Sony PSN Terms of Service(An evolving animal)
Changing Terms of Service Agreement(TOS) and the lost art of redlining.
With a 50-100 page agreement in the legal world, there are often changes made. Bilaterally. And those changes are put in a format known as “redlining”. There’s a certain courtesy extended to opposing attorneys which involves “redlining”; that is leaving the new parts of the agreement “redlined” to show the new changes. In case you object to those changes. Today’s consumer does not have that option. Today’s article will concern whether that removes the right to call that an actual “contract” in the familiar sense of the word.
Let me reiterate; and emphasize, the links provided are purely for your research purposes and expressly do not reflect the opinion of this lawyer and law firm. (Hopefully, it will help you and/or your friends make an informed decision about the Playstation Network).
Photo courtesy of Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcobellucci/3534516458/ Marco Belucci; Creative Commons license; attribution required.
_________________________________________________________________________ More after the jump
http://us.playstation.com/support/termsofuse/index.htm
Current North American PSN TOS
http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/sony-warns-of-possible-3d-health-risks/
July 2010; TOS changed to warn of 3D gaming (Version 7.5?)
(Ostensibly) a screen grab from June 29, with Qriocity change (Version 7.0?)
http://www.psx-scene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64143
(Ostensibly)March 2010; authorizes SCE to make automatic updates “without notice”
http://playedstation.blogspot.com/2010/04/sony-changes-terms-of-service-regarding.html
Comparison of 2008 and 2010
http://www.sonyinsider.com/2008/10/20/playstation-network-terms-of-service-is-downright-scary/
November 2008
_________________________________________________________________
Well, what do you think? Do the changes fundamentally change the agreement from the earlier version? Opinions?
Jay Moffitt is a Tennessee attorney. This blog is for entertainment and educational purposes only and does not consitute legal advice or create an attorney/client relationship. Jay Moffitt is not certified as a specialist in this area by Tennessee and Tennessee does not certify specialists in this practice area. All comments will be answered promptly and courteously as long as they are germane to the discussion and do not contain specific game names or incidents.
Tags: 3D Gaming, Playstation Network, PSN, Sony, Terms of Service
One problem with a lot of modern legal documents is that they are not easily understandable. I’m well educated and have some experience with digging into legal issues, but I’m not a lawyer and often find myself lost when trying to decipher a legal document like an EULA.
Now, one can argue that legal documents need to be in proper legal format in order to be enforcible. One can also argue that providing the legal assistance to understand a contract isn’t the responsibility of the company writing the document and that there is some peril in inadvertently misrepresenting a section of a legal agreement by trying to translate it for the common person. But, I think not even including the “courtesy” of redlining changes shows that it’s more than there being potentially onerous requirements that keep legal agreements hard to decipher. I think a lot of larger companies prefer to use the EULA as tool they can use rather than it being a formal legal contract between two parties.
I’m not sure what the answer is, and I have to admit that my own company used a EULA full of legalese when we ran Meridian 59. Perhaps this would be an interesting article for you to think about Jay; what are some common sense ways of making these agreements better for all involved? Redlining might be one good way, allowing people to see changes between different versions, kind of like the differences in Wiki pages in a history. What else?
jaymoffitt Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
I both look forward, and also greatly dread, whenever you find time to comment on one of my posts. It always causes me to look much more deeply into my words, and also gives me just a glimmer of hope there are others pondering what I think are very important and far-reaching problems in reconciling the ancient practice of law with the cutting-edge industry of game-making.
By nature, game-making is premised upon novelty, surprise, and an affront to the “status quo” of hum-drum everyday life. Attorney’s job is to bring order out of that chaos. Given that frame, let me address just a couple of your concerns.
I agree that you should be “limited” in explaining a contract. As an attorney, I’m ethically bound to be even more limited; and even the most mundane transactions I’m bound to counsel, “If you don’t understand, YOU MUST find other counsel to explain to you.” As a businessperson, you should try to explain some terms, but if the person is honestly struggling with the understanding, you’re right that you should “pass” and let an expert take over. The thousands spent now (on a couple of hours of an attorneys’ time) could save hundreds of thousands later, especially if the game hits big.
Second question: what are some common sense ways of making these agreements better for all involved? Unfortunately, even the most basic phrases in contract law are frequently “litigated” to a high-court level. The few that are, “parties of the first part”, etc. are ramrodded into contracts just so an attorney feels “grounded” in at least some iron-clad language.
You might want to check out these links: http://contractadviser.com/blog/common_contract_phrases/ (What I really like about this 50-part list is Item 1 and 2. IT EMPHASIZES communication with the client. In my mind that eliminates 90% of problems with keeping your client happy.)
http://contractadviser.com/blog/common_contract_phrases/
To finish up, for now, I think that only Sony (and PSN) really understands how many lawsuits (worthy, and also frivolous and nuisance in nature) their lawyers deal with on a monthly basis. Their main concern (unfortunately) is not public relations, but reducing the overall litigation time spent on lawsuits. I believe that the empowered communication of the internet is making some legal departments recognize that the real cost is not the lawsuits filed; but the actual people who buy a product and then their interactions with a company make them determine their next product will be ANYTHING BUT THE ONE THEY ARE USING. It’s the age of communication, and you can just ask Sega, Nintendo, or Atari if sitting on top of the heap lasts forever.
(I’m going to think long and hard about your idea for an article; and see if I can make it short enough to hold my readers’ interest).