4 ms·

You joke, but if I email Sony customer support with an updated terms of service that says the service is free now, is that equally legitimate?

mxuribe 8mo ago
IANAL but i think Sony would have had to *first* fully accept the terms initially, and then a brick (or many other delivery mechanisms used to convey "notice") with updated terms i guess would be weirdly acceptable...however, other laws would be broken since its, you know, property damage. But what a story that would be! lol :-) I hate all these TOS that always favor a company...but what if alot of society started hurling bricks back at tech companies in a sort of retaliation...not unlike Luddites damaging ye old machines?
- pocksuppet 8mo ago
  Do we remember that time that a person altered the terms of a credit card contract and the bank signed it, and then sued the bank for not following those terms and won?
- cobalt 8mo ago
  aren't contracts technically agreements between both parties?
II2II 8mo ago
The problem with that argument is that Sony is the one offering the service and the customer is the one using the service. The customer has the right to request changes to the terms of service and Sony has the right to refuse to provide the service if the customer asks for changes to the terms of service. So the customer is at a distinct disadvantage. The logic makes a certain amount of sense, but the logic falls flat when the service is an actual product the customer paid for and the company decides to change the terms of service after the fact. The logic also falls flat, in my opinion, when the company agreed to provide the service for a fixed term or the service can (reasonably) regarded as essential.
- account42 7mo ago
  In many cases it's actually the user providing the service (free content which can be monetized with ads) and the website is the one benefiting from it.

mxuribe 8mo ago

IANAL but i think Sony would have had to *first* fully accept the terms initially, and then a brick (or many other delivery mechanisms used to convey "notice") with updated terms i guess would be weirdly acceptable...however, other laws would be broken since its, you know, property damage. But what a story that would be! lol :-) I hate all these TOS that always favor a company...but what if alot of society started hurling bricks back at tech companies in a sort of retaliation...not unlike Luddites damaging ye old machines?

pocksuppet 8mo ago
Do we remember that time that a person altered the terms of a credit card contract and the bank signed it, and then sued the bank for not following those terms and won?
cobalt 8mo ago
aren't contracts technically agreements between both parties?

II2II 8mo ago

The problem with that argument is that Sony is the one offering the service and the customer is the one using the service. The customer has the right to request changes to the terms of service and Sony has the right to refuse to provide the service if the customer asks for changes to the terms of service. So the customer is at a distinct disadvantage. The logic makes a certain amount of sense, but the logic falls flat when the service is an actual product the customer paid for and the company decides to change the terms of service after the fact. The logic also falls flat, in my opinion, when the company agreed to provide the service for a fixed term or the service can (reasonably) regarded as essential.

account42 7mo ago
In many cases it's actually the user providing the service (free content which can be monetized with ads) and the website is the one benefiting from it.