Keep your legal rights when you buy video games

[Erik_Twice]

This reminds me the old argument by the aristocracy that simple people were too stupid to run themselves, so they shouldn't be left "alone".

For the people but without the people. (Rough translation of mine)

[Zing]

Arbitration is on the table whether I sign off my right to go to court or not. I don't see how this benefits me or other consumers, only Sony (and AT&T and Microsoft and T-Mobile and all the other companies now putting these clauses in their EULAs).

Lower court and legal costs for Sony benefit everyone, even non-gamers. Lower legal costs affect retail prices. The potential for lower legal costs may allow management to take larger risks on games or other services that would normally be turned down. Less time spent in court means more public time for other court cases, or alternatively, fewer courts and their supporting administration.

[o.pwuaioc]

Arbitration is on the table whether I sign off my right to go to court or not. I don't see how this benefits me or other consumers, only Sony (and AT&T and Microsoft and T-Mobile and all the other companies now putting these clauses in their EULAs).

Lower court and legal costs for Sony benefit everyone, even non-gamers. Lower legal costs affect retail prices. The potential for lower legal costs may allow management to take larger risks on games or other services that would normally be turned down.

In other words, they fuck up, get sued, and then raise their prices because they got sued. Sounds spiffy to me.

Less time spent in court means more public time for other court cases, or alternatively, fewer courts and their supporting administration.

But without the threat of court, they can do more and worse.

[ZeroAX]

Lower court and legal costs for Sony benefit everyone, even non-gamers. Lower legal costs affect retail prices. The potential for lower legal costs may allow management to take larger risks on games or other services that would normally be turned down. Less time spent in court means more public time for other court cases, or alternatively, fewer courts and their supporting administration.

Are you serious?

[Zing]

Less time spent in court means more public time for other court cases, or alternatively, fewer courts and their supporting administration.

But without the threat of court, they can do more and worse.

They are still vulnerable to arbitration and criminal proceedings. This isn't a license to rape the consumer.

[MrPopo]

Less time spent in court means more public time for other court cases, or alternatively, fewer courts and their supporting administration.

But without the threat of court, they can do more and worse.

They are still vulnerable to arbitration and criminal proceedings. This isn't a license to rape the consumer.

For example, let's take the previous PSN downtime. Let's assume that you did not have any personal information stolen (though others might have). The only thing you missed out on was a free service. Do you think you're entitled to financial compensation for that? Moving this to arbitrition would remove scenarios where people go "we were wronged so we want money" when the money doesn't actually compensate them for any supposed losses, but instead is the best we got.

[ZeroAX]

For example, let's take the previous PSN downtime. Let's assume that you did not have any personal information stolen (though others might have). The only thing you missed out on was a free service. Do you think you're entitled to financial compensation for that? Moving this to arbitrition would remove scenarios where people go "we were wronged so we want money" when the money doesn't actually compensate them for any supposed losses, but instead is the best we got.

Sure, why not? Unless they had one of their lovely little messages on the box that said "sometimes psn will be down for long periods of time and one day might be turned off completely", it's an advertised service right there on the box. If they can't deliver, it's false advertising and they should pay, simple as that.

[MrPopo]

For example, let's take the previous PSN downtime. Let's assume that you did not have any personal information stolen (though others might have). The only thing you missed out on was a free service. Do you think you're entitled to financial compensation for that? Moving this to arbitrition would remove scenarios where people go "we were wronged so we want money" when the money doesn't actually compensate them for any supposed losses, but instead is the best we got.

Sure, why not? Unless they had one of their lovely little messages on the box that said "sometimes psn will be down for long periods of time and one day might be turned off completely", it's an advertised service right there on the box. If they can't deliver, it's false advertising and they should pay, simple as that.

I am 90% certain said message is there.