right next to the clause. Read it.

          Marketer says: if my decision to automatically sign you up for our endless reams of junk mail err I mean special promotions, adding your name to every advertising database we maintain, and spamming you err I mean keeping you posted about interesting new offers worries you, just waste your time by opting-out of them!

          This is a little like mail-in rebates. The company is counting on the fact that most people are lazy, are not diligent, and won't follow through. The number of customers who would say they dislike this clause if asked directly is far higher than the number who actually read through the EULA of their own initiative and used their limited time to follow up on each provision they disliked. Sony knows this.

          If you think a business practice that depends solely on laziness and lack of due diligence is perfectly legitimate and deserves to be successful ... well, that's where we would disagree. If we are going to have that sort of free-for-all marketplace then I also want all warning labels removed from all products, all drugs to be legal and unrestricted (you still go to a doctor because it's a good idea, if you are too stupid to realize that then you take your chances), all other victimless-crime laws to be repealed, and all scams to be legal since the targets should have known better anyway.

          In some ways, I would like that because laziness and stupidity would become much, much more painful to the point of become rarities. People would learn that no one cares about their own interests more than they do. They'd also learn how to perform basic research when in doubt about something important. However, I'm not really so sure that replacing lazy, fat, stupid people with smart, fit, evil assholes would be an improvement. At any rate, some time ago we decided that "consumer" protection was a good idea and shady business practices don't deserve to be rewarded. All I'm asking for is a little consistency.

          • It's not just laziness, well I guess it is, but it is time. You are obviously willing to do something and have time (you're playing games) its just them jerking you around by changing the contract every couple weeks and expecting you to write a letter if you want to dispute a change every time is unreasonable. EULAs didn't change this frequently until we had the expectation of constantly connected devices. Some how them pushing changes is made really convenient but your responding to them has to rely on sna
          • by hipp5 (1635263)

            If we are going to have that sort of free-for-all marketplace then I also want all warning labels removed from all products, all drugs to be legal and unrestricted [...]

            Careful. There are a lot of people on slashdot who would love to see this happen.

    • Re:EULAs (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jazzmans (622827) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:12PM (#38441844) Journal

      PSN is required to use Netflix, So, yes, it is required to 'use' the PS3.

      I don't game, and didn't buy the ps3 to game. I bought it to act as a media viewer. Not being able to watch netflix on my bigscreen is a huge problem. I had to agree to the new TOS or the netflx app wouldn't connect.

      I'd sign onto this class action, you bet.

        I'll never buy a sony product again.

      jaz

      • by HiThere (15173)

        Your final proposed course of action is the proper one. Given the course of recent decisions, I don't think this suit has much of a chance.

        Others may have other reasons for thinking this suit won't succeed. My reason is that courts usually find a way to decide in favor of large businesses. Justice isn't involved, though frequently the wording of the law is. After all, the laws were written by the lobbyists that the corporations paid for. And passed by the legislators that ...

    • by PatDev (1344467)

      IANAL, but no, EULA are not the same as free software licenses. The primary difference is that one is a *licensing agreement*, and the other is a *license*.

      The concrete difference between the two is that a licensing agreement rests on contract law, in that it is an agreement between two parties. Generally speaking this means it must have (at least) two parties (software vendor and user) and there must be mutual consideration (they give you a license to software, you provide the agreement not to do certain

      • by mark-t (151149)
        Actually, the chief difference between the two is that the free software license just specifically outlines what a person is permitted to do with the work, typically relatively freely copy it, where otherwise they would not be permitted to copy it at all (fair use provisions notwithstanding) without obtaining explicit permission from the copyright holder, even if they *did* have access to the source code. Essentially, the free software license acts as "written permission" from the copyright holder for peo
    • by Bert64 (520050)

      Can i return the PS3 i bought several years ago (one of the launch models), because i don't agree with the new PSN terms?

      Most free software licenses only cover distribution, you don't need to agree to them if you only want to use the software yourself and don't intend to distribute it to third parties.

    • by jd (1658) <<moc.oohay> <ta> <kapimi>> on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:53PM (#38442326) Homepage Journal

      That is something the courts have been hesitant to rule on but I believe that the US courts have ruled things like First Sale Doctorine, etc, take precedent over any such agreement. (ie: the EULA can't violate the law or otherwise impose a system contrary to the law.) Not being able to sue Sony in the event of Sony violating civil law - ie: denial of access to any system that can give relief - is usurping the courts entirely. This might not go down too well with judges, since if it's allowed, any product could have such a provision. If they allow one company to exempt itself from the legal system, they create a precedent (something judges are VERY loath to do) and case-law which would essentially state that any company could stipulate that a purchaser can't sue.

      The civil court system depends heavily on people being able to sue each other. If the civil court system were to allow one party to opt-out, those judges and lawyers dependent on the lawsuits for work would be out of business. I just can't see the judges voluntarily writing themselves pink slips.

      Personally, I think there's way too much litigation in the US, but this isn't the right way to reduce it. Especially in Sony's case, when fewer rootkits and more security admins might have been cheaper and have produced better results than hiring lawyers.

    • Re:EULAs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fieryphoenix (1161565) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:56PM (#38442350)
      Having a PS3 without being able to play online is kinda like having a TV that you can only watch VHS tapes on. Yeah, technically it's using it, but without the TV stations its value is greatly diminished.
    • Can I return my 1.5 year old PS3 because the new version of the EULA has terms I don't like and I bought it specifically for the online component?
    • Re:EULAs (Score:4, Interesting)

      by AK Marc (707885) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @07:58PM (#38442958)

      You don't have to use PSN to use a PS3, and you are also free to return the PS3 if you don't like the EULA for its online component.

      You must use PSN to use some integral features or games/content. Play TV will fail eventually if you never sign in. And you *can't* return it if the EULA changes and you don't agree. Walk in to Best Buy returns and try to take back a 3-year old PS3 with or without receipt and see how it goes. You claim it to be untrue, but it seems explicitly true to me.

  • Rights, in Canada (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Teunis (678244) <teunis@wi[ ]rsgift.com ['nte' in gap]> on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:17PM (#38441920) Homepage Journal
    One is not allowed to sign rights away in Canada, from what I heard (from lawyers, although I'm most definitely not one)
    Mind, EULAs aren't normally considered binding either.
    • by spindizzy (34680)

      It's the same in Australia - case law here shows EULAs are [not] worth the paper they're [not] written on. Click through here is not a contract.

      Doesn't stop both Australian and International companies pretending they are.

      Or especially US companies thinking that US consumer laws with their appalling lack of protections apply here. They lose, a lot.

  • Consumer Law (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EEPROMS (889169) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:18PM (#38441940)
    I can't speak for the rest of the world but here in Australia it is illegal to infer in a contract that a consumers "legislated" rights have been waved, from memory it's $10,000 per infringement.
    • by mattack2 (1165421) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:32PM (#38442120)

      Australia it is illegal to infer in a contract that a consumers "legislated" rights have been waved

      Good bye, rights. [hand waving] Byebye.

    • Re:Consumer Law (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Jackdaw Rookery (696327) * on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:56PM (#38442348) Homepage Journal

      It's unlawful here in Canada too. Seems like they can only apply this in the USA.

    • Re:Consumer Law (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jd (1658) <<moc.oohay> <ta> <kapimi>> on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:57PM (#38442360) Homepage Journal

      I still think that plaintiffs should be able to feed CEOs of malignant companies to the salt water crocodiles. The TV coverage would be so much better than most of the regular programming and it shouldn't require that many before corporate practices clean right up.

    • by dwywit (1109409)

      IANAL, but I understand, at least in Australia and perhaps the UK also, you *cannot* sign away your common-law right to sue. That means that all those so-called waivers people are supposed to sign before they can hop into a go-kart, play soccer, or whatever, are legally void. You might argue that the person signing should have been aware of the risks because they were spelled out in the waiver, but that doesn't stop the injured party from suing. All that stuff about "you can't sue us, even if we're negligen

    • Re:Consumer Law (Score:5, Informative)

      by Taelron (1046946) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @08:15PM (#38443122)
      In California no clause is valid that restricts your rights to sue.

      Ask IBM about this. In the early 2000's they went through and laid off a large group of workers. Many of the employees felt they unfairly were fired or forced to retire early. Many of these people had families and no other source of income. IBM offered severances to these employees but required them each to sign a waiver signing away their rights to sue the company.

      Some of these employees had no choice and signed the agreement and took the meager pittance offered by IBM.

      Now for the fun part, someone figured out that in California the law protects people from having their rights revoked. Those same employees joined together and sued IBM. The case lasted a couple of years. IBM even petitioned for dismissal on the grounds the former disgruntled employees signed waivers and received concessions (far below what that deserved). The California courts rejected IBM's petition and ordered them to pay up to a much higher level for all former employees. Those that had received the lower payouts received the difference.

      What Sony is trying to do would be non-binding in California.
  • by Ossifer (703813) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:19PM (#38441946)

    Too bad, you got screwed... Now, do you plan on buying their products again?

  • Is this US only? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Nick Ives (317) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:21PM (#38441976)

    I looked in the PSN agreement last time I updated a couple of days ago and couldn't see it; I live in the UK though. This sounds like it would be totally unlawful here.

    • by Narishma (822073)

      It is US only, and it's not just Sony, at least AT&T, EA and Microsoft have clauses like that in their recent updated terms of use. Microsoft doesn't even give you the option of opting out of it like the others.

      • by msobkow (48369) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @09:59PM (#38443792) Homepage Journal

        It's illegal in Canada, too.

        Only Americans, once the land of the free protected by their constitutional rights, are now willing slaves to corporatism. The rest of the world does not suffer CEO's who get paid 800% of what their employees do. The rest of the world does not allow EULAs and such to override constitutional rights.

        Sorry, but the US is screwed. Big time. Your nation has gone so far off it's ideals and once shining examples that it's literally scary to the rest of the world, because you're trying to shove your fucked up legal approaches on the rest of us.

        We won't have it. Screw the american system -- you DO NOT rule the world.

  • Common Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WarpedCore (1255156) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:24PM (#38442008)
    I agree it's an unfair act to strangle customers with new provisions to older purchases. I don't believe I have a working system that could log onto PSN currently to accept those provisions but I'm considering sending an opt-out to Sony's legal department just in case because I have a lot of older digital purchases from the Playstation Network dating from 2006-2009. If a lawsuit does happen over the EULA and it works in the favor of people that are entitled to class action ability (or even the ability to launch a lawsuit on my own), I want to be a part of it.

    You can't get a refund for anything on the Playstation Network. Trust me, I tried. After SCEA turned the keys over to SNEA (or whatever abbreviation Sony's using for their digital networking division) and the hacking that bought PSN down for a month, I wrote a letter to Sony explaining that I've lost faith in their digital service and their ability to secure vital financial and personal information and could no longer A) Be their customer B) Agree to their new terms because it's not the service I signed up for in November of 2006 (and it might have never been with the way EULAs are crafted). I can either have to forfeit your ability to log in or accept the new terms.

    EULAs have become this living contract that only favors the company and totally, unconditionally screws the customer. Period. Sony is a case example of excessive abuse of EULAs because of their management and business shortcomings and have a total disconnect with their customers.
  • by artor3 (1344997) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:30PM (#38442106)

    The Supremes already ruled on this, and unsuprisingly we got a 5-4 ruling that corporations are better than people. Until the conservative stranglehold on the SCOTUS is broken, Americans won't be allowed to sue any company they've entered into a contract with. Now, maybe EULAs don't count for this. But given the court's corporatist bent, I wouldn't count on it.

    • by mattack2 (1165421)

      Why do you say they ruled that corporations are _better_ than people?

      I would say that they argued that corporations are "essentially" (my term) people, legally, for some purposes.. and I think that's good. Money == speech, and I think the political donation rules should actually be relaxed a lot further, if not completely done away with, EXCEPT that all donations should be made public, regardless of size.

      • by AK Marc (707885)

        Why do you say they ruled that corporations are _better_ than people?

        All the rights, none of the responsibilities. It's impossible to send a corporation to jail for illegal acts that would get a person sent to jail. Many times if the corporation was a sole propriatership the owner would have been jailed for hundreds of years, the corporation gets a fine less than a month's profit (about a day's income). When the fine (no jail time, no felony conviction) for murder by a regular person is under $100 if they kill a manager in a publicly traded company, then there'll be some

      • by artor3 (1344997) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @08:20PM (#38443156)

        Corporations can, at will, strip any human of their constitutional rights, simply by inserting a clause in a contract. They can give unlimited, anonymous bribes to politicians. They pay little to no taxes. They can never be sentenced to prison. If by some miracle you do manage to sue them, they can give you the legal run around for decades -- they don't have a biological clock ticking away.

        If you could be granted the legal rights of a corporation instead of those of a human, wouldn't you spring for the chance? In the eyes of modern American law, they are better than us in every way.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I totally agree lots of EULAs these days are one sided crap, with terms like, "We can change these terms any way we want and all you can do is suck it up".

    I even see that often you can't see the EULA until you buy the product, which seems horribly unfair to be "bound" by it then. I should think that would be found illegal, even.

    But once these terms are well known and publicized, what I don't get is, why does ANYBODY else ever buy that product again? Why would any otherwise sane person buy a product which

  • The only way you can contract out of law is if it is expicitly stated in the law that this can be done.
  • Think about it. To get a job you have to sign an "at-will" contract waiving your employment rights. So now you will have to waive rights to sue and waive consumer protections when you buy products. I suppose you will eventually have to make a similar agreement when you buy food to agree to waive FDA regulations.

    No more rights. We shall live in a libertarian paradise in which artificial entities will have unlimited freedom to take liberties with you and you will have an unlimited liberty to eat their s
    • by ledow (319597)

      I don't know what country you live in, but in mine you can't sign away rights. Especially employment rights. This is why HGV drivers *can't* drive for more than X amount of hours no matter what they sign, or why employers can't force you to lose membership of your union if you work for them, or why you're not just given a "Health and Safety Exemption Disclaimer" on your first day at work, etc. It is illegal for a corporation to try to take away the option to use an assigned right. They can say it, they

  • by oaksey (585738) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @07:28PM (#38442642) Homepage
    I liked what GameStation did last year :)

    GameStation EULA collects 7,500 souls from unsuspecting customers
    http://www.geek.com/articles/games/gamestation-eula-collects-7500-souls-from-unsuspecting-customers-20100416 [geek.com]

Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is no guarantee of eventual success.

Working...