OS-tan Collections

I know it seems like just about every time I've made a thread in here, it's to bitch about something, but I really can't help it.

I don't know if anyone here actually plays PS3, but if you do and you use PSN, you probably noticed something when trying to sign in lately.  That is, there's a new long-ass EULA for you to take 5 min to scroll through blindly (http://www.sonyentertainmentnetwork.com/SEN-legal-docs/TERMS_OF_SERVICE_AGREEMENT-EN.pdf)!  Before you yawn your way through this abominable wall o' text just so you can see that new page of demos you lost interest in two weeks ago, you might want to read a couple of paragraphs of it first (http://kotaku.com/5840517/new-playstation-network-terms-of-service-include-a-no-suing-sony-clause).  Of particular note is Section 15, which states:

QuoteOther than those matters listed in the Exclusions from Arbitration clause (small claims), you and the Sony Entity that you have a Dispute with agree to seek resolution of the Dispute only through arbitration of that Dispute in accordance with the terms of this Section 15, and not litigate any Dispute in court. Arbitration means that the Dispute will be resolved by a neutral arbitrator instead of in a court by a judge or jury.

Which means you must settle any dispute with Sony out-of-court, which means no class action.  That, to me, wouldn't honestly be so bad if you could still dispute the arbitration in court.  For instance, if you were to go one-on-one with Sony and you found that the arbitrators in question were not awarding you a fair settlement, you couldn't contest it in court - you'd have to continue with yet another arbitration.  Granted, this is pretty much looking at the worst case scenario, and most likely Sony is simply trying to save themselves from another assrape like the one from last year, but it doesn't change the fact that their legal department could stand to word their documents a little more concisely.  As it stands, this agreement only serves to raise the ire of more of the ever-dwindling Sony fanbase and generate unwanted controversy for the company.  I personally wouldn't mind Anonymous giving them what-for, since it seems LulzBoat has long sailed into port never to venture out and plunder again.

It's time like these I'm glad I own a Dreamcast.  You know, for when the inevitable gaming apocalypse does come.

When the x-pocalypse comes, we will have our GBs and GBCs.

I think I'm the only OSCer with a PS3, so this probably only effects me. Besides, I have a PS2 to fall back onto, among many other consoles

I have one too, but rarely use it.  More of an Xbox 360 person.

all my gaming systems are current.......5 years ago.

(well, no, but i imagine my N64 will survive the Vidocalypse.)

I game on VAX....


(http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee505/robrtsn/MEME/LIKE-A-BOSS.jpg)

is that a computer or a console?

That's a microsupercomputer.


Mmmm, I still remember playing Colossal Cave Adventure via telnet on one of these puppies for the first time... it makes me nostalgic.

Stop talking like you were there! xD

Quote from: Red-Machine on September 17, 2011, 01:54:03 PM
Stop talking like you were there! xD

I was there. Via telnet.

Kids today... I bet most of you guys have never even used public access shell account.

I ONLY PLAY 1v1 MANHOLE WARS WITH ANGRY BEES MODE

paperboy64.

FOR THE WIN.

Adventure on the Atari 2600 FTW

Although, Disgaea 4 is really nice...

i'd like to get some older gaming systems. my uncle has an atari and i'm kinda jealous. :3

That's becoming a pretty standard EULA paragraph these days!

Unfortunately for Sony (and *most* other companies, since pretty much everyone copies and pastes that same paragraph), US law does not permit them to arbitrarily be excused from court cases because of something like that...  In fact, it more than likely can be used by a decent lawyer to help a judge understand just how frivolous the rest of the EULA is, if it ever came to discussing it (which it won't, because they know that!) :p

Some judges say that EULA's are a binding contract,
some say that they're meaningless drivel

But nothing can waive your right to due process, should you have a grievance or have one brought against you

Generally, that is the case, svx.  I'm glad you brought that up.  I keep hearing about a ruling from April by the Supreme Court that says such contracts are legal, but I haven't looked it up myself yet.  I know of a lot of stupid decisions this current SC has done, so I wouldn't put it past them, but I really hope that in particular is just some misunderstanding on the part of paranoid internet video game nerds.

i doubt that they can keep you out of court. it's like a confedentiality contract: it can keep your mouth shut, unless someone commits a crime.

So, here's some more info on that decision back in April (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/scotus-rules-att-can-force-arbitration-block-class-action-suits.ars).

So, apparently, it was AT&T that started this legal precedent by forcing arbitration in their own service contracts, and then the Supreme Court enforced it as a legally binding agreement.  What is also apparent is that this another case where the state and federal Supreme Courts have a very different definition of what is "constitutional".  So while the US Supreme Court says forced arbitration is legal, different state Supreme Courts have said otherwise.  So there's that, and there's also the argument that any "legally binding agreement" that requires as little as a button press to agree to, should require less than sending a letter to opt-out of.

And America, et al, lets them do this!

Here in Gotham, it's a different story

When Sony's lawyers come, we break out with the Kalashnikovs!

I would love for Batman to make his way to SCEA HQ and shove a size 13 batboot right up Jack Tretton's ass.

speaking of which, there's a new batman game coming out that looks epic. :3

other than that, it's not like it's something that's required to live. if the contracts bother people that much, they'll switch to a different system. :\

While you have a point, Kari, that doesn't mean there will always be an alternative.  Ever since that SC decision, this kind of legally-evasive contract writing has become a trend.  While certain other big names have thus far avoided it (Microsoft and Valve), EA's anti-class action EULA precedes Sony's (http://kotaku.com/5843178/remember-electronic-arts-wont-let-you-sue-them-either).  My concern is, if Sony's "contracts" and others like it are allowed to stand - what's to keep other companies from jumping on the bandwagon?  It's not the end of the world, no, but it could herald the end of any kind of consumer rights.

if consumer rights end in the console market, people will switch to something else, like computer or vintage games. this will prompt policy changes. :\