EFF Calls Sony's Lawsuit Against PS3 Hackers "Dangerous"

[Sutter Cane]

Then the consumer shouldn't have agreed to the EULA in the first place They were told beforehand and agreed the first time around that the terms could be change whenever the licensor felt like doing so. They knew or should have known back then what their options were going to be in the event that the term were in fact changed. That was their time to not get on the train if they didn't like the direction in which it was headed. But, having chosen to get on it, they can now either ride it all the way or get off.

My question is how is it fair to a consumer to have them agree to something to use a product, then have down the road after they've got your money change the terms. What if sony were to decide tomorrow that they were turning the PS3 into purely a blu ray player, and decided to change the EULA to say yo are no longer allowed to play games on this piece of equipment. Would that be fair AT ALL towards the consumer? They either have to agree to those terms (which they had no way of predicting) or stop using the console.

Unless EULA's are somehow a super-special form of contract, you can't force a client to renegotiate after the contract has been formed. The EULA is only necessary if you wish to *continue* receiving support from Sony. Not agree absolves them of that original promise. Because they reserved the right to renegotiate the network terms. NOT THE HARDWARE terms. Sorry, but I can't believe you can't even consider the possibility Sony doesn't own you just because they wrote a document on their website that says they do.

Sorry if i was fundamentally misunderstanding something. i was carrying another argument a different user started when he asked another user that was backing Sony what could a consumer do if Sony revised the EULA and you no longer agreed with it, the user wold no longer be able to use the product or get a refund.
If that can't happen, i apologize for being ignorant

 

[Firestorm65]

I think the real problem is it isn't easy to tell who owns what when you buy anything these days. I have no problem with anyone on this thread, I just got way to worked up with what I feel is the stupidity of the law, not any posters.

 

[RicoADF]

Wait, if the hackers never signed up for the PSN, why would they need to hack the thing in the first place? The update that removes Other OS is only compulsory if you want to sign in to the PSN.

Yeah. I call bullshit on the hackers "never joining". If they didn't join, they wouldn't have been required to update their systems.

OT: Yeah, this lawsuit could have massive ramifications if Sony is successful. While I don't agree with the way the hackers have gored the system's security, neither party is particularly innocent. Sony removed Other OS, and the hackers gave the world the tools to commit piracy on the PS3. It's a mighty big shitstorm that's to be brewing.

The newer systems come with the latest firmware built into it, or if they send it in for repairs once again the newer firmware is preloaded, theres no choice.

 

[BabyRaptor]

Screw off EFF. I like my developers having money.

You just don't get it do you?

His name is a sex joke...How intelligent do you think he is? XD

 

[BlackWidower]

Screw off EFF. I like my developers having money.

I'm pretty sure this hack merely allows one to install their own operating system. Not to pirate games. Unless you are referring to something else...

 

[JDKJ]

Then the consumer shouldn't have agreed to the EULA in the first place They were told beforehand and agreed the first time around that the terms could be change whenever the licensor felt like doing so. They knew or should have known back then what their options were going to be in the event that the term were in fact changed. That was their time to not get on the train if they didn't like the direction in which it was headed. But, having chosen to get on it, they can now either ride it all the way or get off.

My question is how is it fair to a consumer to have them agree to something to use a product, then have down the road after they've got your money change the terms. What if sony were to decide tomorrow that they were turning the PS3 into purely a blu ray player, and decided to change the EULA to say yo are no longer allowed to play games on this piece of equipment. Would that be fair AT ALL towards the consumer? They either have to agree to those terms (which they had no way of predicting) or stop using the console.

Unless EULA's are somehow a super-special form of contract, you can't force a client to renegotiate after the contract has been formed. The EULA is only necessary if you wish to *continue* receiving support from Sony. Not agree absolves them of that original promise. Because they reserved the right to renegotiate the network terms. NOT THE HARDWARE terms. Sorry, but I can't believe you can't even consider the possibility Sony doesn't own you just because they wrote a document on their website that says they do.

No one's being coerced to do a thing. The contract that both parties agreed to states that one party can unilaterally change the terms and the other party can either accept those changes or discontinue using the software. Is it a term to which a prudent person sould not agree? Yes. Absolutely. But if you choose to be imprudent and agree to that term, you've got no one to blame but yourself and your own imprudence if you find subsequent changes unpalatable. If you don't like the changes, you can quit using the software. After all, that was your agreement with Sony. And entered into without Sony holding a gun to your head.

And that EULA I pasted has nothing to do with any network. It's for a stand alone PS3.

 

[BabyRaptor]

Yes. But that brings up a really good idea, all mechanics must be certified to work on cars. And modification without certification is illegal.

Might want to expound on that idea some if you're serious about it. I'd rather not go to jail because I decided to change my own tire.

 

[JDKJ]

"To the fullest extent permitted by law" this says that everything that follows is just fairy tales and wishes.

You can't tell me you honestly believe the law says you can't install linux on a MAC because Apple says so? The EXACT SAME THING.

Why is it fairy tales and wishes? Unless you can point to some law that permits you to do otherwise than Sony, by the terms of its EULA, would prohibit the end user from doing, then prohibited you are.

 

[JDKJ]

Then the consumer shouldn't have agreed to the EULA in the first place They were told beforehand and agreed the first time around that the terms could be change whenever the licensor felt like doing so. They knew or should have known back then what their options were going to be in the event that the term were in fact changed. That was their time to not get on the train if they didn't like the direction in which it was headed. But, having chosen to get on it, they can now either ride it all the way or get off.

My question is how is it fair to a consumer to have them agree to something to use a product, then have down the road after they've got your money change the terms. What if sony were to decide tomorrow that they were turning the PS3 into purely a blu ray player, and decided to change the EULA to say yo are no longer allowed to play games on this piece of equipment. Would that be fair AT ALL towards the consumer? They either have to agree to those terms (which they had no way of predicting) or stop using the console.

Unless EULA's are somehow a super-special form of contract, you can't force a client to renegotiate after the contract has been formed. The EULA is only necessary if you wish to *continue* receiving support from Sony. Not agree absolves them of that original promise. Because they reserved the right to renegotiate the network terms. NOT THE HARDWARE terms. Sorry, but I can't believe you can't even consider the possibility Sony doesn't own you just because they wrote a document on their website that says they do.

No one's being coerced to do a thing. The contract that both parties agreed to states that one party can unilaterally change the terms and the other party can either accept those changes or discontinue using the software. Is it a term to which a prudent person should not agree? Yes. But if you choose to be imprudent and agree to that term, you've got no one to blame but yourself and your own imprudence if you find subsequent changes unpalatable. If you don't like the changes, you can quit using the software. After all, that was your agreement with Sony. And entered into without Sony holding a gun to your head.

So you are saying that anyone who still owns a PS3 (that didn't return it to the store after seeing that EULA) is now bound by any changes Sony makes to the EULA?

And that EULA I pasted has nothing to do with any network. It's for a stand alone PS3.

..and it's no more legally binding than if they had demanded your first born son.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. How can they be bound by any changes when they've got the option of discontinuing their use of Sony's software at any time they choose to do so?

Do you have any legal reasons why it isn't binding? Or are you just making a wholly unsupported legal conclusion?

 

[JDKJ]

"To the fullest extent permitted by law" this says that everything that follows is just fairy tales and wishes.

You can't tell me you honestly believe the law says you can't install linux on a MAC because Apple says so? The EXACT SAME THING.

Why is it fairy tales and wishes? Unless you can point to some law that permits you to do otherwise than Sony, by the terms of its EULA, would prohibit the end user from doing, then prohibited you are.

So if I bought a Dell with Windows 7 Pre-installed and the EULA said that I couldn't install any other OS it would be illegal for me to install Linux or any other version of Windows?

Cmon, that's bullshit. They can put it the EULA but it would have no legal weight.

That's not what the EULA we've been discussing says. It says you can't remove the licensor's software. If removing that software is a necessary step in installing "X" other software, then, technically, the licensor isn't telling you what you can or can't do with "X" software, they're only telling you what you can't do with their software. And that's well within their rights. But, unfortunately, the inescapable upshot is that you can't install "X" software.

 

[JDKJ]

Then the consumer shouldn't have agreed to the EULA in the first place They were told beforehand and agreed the first time around that the terms could be change whenever the licensor felt like doing so. They knew or should have known back then what their options were going to be in the event that the term were in fact changed. That was their time to not get on the train if they didn't like the direction in which it was headed. But, having chosen to get on it, they can now either ride it all the way or get off.

My question is how is it fair to a consumer to have them agree to something to use a product, then have down the road after they've got your money change the terms. What if sony were to decide tomorrow that they were turning the PS3 into purely a blu ray player, and decided to change the EULA to say yo are no longer allowed to play games on this piece of equipment. Would that be fair AT ALL towards the consumer? They either have to agree to those terms (which they had no way of predicting) or stop using the console.

Unless EULA's are somehow a super-special form of contract, you can't force a client to renegotiate after the contract has been formed. The EULA is only necessary if you wish to *continue* receiving support from Sony. Not agree absolves them of that original promise. Because they reserved the right to renegotiate the network terms. NOT THE HARDWARE terms. Sorry, but I can't believe you can't even consider the possibility Sony doesn't own you just because they wrote a document on their website that says they do.

No one's being coerced to do a thing. The contract that both parties agreed to states that one party can unilaterally change the terms and the other party can either accept those changes or discontinue using the software. Is it a term to which a prudent person should not agree? Yes. But if you choose to be imprudent and agree to that term, you've got no one to blame but yourself and your own imprudence if you find subsequent changes unpalatable. If you don't like the changes, you can quit using the software. After all, that was your agreement with Sony. And entered into without Sony holding a gun to your head.

So you are saying that anyone who still owns a PS3 (that didn't return it to the store after seeing that EULA) is now bound by any changes Sony makes to the EULA?

And that EULA I pasted has nothing to do with any network. It's for a stand alone PS3.

..and it's no more legally binding than if they had demanded your first born son.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. How can they be bound by any changes when they've got the option of discontinuing their use of Sony's software at any time they choose to do so?

Do you have any legal reasons why it isn't binding? Or are you just making a wholly unsupported legal conclusion?

Oh let me rephrase then.

So you are saying that anyone who still owns and uses a PS3 (that didn't return it to the store after seeing that EULA) is now bound by any changes Sony makes to the EULA?

The terms to which the user agreed provide that continued use of the software after any changes have been to the EULA are taken as agreement with those changes. So, yes, if the terms are changed and use continues, there is agreement to the changes.

 

[Sutter Cane]

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. How can they be bound by any changes when they've got the option of discontinuing their use of Sony's software at any time they choose to do so?

Do you have any legal reasons why it isn't binding? Or are you just making a wholly unsupported legal conclusion?

The thing is that to people like me it seems like stuff like this would be like if a friend told you he'd play you in a game he invented (the ps3) for $50 (your 50 representing the money it takes to buy a ps3 and his 50 representing the enjoyment of the features of the console) So you take a look at the rules (The EULA) think they're fair and begin to play. Now in the middle of the game your friend (Sony) begins changing the rules, and suddenly, you think they're a lot less fair than before. You take the time to tell your friend this and her responds, well if you don't like it you can quit and just give me the the $50.

 

[JDKJ]

"To the fullest extent permitted by law" this says that everything that follows is just fairy tales and wishes.

You can't tell me you honestly believe the law says you can't install linux on a MAC because Apple says so? The EXACT SAME THING.

Why is it fairy tales and wishes? Unless you can point to some law that permits you to do otherwise than Sony, by the terms of its EULA, would prohibit the end user from doing, then prohibited you are.

So if I bought a Dell with Windows 7 Pre-installed and the EULA said that I couldn't install any other OS it would be illegal for me to install Linux or any other version of Windows?

Cmon, that's bullshit. They can put it the EULA but it would have no legal weight.

That's not what the EULA we've been discussing says. It says you can't remove the licensor's software. If removing that software is a necessary step in installing "X" other software, then, technically, the licensor isn't telling you what you can or can't do with "X" software, they're only telling you what you can't do with their software. And that's well within their rights. But, unfortunately, the inescapable upshot is that you can't install "X" software.

So if Dell put in an EULA "you cannot uninstall Windows 7 Home Premium" then you would be legally bound by that?

I don't think so.

If you agreed to it, then, more likely than not, you are legally bound by it. Unless you have some basis in law or fact as to why you should not be held to that which you agreed.

 

[JDKJ]

Then the consumer shouldn't have agreed to the EULA in the first place They were told beforehand and agreed the first time around that the terms could be change whenever the licensor felt like doing so. They knew or should have known back then what their options were going to be in the event that the term were in fact changed. That was their time to not get on the train if they didn't like the direction in which it was headed. But, having chosen to get on it, they can now either ride it all the way or get off.

My question is how is it fair to a consumer to have them agree to something to use a product, then have down the road after they've got your money change the terms. What if sony were to decide tomorrow that they were turning the PS3 into purely a blu ray player, and decided to change the EULA to say yo are no longer allowed to play games on this piece of equipment. Would that be fair AT ALL towards the consumer? They either have to agree to those terms (which they had no way of predicting) or stop using the console.

Unless EULA's are somehow a super-special form of contract, you can't force a client to renegotiate after the contract has been formed. The EULA is only necessary if you wish to *continue* receiving support from Sony. Not agree absolves them of that original promise. Because they reserved the right to renegotiate the network terms. NOT THE HARDWARE terms. Sorry, but I can't believe you can't even consider the possibility Sony doesn't own you just because they wrote a document on their website that says they do.

No one's being coerced to do a thing. The contract that both parties agreed to states that one party can unilaterally change the terms and the other party can either accept those changes or discontinue using the software. Is it a term to which a prudent person should not agree? Yes. But if you choose to be imprudent and agree to that term, you've got no one to blame but yourself and your own imprudence if you find subsequent changes unpalatable. If you don't like the changes, you can quit using the software. After all, that was your agreement with Sony. And entered into without Sony holding a gun to your head.

So you are saying that anyone who still owns a PS3 (that didn't return it to the store after seeing that EULA) is now bound by any changes Sony makes to the EULA?

And that EULA I pasted has nothing to do with any network. It's for a stand alone PS3.

..and it's no more legally binding than if they had demanded your first born son.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. How can they be bound by any changes when they've got the option of discontinuing their use of Sony's software at any time they choose to do so?

Do you have any legal reasons why it isn't binding? Or are you just making a wholly unsupported legal conclusion?

Oh let me rephrase then.

So you are saying that anyone who still owns and uses a PS3 (that didn't return it to the store after seeing that EULA) is now bound by any changes Sony makes to the EULA?

The terms to which the user agreed provide that continued use of the software after any changes have been to the EULA are taken as agreement with those changes. So, yes, if the terms are changed and use continues, there is agreement to the changes.

Taken by who? Sony maybe but I doubt it would stand up in court.

It's like saying "If you don't type afdskdfgsdjfhsdjf then you are agreeing to pay me $100,000". It's a one sided agreement that the other party can easily ignore. There are no signatures, no notary public, no lawyers checking over the terms for legality. It's worthless.

No, it's not.

Firstly, that affirmative action can signify agreement is well-settled under U.S. law. Not even worth your time arguing that one. The classic law school example is the advertisement that the first 50 patrons to enter a department store on Friday get a $100 store credit. That's an offer, acceptance of which is made by showing up on Friday among the first 50 patrons. Offer plus acceptance plus consideration equals a binding contract. If you don't want to enter into the contract Sony proposes, then don't use their software. Plain and simple.

Secondly, your analogy is inapposite to the facts of the case. It describes failure to act as signifying agreement. That don't work as acceptance. But that's not what we have here. Here we have taking action as signifying agreement. That does work as acceptance. You're comparing an apple to an orange.