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.

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?