[bigo93]

MY @$$!!!


Don't forget though, that you will have to write in every time $ony release a new firmware. By agreeing to the TOS, even if the wording hasnt changed, implies it is a new contract, meaning you sign into the arbitration again therefore having to send another letter to opt out of it!

[jimmyemunoz]

If I opt out does that mean I own my games AND hardware now????

[jc_gargma]

Originally Posted by jimmyemunoz If I opt out does that mean I own my games AND hardware now????

No. It only means that if you take Sony to court, you can do so with hundred or thousands of other in unison to avoid getting dealt with singly, which would bankrupt you, causing you to lose, even if you would likely win in the end.
This is why Sony (and any other company) wants mandatory arbitration, and exactly why Class-Action lawsuits exist. To allow people a chance to succeed against Companies who would use their resources against a single person to simply drag it out until they can't afford to continue.

Originally Posted by bigo93 Don't forget though, that you will have to write in every time $ony release a new firmware. By agreeing to the TOS, even if the wording hasnt changed, implies it is a new contract, meaning you sign into the arbitration again therefore having to send another letter to opt out of it!

Quite. And also as Sony has clauses that state the ToS remains binding through termination, if you sign #2 and reject by mail #3, you are still unable to sue.

[Mystt]

Technically you have had 30 days from the time the new ToS was posted on PSN to accept. That was what around the 15th - 17th? So even less now. Also I surprised no one has looked into if you get banned from PSN for not agreeing to which I assume yes considering they don't let you sign in.

[Ozz]

They would be smarter adding this to the games. CFW users won't have to agree to a TOS right? Could the TOS be removed from CFW?
You wouldn't be able to go on PSN ever again, I don't think it gonna happen anyway.

[jc_gargma]

Originally Posted by Ozz They would be smarter adding this to the games. CFW users won't have to agree to a TOS right? Could the TOS be removed from CFW? You wouldn't be able to go on PSN ever again, I don't think it gonna happen anyway.

They do have it in the games, as games force OFW patches on you, thus, making you sign it.

[stuck?]

Why does everybody forget about Canada?

How about us, apply there? Not that I have even gone online for many mooons :P

[bigo93]

Or you can accept then ask Sony to prove it was actually you who clicked the agree button. All Sony have is that someone using your account agreed to the TOS, nothing really links it to you, even if you are the owner of the account. Technically sony would have no proof whatsoever, but sine they are a big corporation, many judges end up siding with them rather than the individual, even if the individual is innocent.

[jc_gargma]

Originally Posted by stuck? Why does everybody forget about Canada? How about us, apply there? Not that I have even gone online for many mooons :P

It applies the same as to any American. Since Sony is granted a location of their choosing for court, and precedent on such inter-nation tribunals is already in place, you would simply be sent to California (at your expense, of course) to sue or defend against Sony until they bankrupt you.
Which is quite a joke, as if I were to choose a Canadian court, Sony wouldn't be allowed to stall, and I wouldn't go broke trying to fight them.
There is too many questionable tactics allowed in American courts, its no wonder people doubt that there is any legal protection for peasants.

[STLcardsWS]

Technically you have had 30 days from the time the new ToS was posted on PSN to accept. That was what around the 15th - 17th? So even less now. Also I surprised no one has looked into if you get banned from PSN for not agreeing to which I assume yes considering they don't let you sign in.

It is 30 days AFTER you accept, The 30 days clause is within the agreement. So clause isn't valid until you agree..

Sony added this hidden clause so they could try and sell to the courts they were being fair in providing an opt out.. but an HONEST judge wouldn't stand by this...