Sony Sued Over PSN 'No Suing' Provision 384
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."
EULAs (Score:3, Informative)
"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)
No EULA is required to use free software. DISTRIBUTING software is a different matter. It's an important difference.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are making copies of Linux CDs then you are DISTRIBUTING...
As XanC said, you don't need to agree to the GPL if you only want to use or modify the software yourself... Its terms only apply if you distribute it, and giving copies to friends counts as distribution.
Re: (Score:3)
All those programs that make you agree to the gpl at installation are wasting time, and may not even understand their own license.
Re:EULAs (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong--in the case of a free software license, the user agreeing to the license is the developer who uses the code.
Which is why he said no EULA is required to use free software. I can take linux and use it all i want, modify it, re-compile, not release my changes, remove all copyright and legal notices, etc... and that's fine. It's only if I want to distribute it that the license terms will have to be considered.
Re: (Score:3)
The GPL is a license, it requires those that (re-)distribute parts or all of the software to adhere by it. The GPL does not limit your rights in any way if you want to privately use, modify or derive the software.
Re:EULAs (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:EULAs (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re:EULAs (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:EULAs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
What's the good, compelling reason
What on earth makes you think there was one of those involved?
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
Re:EULAs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:EULAs (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And as per usual, the American's can't deal with the truth and vote down anything that reminds them that their idealistic and naive view of what their country used to be about has long been abandoned.
In retrospect, I'm glad I never succeeded in getting my permanent residency in the US. It stopped being a place I wanted to call home when they over-reacted to the terrorist attack on 9/11, and has only gone downhill since.
May the American people wake up to what their legislators and businesses are doing
Re: (Score:3)
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.
There's actually quite a bit to making a law... (Score:3)
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:4, Interesting)
If anyone could be absolved of all legal liability just by getting the other party to sign a waiver, then why does nearly every business in existence have a general liability insurance policy?
Why do doctors pay a ton of money for malpractice insurance when they could instead make their patients sign a waiver?
Drafting a liability release form is one thing - having it hold up in court is quite another.
Re:EULAs (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
And the time period for exercising the rights in that provision has now expired. If you didn't exercise that right when they made the change, you're SOL.
Re:EULAs (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
a 12 year old cant have a valid PSN account
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's in the basement guarded by a tiger.
THIS is the type of thing he was poking fun at.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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!
... 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.
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
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:EULAs (Score:5, Insightful)
You're on such a shill roll, I hate to interrupt your flow, but you do realize that Sony marketed the PS3 as a media box, don't you?
And you do realize that they advertised it as a media box on which you could install an "OtherOS", right?
Then, after you shelled out your cash and bought their product, they decide that "Well, no, we really didn't mean that, so we're going to take those capabilities away from you even though you paid for them".
It would be like a a car company saying, after you bought that car, that no, you can no longer put groceries in the trunk because someone might put contraband in their trunk so they're going to remotely lock all trunks so they cannot be used. No, you didn't buy the car just to use it as storage, you bought it as transportation, but the manufacturer just took away a very useful feature of a product. A feature for which they gladly took your money when you bought the product.
"InsightIn140Bytes", I'm trying to figure out why, in the nearly 300 comments you've posted on Slashdot in the three weeks since you signed up for an account here, that so many of them are posts fiercely defending Sony (at least when you're not fiercely defending Microsoft). I'm curious, is it because you just can't stand the injustice of people picking on poor, weak corporations who only want to give their customers great products and make them happy, or is it because you work for one of the "New Media Strategies" type companies and defending these corporations is your job? Because honestly, I can't wrap my head around anyone suggesting that Sony has been anything but hostile to their customers, using the worst kind of bullying and sleazy legal maneuvers (like a 30 day period for sending a written, notarized opt-out via certified mail or else you are considered to have accepted their brand new EULA for a product you may have paid for years ago, or else you won't be able to use many of its features and fuck you if you don't like it).
So tell us, please: What's your story?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:EULAs (Score:5, Insightful)
Son, if it's not notarized and not sent via certified mail, that EULA opt-out that Sony requires in writing is not worth a damn.
I would guarantee that if you send them the written opt-out statement and it's not notarized and not sent via certified mail, and Sony comes after you for a violation of their EULA, their lawyers are immediately going to demand to see the certified receipt for a notarized written statement or else they'll just say they never got it.
And by the way, why don't they ask for your agreement to their EULA in writing? Why just the opt-out?
You're not very good at this, "InsightIn140Bytes". If you're going to defend Sony, you're going to have to start bringing your A-game.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:EULAs (Score:4, Interesting)
When Sony stole that feature away from me, I had to backup my PS3, format it to remove the Ubuntu partition and then restore the games partition.
I don't care how many other people wanted to use OtherOS - I paid money for it, used it and then had it stolen from me.
Never will I buy from Sony again.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a subjective opinion. While I could probably use it too, I still don't go out to buy screwdriver when I want to hit nails to a wall.
Of course you don't, a screwdriver is not made for hitting nails into a wall and would not be advertised as such. So your example clearly is not analogous to the situation with the PS3, which was advertised as a machine that 'only does everything'. Avoiding being obtuse and taking things literally you can see that while you're not going to use this to hit nails into a wall this does include media center functionality and streaming apps like Netflix. Consoles evolved beyond being purely gaming machines years
Re: (Score:2)
PS3 is reasonably cheap now, especially since you get a bluray with it (always nice to have a spare in case your dedicated one goes to hell), and you have the option to play games if you have a visitor that wants to. In short: more options for about the same cost (and comes with a couple, albeit crappy for purpose remotes).
Re:EULAs (Score:4, Insightful)
The game console was marketed as a media box, just like it's linux capabilities were. You can't fault someone for buying a product to do a job that they were told the product did.
In all honesty, I don't know anyone that bought a PS3 for the games. Most people I know bought it for the Bluray player, since the good ones were going for more than a PS3 was at launch, as well as the streaming capabilities (whether local or via Netflix, which I don't think even had streaming service at that time).
Besides, putting together a decent HTPC that could push 1080p wasn't nearly as cheap back in 2005 (or was it 2006?) as it is today.
Re:EULAs (Score:4, Informative)
A blu-ray player and a ps3 for the longest time were very comparable in price, where you'd have to be stupid to buy the former when the latter was available with 10x more functionality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Individual reasons for doing anything should not be predicated solely on the original intent of the creator, else you lose the chance to hack your life your way.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, after the fact, the manufacturer is attempting to get him to agree to lose his rights he already has or else he can't use the functionality they sold him the device for.
He is using the right tool. It may not be what you or I would have chosen, but he did, and they said he could.
Re: (Score:2)
He's using the product in a manner for which it was designed and sold. How is that not the "right tool"?
Re: (Score:2)
You should had bought an actual media box or built one yourself to begin with, not buy a game console. Use the right tool for the job if you want something done.
Just curious, do you ever actually put forth your own ideas instead of waiting for opportunities to condescend and tell people why they're wrong on matters that aren't even factual in nature?
... there was a time when the PS3 was one of the more affordable Blu-Ray players. That time may have passed, but at one point it was a good deal and significantly cheaper than a standalone player or a PC with a Blu-Ray drive. This is attractive to people who are on a budget and are willing to work with
For example
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
There's the legality of EULAs (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:EULAs (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:EULAs (Score:5, Funny)
Sony used Audio CDs to install rootkits on hundreds of thousands of computers.
Show me what Nintendo did that was more evil than that.
Easy. "But our princess is in another castle!"
FFFfffffffuuuuuu.....
Re: (Score:3)
First, that was hilarious :) :)
Second, it gave me the thought that Mario should get better intelligence before storming a castle.
That thought lead to the MIA, the Mario Intelligence Agency, it could literally have spooks that find out where the princess is so Mario won't waste anymore time
Rights, in Canada (Score:3, Interesting)
Mind, EULAs aren't normally considered binding either.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Re:Consumer Law (Score:5, Funny)
Good bye, rights. [hand waving] Byebye.
Re:Consumer Law (Score:5, Interesting)
It's unlawful here in Canada too. Seems like they can only apply this in the USA.
Re:Consumer Law (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Bought a Sony product? (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad, you got screwed... Now, do you plan on buying their products again?
Re:Bought a Sony product? (Score:4, Interesting)
>Now, do you plan on buying their products again?
Have you looked at the world lately? Some or really a lot of people will look the other way for what the stand for if it means a new shiny to show off to their friends.
My wife gave me a weird look when she said she was going to get the daughter a Sony eBook reader and I told her that there will be no Sony products in this house , ever.
Re:Bought a Sony product? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's too bad, Sony makes some great products. So tell me, what bastion of perfection do you buy your goods from?
Is this US only? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Is this US only? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Common Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, 3/5 of a person forevermore, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, 3/5 of a person forevermore, right?
That's not what "Living Constitution" means.
Re: (Score:2)
He said "re-writing". It seems to me that an Amendment is exactly re-writing, and not interpretation of what is already there. Especially since the 21st repealed the 18th.
Re: (Score:2)
every living constitution hater I have talked to do not agree with you. Only the original version.
Of course I have only talked to about a dozen of those fools so my sample size is tiny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously an indication of the failure of schools to teach reading comprehension.
For the record, no, I never meant that the Constitution shouldn't be amended, that would just be stupid (which, consequently, sums up my opinion of those who think that's what I inferred).
The term "Living Constitution" is often used by subversives who want to change the meaning of what was originally written to fit their idea
The Supremes already ruled on this (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:The Supremes already ruled on this (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
what i don't get about eulas (Score:2, Insightful)
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
In New Zealand (Score:2)
Sony will win (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
GameStation EULA collects 7,500 souls (Score:4, Funny)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm game. I was pissed when I had to agree to that to use my Xbox, especially since a) half of the Xbox experience doesn't work if not on a XBL Gold account, and b) MS didn't offer a "mail a letter to opt out" like Sony did. So MS' clause is actually worse, though I was willing to agree to it anyway because I don't have experience getting boned by them other than the absurd failure rate of the 360 hardware. MS got away with restricting me, because they haven't screwed me over at every turn. A novel concept
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Send a letter. What crap.
Re: (Score:2)
See "Refund Day".