Sony CEO: "Free" PSN Wasn't a Likely Target

[JDKJ]

That's fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games. That's what the PlayStation has done since it started! It's MADE by the gaming division of Sony.

If anyone honestly bought a PS3 with no intention of playing games or Bluray movies on it, get the fuck out of the gaming community and terrorize some other bastards who want to deal with your shit.

Seriously.

THAT'S fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games.

Now, if Sony suddenly decides the PS3 no longer plays movies, DO YOU HAVE A FUCKING RIGHT TO BE UPSET?

"RUNS LINUX" is a feature of the PS3 when it was sold, exactly the same as being able to play blu-rays.

Read further down. I note Bluray movies as well. It plays Bluray movies and games. It's what it does. The PS2, etc didn't NEED Linux, why should any other video game console?

A very vocal minority used it for running Linux. The MAJORITY are actual gamers, who bought it because it's a PlayStation, which has played video games for MANY YEARS.

You're buying the console, yes. You OWN that console, yes. YOU DO NOT OWN SONY'S TECHNOLOGY. It is well within their right to remove/refuse access to anything on THEIR TECHNOLOGY that is causing issues. Do whatever the fuck you like to the CONSOLE. Tweak a setting, update fans, whatever. That's YOUR box. But the tech that runs it IS Sony's.

Fucking hell, extremist hackers/elitist wankers piss me off..

What, a feature only matters because most people use it?!
A PS3 plays games, blu-rays, AND runs Linux.

That was what it was advertised to do.

At the same, it was made clear to anyone who bothered to read the fine print that an advertised feature could be removed at Sony's discretion. Which is precisely what Sony did. No need to act surprised or cheated. Ya shoulda seen that possibility beforehand.

So?
That's irrelevant.

Let's say the PS4 comes out, and Sony suddenly decides that the PS3 no longer needs to be able to run games.

That kind of fine print is illegal in Europe

Can you point me to a European law or the decision of of a European court that says it is illegal for a seller of software to modify that software post-sale?

And it certainly isn't irrelevant in the United States. There's no law or court decision that I know of in the States that makes it illegal. And if there was, I would know about it. And it's a frequent occurrence. There are any number of software programs that updates themselves to add and remove features. Happens all the time.

Wait what ... I've already provided more information in this thread than anyone, the OP included.
I shouldn't have to dig up case law for your convenience since it's bleedin' obvious what flies and what doesn't if you just look up how the terms and conditions are actually worded differently in Europe.

What's more, if you think a PS3 is software, you're a moron.

The entire argument is over legality and/or the fairness of altering firmware.

Feel free to visit Sony's website where they provide the license agreements for different regions: http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/index.html . If you select the agreement for the Americas and the agreement for Europe and compare the two, you'll see where they are word-for-word identical (in fact, Sony uses the same http link (http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html) to direct users to the license agreements for the two different regions, thus making the license agreements literally "identical"). If you cannot provide support for your assertion that European law makes "X" illegal, then you leave me very little alternative but to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you mistakenly think that the PS3 license agreements for the Americas and Europe are worded differently suggest to me that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

What I think is that a PS3 contains software and it is this software which is licensed to those who purchase and use a PS3. Are you saying that a PS3 does not contain software? That's strange. The license agreement is actually entitled "SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (Version 1.4) FOR THE PlayStation®3 SYSTEM" (emphasis supplied).

The terms "firmware" and "software," when speaking of the programming code found in a piece of hardware, are of loose enough definition to be interchangeable. But if that causes you confusion, we can simple refer to the subject matter of this discussion as "programming code."

The law, I believe, that is being referred to is a part of contract law that means that a contract that is too one sided is considered void. And this is what many people are waiting for as we want a precedent to be set within the game industry to show exactly what kind of agreements are forced upon us. The tone set is "Agree to this long list of agreements that basically make you our *****, if we wish to add a feature that melts your PS3 disks when inserted, and sets fire to your house, that's allowed." Slightly exaggerated but I've had a drink, so can't think of a slightly less extreme one, and the point still stands. Ticking a box is not the same a signing a legal contract, and that is where the law is hazy.

The concept to which you refer is known in the law as an "unconscionable" contract. An unconscionable contract is one in which the terms are so one-sided or unfair so as to "shock the conscience." The concept of an unconscionable contract should not be confused with a so-called "click-through" contract (i.e., a "tick the box" contract). That is an entirely different but related area of contract law. Click-throughs implicate the legal principles of "offer and acceptance" and "contracts of adhesion" (and contracts of adhesion are related to unconscionable contracts because they are often closely scrutinized by courts to determine if they are in fact unconscionable). But, as a legal matter, the law on click-through contracts isn't all that "hazy." Click-throughs have been frequently recognized as a legitimate means of offering and accepting a contract.

And unconscionable contracts are not, contrary to your assertion, generally considered "void." They are considered "voidable." The two are not the same. A "void" contract is one that never existed. A "voidable" contract is one that did exist but can later be avoided. There's a subtle but important difference between the two.

True, I know they are two different issues, I merely brought them both up in the same comment, not meaning to imply they are both the same thing. Also, I was enjoying our conversation, and not having a flamewar, while learning some facts from you about things. But I have a dislike for your tone when talking to Dance of masks. To be frank, it makes you sound pretty pretentious after he simply asked you a question.

My bad, I was talking more in generalities with regards to that. But would you argue that these contracts are not one sided enough to be considered voidable or unconscionable? That to sign a contract with the intention of using that feature (perhaps only that feature) and then have it taken away with no repercussions makes it severely one sided? I am not an expert in law, though I am aware these click-throughs are legal, I merely question whether they SHOULD be so if we are all aware that the majority of people "signing" them do not read it at all, or that you agree to them AFTER buying the product.

If you, like Danceofmasks, start treating me like I'm a fucking idiot who doesn't know anything about the smartphone jailbreak case and inviting me to go find out about a matter of which I'm already fully aware, then I'll probably take the same tone with you, too. That I haven't is only because you've given me no reason to do so. Unlike Danceofmasks.

Most all EULAs are, obviously, one-sided. Whether they are one-sided enough to "shock the conscience" as required by the legal standard is a more difficult call. Reasonable minds can differ on that issue. But "shocks the conscience" is a pretty high standard to reach.

That those who agree to a contract don't bother to read it before agreeing ain't gettin' no one outta no contract. The terms were there to be read if they wanted to read them. That they didn't read them ain't nobody's fault but their own.

EULAs don't apply to the sale of the product. They apply to the use of the product. And you are presented with the terms of the EULA before you use the product, either by discovering them in the product's box (shrink wrap) or discovered as a step towards actual use of the product (click-through). If you don't want to agree to the terms, then take the product back to the seller (shrink wrap) or discontinue the steps towards use (click-through).

Wait, so I'm a fucking idiot as I don't know jack about the jailbreak case? To assume someone doesn't know about something isn't to assume they are an idiot. I accept you know more legal crap than I do, which I only learnt after speak to you for a while.

I would say that buying a box of parts that I can't change in any way, use software other than the pre-prescribed stuff, is allowed to change the functionality of the product at will, or cut your usage for... whatever reason they want? No reason at all?... Is pretty shocking of the conscience.

While not reading a contract doesn't get you out of it, the question is, can they be upheld if everyone knows that barely anyone reads them? Its effectively asking "Tick box to play game".

But that's exactly the problem. If the product has been opened and is not faulty, some shops will not take it back. And if I wish to use the product as anything more than a door-stop, surely is should be part of the buy process, as its integral to the product.

I'm partially aware on the law here, at least in the broadest sense of the word, I'm more questioning on whether the law is correct or not than if that is what the law states. This the point I am aiming at here.

That no one reads them wouldn't matter. The terms are there for the reading if someone chooses to read them. That's what matters. If you are presented with "tick the box or don't play," then those are your options. No one says you have to play. You can always not tick the box.

If the point of purchase won't accept return, then you have legal recourse against them. Sue them to force the return. But what you can't do is agree to the EULA and then not abide by it's terms and argue, "but they wouldn't let me return it."

The law is the law until the law isn't the law. If you want to argue for changing the law, that's one thing. But until you can successfully argue for that change in the law, the law as it is governs. If you wanna first break the law and then argue that the law is bogus, you can do that. But if you can't convince anyone that the law is in fact bogus, then, to paraphrase the famous lyrics, you fought the law and the law won.

 

[Jammy2003]

That's fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games. That's what the PlayStation has done since it started! It's MADE by the gaming division of Sony.

If anyone honestly bought a PS3 with no intention of playing games or Bluray movies on it, get the fuck out of the gaming community and terrorize some other bastards who want to deal with your shit.

Seriously.

THAT'S fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games.

Now, if Sony suddenly decides the PS3 no longer plays movies, DO YOU HAVE A FUCKING RIGHT TO BE UPSET?

"RUNS LINUX" is a feature of the PS3 when it was sold, exactly the same as being able to play blu-rays.

Read further down. I note Bluray movies as well. It plays Bluray movies and games. It's what it does. The PS2, etc didn't NEED Linux, why should any other video game console?

A very vocal minority used it for running Linux. The MAJORITY are actual gamers, who bought it because it's a PlayStation, which has played video games for MANY YEARS.

You're buying the console, yes. You OWN that console, yes. YOU DO NOT OWN SONY'S TECHNOLOGY. It is well within their right to remove/refuse access to anything on THEIR TECHNOLOGY that is causing issues. Do whatever the fuck you like to the CONSOLE. Tweak a setting, update fans, whatever. That's YOUR box. But the tech that runs it IS Sony's.

Fucking hell, extremist hackers/elitist wankers piss me off..

What, a feature only matters because most people use it?!
A PS3 plays games, blu-rays, AND runs Linux.

That was what it was advertised to do.

At the same, it was made clear to anyone who bothered to read the fine print that an advertised feature could be removed at Sony's discretion. Which is precisely what Sony did. No need to act surprised or cheated. Ya shoulda seen that possibility beforehand.

So?
That's irrelevant.

Let's say the PS4 comes out, and Sony suddenly decides that the PS3 no longer needs to be able to run games.

That kind of fine print is illegal in Europe

Can you point me to a European law or the decision of of a European court that says it is illegal for a seller of software to modify that software post-sale?

And it certainly isn't irrelevant in the United States. There's no law or court decision that I know of in the States that makes it illegal. And if there was, I would know about it. And it's a frequent occurrence. There are any number of software programs that updates themselves to add and remove features. Happens all the time.

Wait what ... I've already provided more information in this thread than anyone, the OP included.
I shouldn't have to dig up case law for your convenience since it's bleedin' obvious what flies and what doesn't if you just look up how the terms and conditions are actually worded differently in Europe.

What's more, if you think a PS3 is software, you're a moron.

The entire argument is over legality and/or the fairness of altering firmware.

Feel free to visit Sony's website where they provide the license agreements for different regions: http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/index.html . If you select the agreement for the Americas and the agreement for Europe and compare the two, you'll see where they are word-for-word identical (in fact, Sony uses the same http link (http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html) to direct users to the license agreements for the two different regions, thus making the license agreements literally "identical"). If you cannot provide support for your assertion that European law makes "X" illegal, then you leave me very little alternative but to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you mistakenly think that the PS3 license agreements for the Americas and Europe are worded differently suggest to me that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

What I think is that a PS3 contains software and it is this software which is licensed to those who purchase and use a PS3. Are you saying that a PS3 does not contain software? That's strange. The license agreement is actually entitled "SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (Version 1.4) FOR THE PlayStation®3 SYSTEM" (emphasis supplied).

The terms "firmware" and "software," when speaking of the programming code found in a piece of hardware, are of loose enough definition to be interchangeable. But if that causes you confusion, we can simple refer to the subject matter of this discussion as "programming code."

The law, I believe, that is being referred to is a part of contract law that means that a contract that is too one sided is considered void. And this is what many people are waiting for as we want a precedent to be set within the game industry to show exactly what kind of agreements are forced upon us. The tone set is "Agree to this long list of agreements that basically make you our *****, if we wish to add a feature that melts your PS3 disks when inserted, and sets fire to your house, that's allowed." Slightly exaggerated but I've had a drink, so can't think of a slightly less extreme one, and the point still stands. Ticking a box is not the same a signing a legal contract, and that is where the law is hazy.

The concept to which you refer is known in the law as an "unconscionable" contract. An unconscionable contract is one in which the terms are so one-sided or unfair so as to "shock the conscience." The concept of an unconscionable contract should not be confused with a so-called "click-through" contract (i.e., a "tick the box" contract). That is an entirely different but related area of contract law. Click-throughs implicate the legal principles of "offer and acceptance" and "contracts of adhesion" (and contracts of adhesion are related to unconscionable contracts because they are often closely scrutinized by courts to determine if they are in fact unconscionable). But, as a legal matter, the law on click-through contracts isn't all that "hazy." Click-throughs have been frequently recognized as a legitimate means of offering and accepting a contract.

And unconscionable contracts are not, contrary to your assertion, generally considered "void." They are considered "voidable." The two are not the same. A "void" contract is one that never existed. A "voidable" contract is one that did exist but can later be avoided. There's a subtle but important difference between the two.

True, I know they are two different issues, I merely brought them both up in the same comment, not meaning to imply they are both the same thing. Also, I was enjoying our conversation, and not having a flamewar, while learning some facts from you about things. But I have a dislike for your tone when talking to Dance of masks. To be frank, it makes you sound pretty pretentious after he simply asked you a question.

My bad, I was talking more in generalities with regards to that. But would you argue that these contracts are not one sided enough to be considered voidable or unconscionable? That to sign a contract with the intention of using that feature (perhaps only that feature) and then have it taken away with no repercussions makes it severely one sided? I am not an expert in law, though I am aware these click-throughs are legal, I merely question whether they SHOULD be so if we are all aware that the majority of people "signing" them do not read it at all, or that you agree to them AFTER buying the product.

If you, like Danceofmasks, start treating me like I'm a fucking idiot who doesn't know anything about the smartphone jailbreak case and inviting me to go find out about a matter of which I'm already fully aware, then I'll probably take the same tone with you, too. That I haven't is only because you've given me no reason to do so. Unlike Danceofmasks.

Most all EULAs are, obviously, one-sided. Whether they are one-sided enough to "shock the conscience" as required by the legal standard is a more difficult call. Reasonable minds can differ on that issue. But "shocks the conscience" is a pretty high standard to reach.

That those who agree to a contract don't bother to read it before agreeing ain't gettin' no one outta no contract. The terms were there to be read if they wanted to read them. That they didn't read them ain't nobody's fault but their own.

EULAs don't apply to the sale of the product. They apply to the use of the product. And you are presented with the terms of the EULA before you use the product, either by discovering them in the product's box (shrink wrap) or discovered as a step towards actual use of the product (click-through). If you don't want to agree to the terms, then take the product back to the seller (shrink wrap) or discontinue the steps towards use (click-through).

Wait, so I'm a fucking idiot as I don't know jack about the jailbreak case? To assume someone doesn't know about something isn't to assume they are an idiot. I accept you know more legal crap than I do, which I only learnt after speak to you for a while.

I would say that buying a box of parts that I can't change in any way, use software other than the pre-prescribed stuff, is allowed to change the functionality of the product at will, or cut your usage for... whatever reason they want? No reason at all?... Is pretty shocking of the conscience.

While not reading a contract doesn't get you out of it, the question is, can they be upheld if everyone knows that barely anyone reads them? Its effectively asking "Tick box to play game".

But that's exactly the problem. If the product has been opened and is not faulty, some shops will not take it back. And if I wish to use the product as anything more than a door-stop, surely is should be part of the buy process, as its integral to the product.

I'm partially aware on the law here, at least in the broadest sense of the word, I'm more questioning on whether the law is correct or not than if that is what the law states. This the point I am aiming at here.

That no one reads them wouldn't matter. The terms are there for the reading if someone chooses to read them. That's what matters. If you are presented with "tick the box or don't play," then those are your options. No one says you have to play. You can always not tick the box.

If the point of purchase won't accept return, then you have legal recourse against them. Sue them to force the return. But what you can't do is agree to the EULA and then not abide by it's terms and argue, "but they wouldn't let me return it."

The law is the law until the law isn't the law. If you want to argue for changing the law, that's one thing. But until you can successfully argue for that change in the law, the law as it is governs. If you wanna first break the law and then argue that the law is bogus, you can do that. But if you can't convince anyone that the law is in fact bogus, then, to paraphrase the famous lyrics, you fought the law and the law won.

Well I believe we have come to the end of this now. Some parts we agree, and others not so much, but its been nice discussing this with you and learning some new things. More on topic, as we seem to have drifted, this plea for sympathy is pathetic and contradicts some of their previous statement about how seriously they took security.

Also while I do believe in protecting a company's property and giving them rights over it, I do think that the law is too one sided for the big companies in this case. Particularly, as I pointed out before, because there is no course to change the law here. To show that the law is wrong, a precedent must first be set, and with the legal teams these companies can afford, there is no way someone can hope to set one without first going bankrupt and having to drop the lawsuit. So how can we change the law? While I like to believe in peaceful protest, it rarely works these days. (Ok, I'm expanding beyond just Sony now and into my government so I'll leave that at that)

I argue this is not fair, you argue that until it changes, the law is correct on this. I guess we must agree to disagree for I feel the law is there to protect the people, all of them, and not just those with a larger wallet and a big legal team.

 

[JDKJ]

That's fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games. That's what the PlayStation has done since it started! It's MADE by the gaming division of Sony.

If anyone honestly bought a PS3 with no intention of playing games or Bluray movies on it, get the fuck out of the gaming community and terrorize some other bastards who want to deal with your shit.

Seriously.

THAT'S fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games.

Now, if Sony suddenly decides the PS3 no longer plays movies, DO YOU HAVE A FUCKING RIGHT TO BE UPSET?

"RUNS LINUX" is a feature of the PS3 when it was sold, exactly the same as being able to play blu-rays.

Read further down. I note Bluray movies as well. It plays Bluray movies and games. It's what it does. The PS2, etc didn't NEED Linux, why should any other video game console?

A very vocal minority used it for running Linux. The MAJORITY are actual gamers, who bought it because it's a PlayStation, which has played video games for MANY YEARS.

You're buying the console, yes. You OWN that console, yes. YOU DO NOT OWN SONY'S TECHNOLOGY. It is well within their right to remove/refuse access to anything on THEIR TECHNOLOGY that is causing issues. Do whatever the fuck you like to the CONSOLE. Tweak a setting, update fans, whatever. That's YOUR box. But the tech that runs it IS Sony's.

Fucking hell, extremist hackers/elitist wankers piss me off..

What, a feature only matters because most people use it?!
A PS3 plays games, blu-rays, AND runs Linux.

That was what it was advertised to do.

At the same, it was made clear to anyone who bothered to read the fine print that an advertised feature could be removed at Sony's discretion. Which is precisely what Sony did. No need to act surprised or cheated. Ya shoulda seen that possibility beforehand.

So?
That's irrelevant.

Let's say the PS4 comes out, and Sony suddenly decides that the PS3 no longer needs to be able to run games.

That kind of fine print is illegal in Europe

Can you point me to a European law or the decision of of a European court that says it is illegal for a seller of software to modify that software post-sale?

And it certainly isn't irrelevant in the United States. There's no law or court decision that I know of in the States that makes it illegal. And if there was, I would know about it. And it's a frequent occurrence. There are any number of software programs that updates themselves to add and remove features. Happens all the time.

Wait what ... I've already provided more information in this thread than anyone, the OP included.
I shouldn't have to dig up case law for your convenience since it's bleedin' obvious what flies and what doesn't if you just look up how the terms and conditions are actually worded differently in Europe.

What's more, if you think a PS3 is software, you're a moron.

The entire argument is over legality and/or the fairness of altering firmware.

Feel free to visit Sony's website where they provide the license agreements for different regions: http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/index.html . If you select the agreement for the Americas and the agreement for Europe and compare the two, you'll see where they are word-for-word identical (in fact, Sony uses the same http link (http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html) to direct users to the license agreements for the two different regions, thus making the license agreements literally "identical"). If you cannot provide support for your assertion that European law makes "X" illegal, then you leave me very little alternative but to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you mistakenly think that the PS3 license agreements for the Americas and Europe are worded differently suggest to me that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

What I think is that a PS3 contains software and it is this software which is licensed to those who purchase and use a PS3. Are you saying that a PS3 does not contain software? That's strange. The license agreement is actually entitled "SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (Version 1.4) FOR THE PlayStation®3 SYSTEM" (emphasis supplied).

The terms "firmware" and "software," when speaking of the programming code found in a piece of hardware, are of loose enough definition to be interchangeable. But if that causes you confusion, we can simple refer to the subject matter of this discussion as "programming code."

The law, I believe, that is being referred to is a part of contract law that means that a contract that is too one sided is considered void. And this is what many people are waiting for as we want a precedent to be set within the game industry to show exactly what kind of agreements are forced upon us. The tone set is "Agree to this long list of agreements that basically make you our *****, if we wish to add a feature that melts your PS3 disks when inserted, and sets fire to your house, that's allowed." Slightly exaggerated but I've had a drink, so can't think of a slightly less extreme one, and the point still stands. Ticking a box is not the same a signing a legal contract, and that is where the law is hazy.

The concept to which you refer is known in the law as an "unconscionable" contract. An unconscionable contract is one in which the terms are so one-sided or unfair so as to "shock the conscience." The concept of an unconscionable contract should not be confused with a so-called "click-through" contract (i.e., a "tick the box" contract). That is an entirely different but related area of contract law. Click-throughs implicate the legal principles of "offer and acceptance" and "contracts of adhesion" (and contracts of adhesion are related to unconscionable contracts because they are often closely scrutinized by courts to determine if they are in fact unconscionable). But, as a legal matter, the law on click-through contracts isn't all that "hazy." Click-throughs have been frequently recognized as a legitimate means of offering and accepting a contract.

And unconscionable contracts are not, contrary to your assertion, generally considered "void." They are considered "voidable." The two are not the same. A "void" contract is one that never existed. A "voidable" contract is one that did exist but can later be avoided. There's a subtle but important difference between the two.

True, I know they are two different issues, I merely brought them both up in the same comment, not meaning to imply they are both the same thing. Also, I was enjoying our conversation, and not having a flamewar, while learning some facts from you about things. But I have a dislike for your tone when talking to Dance of masks. To be frank, it makes you sound pretty pretentious after he simply asked you a question.

My bad, I was talking more in generalities with regards to that. But would you argue that these contracts are not one sided enough to be considered voidable or unconscionable? That to sign a contract with the intention of using that feature (perhaps only that feature) and then have it taken away with no repercussions makes it severely one sided? I am not an expert in law, though I am aware these click-throughs are legal, I merely question whether they SHOULD be so if we are all aware that the majority of people "signing" them do not read it at all, or that you agree to them AFTER buying the product.

If you, like Danceofmasks, start treating me like I'm a fucking idiot who doesn't know anything about the smartphone jailbreak case and inviting me to go find out about a matter of which I'm already fully aware, then I'll probably take the same tone with you, too. That I haven't is only because you've given me no reason to do so. Unlike Danceofmasks.

Most all EULAs are, obviously, one-sided. Whether they are one-sided enough to "shock the conscience" as required by the legal standard is a more difficult call. Reasonable minds can differ on that issue. But "shocks the conscience" is a pretty high standard to reach.

That those who agree to a contract don't bother to read it before agreeing ain't gettin' no one outta no contract. The terms were there to be read if they wanted to read them. That they didn't read them ain't nobody's fault but their own.

EULAs don't apply to the sale of the product. They apply to the use of the product. And you are presented with the terms of the EULA before you use the product, either by discovering them in the product's box (shrink wrap) or discovered as a step towards actual use of the product (click-through). If you don't want to agree to the terms, then take the product back to the seller (shrink wrap) or discontinue the steps towards use (click-through).

Wait, so I'm a fucking idiot as I don't know jack about the jailbreak case? To assume someone doesn't know about something isn't to assume they are an idiot. I accept you know more legal crap than I do, which I only learnt after speak to you for a while.

I would say that buying a box of parts that I can't change in any way, use software other than the pre-prescribed stuff, is allowed to change the functionality of the product at will, or cut your usage for... whatever reason they want? No reason at all?... Is pretty shocking of the conscience.

While not reading a contract doesn't get you out of it, the question is, can they be upheld if everyone knows that barely anyone reads them? Its effectively asking "Tick box to play game".

But that's exactly the problem. If the product has been opened and is not faulty, some shops will not take it back. And if I wish to use the product as anything more than a door-stop, surely is should be part of the buy process, as its integral to the product.

I'm partially aware on the law here, at least in the broadest sense of the word, I'm more questioning on whether the law is correct or not than if that is what the law states. This the point I am aiming at here.

That no one reads them wouldn't matter. The terms are there for the reading if someone chooses to read them. That's what matters. If you are presented with "tick the box or don't play," then those are your options. No one says you have to play. You can always not tick the box.

If the point of purchase won't accept return, then you have legal recourse against them. Sue them to force the return. But what you can't do is agree to the EULA and then not abide by it's terms and argue, "but they wouldn't let me return it."

The law is the law until the law isn't the law. If you want to argue for changing the law, that's one thing. But until you can successfully argue for that change in the law, the law as it is governs. If you wanna first break the law and then argue that the law is bogus, you can do that. But if you can't convince anyone that the law is in fact bogus, then, to paraphrase the famous lyrics, you fought the law and the law won.

Well I believe we have come to the end of this now. Some parts we agree, and others not so much, but its been nice discussing this with you and learning some new things. More on topic, as we seem to have drifted, this plea for sympathy is pathetic and contradicts some of their previous statement about how seriously they took security.

Also while I do believe in protecting a company's property and giving them rights over it, I do think that the law is too one sided for the big companies in this case. Particularly, as I pointed out before, because there is no course to change the law here. To show that the law is wrong, a precedent must first be set, and with the legal teams these companies can afford, there is no way someone can hope to set one without first going bankrupt and having to drop the lawsuit. So how can we change the law? While I like to believe in peaceful protest, it rarely works these days. (Ok, I'm expanding beyond just Sony now and into my government so I'll leave that at that)

I argue this is not fair, you argue that until it changes, the law is correct on this. I guess we must agree to disagree for I feel the law is there to protect the people, all of them, and not just those with a larger wallet and a big legal team.

Your position would strike a more sympathetic chord with me if we were discussing an essential product or service like food, clothes, shelter, or even an automobile. But we're not. We're discussing video gaming. If the terms upon which that video gaming is offered to the public are unfair and one-sided, no one's gonna get sick and die if they simply refuse to agree to those terms and do without gaming. In the proposition "agree or don't play," is the option not to play. What confuses me is why so many agree and then wanna gripe about that to which they agreed. I would have thought that the more reasonable response is to not agree in the first place.

And you can fight the law and sometimes win. Apple's got more money than many third world nations. But their attempt to lock out unauthorized applications from their iPhones failed and a modification to their phones that circumvents that lock out was specifically allowed by a revision to the DMCA. The Big Bad Corporation doesn't always win.

 

[JimbobDa3rd]

That's fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games. That's what the PlayStation has done since it started! It's MADE by the gaming division of Sony.

If anyone honestly bought a PS3 with no intention of playing games or Bluray movies on it, get the fuck out of the gaming community and terrorize some other bastards who want to deal with your shit.

Seriously.

THAT'S fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games.

Now, if Sony suddenly decides the PS3 no longer plays movies, DO YOU HAVE A FUCKING RIGHT TO BE UPSET?

"RUNS LINUX" is a feature of the PS3 when it was sold, exactly the same as being able to play blu-rays.

Read further down. I note Bluray movies as well. It plays Bluray movies and games. It's what it does. The PS2, etc didn't NEED Linux, why should any other video game console?

A very vocal minority used it for running Linux. The MAJORITY are actual gamers, who bought it because it's a PlayStation, which has played video games for MANY YEARS.

You're buying the console, yes. You OWN that console, yes. YOU DO NOT OWN SONY'S TECHNOLOGY. It is well within their right to remove/refuse access to anything on THEIR TECHNOLOGY that is causing issues. Do whatever the fuck you like to the CONSOLE. Tweak a setting, update fans, whatever. That's YOUR box. But the tech that runs it IS Sony's.

Fucking hell, extremist hackers/elitist wankers piss me off..

You must be a troll. It doesnt matter how small a minority is running linux on the console, they are still out there. And just because previous gens didnt need an otherOS feature doesnt make it something that this gen can take away after offering it. Your overall your argument just seems inflamitory and selfish taken out of hate against a small number of people with so many holes in it that the only conclusion I can take is that you are a troll (or just very stupid).

 

[Dexiro]

The DDOS of Sony by Anon was actually kind of noble, they had good intentions. The security breach however is a major dickmove. Whoever's hacking Sony is gaining no friends.

Also on the whole Linux topic. I swear noone gave a fuck about that thing until it was taken away, people are acting like kids over it. The removal of a feature that barely anyone used in return for higher security, to stop hacks like THIS happening, is totally worth it.

 

[MattAn24]

You must be a troll. It doesnt matter how small a minority is running linux on the console, they are still out there. And just because previous gens didnt need an otherOS feature doesnt make it something that this gen can take away after offering it. Your overall your argument just seems inflamitory and selfish taken out of hate against a small number of people with so many holes in it that the only conclusion I can take is that you are a troll (or just very stupid).

I'm not even going to give you the pleasure of a proper response, I honestly don't have the time. Put simply, I'm certainly not a troll, I hate 4chan and a whole lot of bland crap its spawned. I don't care what you think, I'm standing by my view, please have some common sense and grow up.

Also on the whole Linux topic. I swear noone gave a fuck about that thing until it was taken away, people are acting like kids over it. The removal of a feature that barely anyone used in return for higher security, to stop hacks like THIS happening, is totally worth it.

For the record, this. No one even cared to mention anything about Linux on the PS3 UNTIL it was removed. People are just butthurt because they lost a very minor feature of a SYSTEM THAT PLAYS VIDEO GAMES AND BLURAY MOVIES. Why the fuck would you even NEED Linux on it?

Fuck..

 

[JimbobDa3rd]

You must be a troll. It doesnt matter how small a minority is running linux on the console, they are still out there. And just because previous gens didnt need an otherOS feature doesnt make it something that this gen can take away after offering it. Your overall your argument just seems inflamitory and selfish taken out of hate against a small number of people with so many holes in it that the only conclusion I can take is that you are a troll (or just very stupid).

I'm not even going to give you the pleasure of a proper response, I honestly don't have the time. Put simply, I'm certainly not a troll, I hate 4chan and a whole lot of bland crap its spawned. I don't care what you think, I'm standing by my view, please have some common sense and grow up.

For the record, this. No one even cared to mention anything about Linux on the PS3 UNTIL it was removed. People are just butthurt because they lost a very minor feature of a SYSTEM THAT PLAYS VIDEO GAMES AND BLURAY MOVIES. Why the fuck would you even NEED Linux on it?

Fuck..

There are trolls everywhere on the internet, not just 4chan(I personaly agree that its a pile of rubbish on a image bored and havent ever really even seen the point) and sadly the escapist is not exempt from them.

OT(or at least on discussion)- YOU use the system for video games and movies YOU dont need linux (or any other OS) on it. The people YOU talked to never spoke about it. It doesnt mean that there wernt people out there using it as a cheap way of buying hardware for whatever they needed it for (the largest example of course being the US military?s super computer). Its a minor feature to most people, including me. But that doesnt mean I wont support the right for those who did want to use it not to have it taken away (NB the PSN incident had nothing to do with any of this, that was just identity theft which happened to be through the PSN, so I am in no way condoning the actions of hackers)
Also I would appreciate if you (the person who is spouting language and anger whilst refusing to engage in any real debate which opposes what you believe) would refrain yourself from assuming from less than a paragraph that I need to "grow up"

 

[ColaWarVeteran]

Sony had this coming and now it happened maybe they will treat there customers with a bit more respect

But did all the people who use PSN and the PlayStation Store have this coming? These jerks want to hurt Sony that's one thing but they decided to do something that is affecting far more than their target. All I want is one stinking game off of the PS Store and I can't get it because these butthurt hackers. I blame them and only them for this and wish for swift justice.

 

[TelHybrid]

The DDOS of Sony by Anon was actually kind of noble, they had good intentions. The security breach however is a major dickmove. Whoever's hacking Sony is gaining no friends.

Also on the whole Linux topic. I swear noone gave a fuck about that thing until it was taken away, people are acting like kids over it. The removal of a feature that barely anyone used in return for higher security, to stop hacks like THIS happening, is totally worth it.

I can name 5 people that I know, all programmers, who were extremely pissed just this second (yes I know poor sample size but bear with me). Think of how many programmers around the world bought a PS3 purely to see what the cell processor can do, and learn a bit about different computer architectures.

On top of that, it's not childish to be pissed off about a company removing an advertised feature from a console, or restricting what the user is allowed to do with the hardware they bought. It's not childish to have a sense of consumer rights, something more consumers should have, as then maybe companies wouldn't pull this shit.

As for "higher security to stop hacks like this happening", well guess what, they did happen. Fail.
You seriously think it was an extra security measure for their network? Nope. It was an anti piracy measure and nothing more. Yet another case of companies being dicks to their legitimate consumers to prevent piracy.

 

[MattAn24]

There are trolls everywhere on the internet, not just 4chan(I personaly agree that its a pile of rubbish on a image bored and havent ever really even seen the point) and sadly the escapist is not exempt from them.

OT(or at least on discussion)- YOU use the system for video games and movies YOU dont need linux (or any other OS) on it. The people YOU talked to never spoke about it. It doesnt mean that there wernt people out there using it as a cheap way of buying hardware for whatever they needed it for (the largest example of course being the US military?s super computer). Its a minor feature to most people, including me. But that doesnt mean I wont support the right for those who did want to use it not to have it taken away (NB the PSN incident had nothing to do with any of this, that was just identity theft which happened to be through the PSN, so I am in no way condoning the actions of hackers)
Also I would appreciate if you (the person who is spouting language and anger whilst refusing to engage in any real debate which opposes what you believe) would refrain yourself from assuming from less than a paragraph that I need to "grow up"

Granted, you make several valid points. I sincerely apologize for my reaction.

Funny note.. I don't even own a PS3. I own a PSP (that totally counts, right? lolPSN..)

Honestly, I don't understand the "Linux on PS3 is much cheaper than a PC".. If you're only using Linux, why not just get a basic PC with somewhat decent specs to run Linux? They're not that expensive, at least not in Australia.. :3 The PS3 is STUPIDLY expensive. Hell, it's the main reason I don't have one. That, and I don't really care for most of the exclusives (until FF:Versus XIII and to a similar extent Kingdom Hearts 3 GOD DAMNIT SQUEENIX TAKE MY MONEY WANT GAME NAO PLOX!!111!1 ...Ahem, sorry.)

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me, y'know? Especially when I've seen other options.. I've always seen it as "Is it a piece of hardware in the shape of a brick that plays mah vidja gaymz? Then it is most likely a video game console (and is safe [CheckPoint reference~])

 

[JimbobDa3rd]

There are trolls everywhere on the internet, not just 4chan(I personaly agree that its a pile of rubbish on a image bored and havent ever really even seen the point) and sadly the escapist is not exempt from them.

OT(or at least on discussion)- YOU use the system for video games and movies YOU dont need linux (or any other OS) on it. The people YOU talked to never spoke about it. It doesnt mean that there wernt people out there using it as a cheap way of buying hardware for whatever they needed it for (the largest example of course being the US military?s super computer). Its a minor feature to most people, including me. But that doesnt mean I wont support the right for those who did want to use it not to have it taken away (NB the PSN incident had nothing to do with any of this, that was just identity theft which happened to be through the PSN, so I am in no way condoning the actions of hackers)
Also I would appreciate if you (the person who is spouting language and anger whilst refusing to engage in any real debate which opposes what you believe) would refrain yourself from assuming from less than a paragraph that I need to "grow up"

Granted, you make several valid points. I sincerely apologize for my reaction.

Funny note.. I don't even own a PS3. I own a PSP (that totally counts, right? lolPSN..)

Honestly, I don't understand the "Linux on PS3 is much cheaper than a PC".. If you're only using Linux, why not just get a basic PC with somewhat decent specs to run Linux? They're not that expensive, at least not in Australia.. :3 The PS3 is STUPIDLY expensive. Hell, it's the main reason I don't have one. That, and I don't really care for most of the exclusives (until FF:Versus XIII and to a similar extent Kingdom Hearts 3 GOD DAMNIT SQUEENIX TAKE MY MONEY WANT GAME NAO PLOX!!111!1 ...Ahem, sorry.)

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me, y'know? Especially when I've seen other options.. I've always seen it as "Is it a piece of hardware in the shape of a brick that plays mah vidja gaymz? Then it is most likely a video game console (and is safe [CheckPoint reference~])

I dont actualy own a PS3 either (though my flatmate does and I use it to play the PS exclusives)

Now adays I would agree if you were wanting a linux computer you could probs buy the hardware and self assemble for cheaper (and if your the type of person who installs linux on things then chances are you know your way around computer assembly and exactly what you want), but remeber the PS3 is from 2006 and at that time a 3 Ghz (Im doing this from memory so the actualy specs may be a bit off) processor and 500mb RAM (with a nice GPU aswell)for less then £500 was pretty cheap.

I do get where you are coming from aswell, I just dont get why sony took it away, hackers will still hack, pirates will still pirate, the only valid reason imo is if the OtherOS options was somehow messing with game developers or game engines so it had to be disabled but if that was the case I think Sony would have just said it.

In anycase the I doubt sony will bring it back, they had their reasons, and they are not any more or less guilty then any other gameing companies (or any companies for that matter) for the actions they take being motivated only by money. Ive concluded (especially over the past year and a bit) that game companies and devs are kinda like political parties, there arnt any truely good ones, there are only less bad ones and as greedy and self motivated as they all are having them around is still preferable to not, so just sit bak and try to make the best out of it.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

...I don't get it. When people say 'You can't do this' or 'This is impossible', I don't get an uncontrollable urge to do it anyway/prove them wrong...

So you've never touched the plate?

It's probably the simplest and easiest example of impulse control. You go to a restaurant, order your food, and the waitress comes around with your order and tells you "The plate is very hot, so don't touch it.

 

[Kopikatsu]

...I don't get it. When people say 'You can't do this' or 'This is impossible', I don't get an uncontrollable urge to do it anyway/prove them wrong...

So you've never touched the plate?

It's probably the simplest and easiest example of impulse control. You go to a restaurant, order your food, and the waitress comes around with your order and tells you "The plate is very hot, so don't touch it.

I've never been told that.

But if I was, I probably wouldn't if only because I hate hot things. I'll order pizza then throw it in the refrigerator for a few hours before eating it. COLD IS LOVE!