Why you should support the "Other OS" Lawsuits.

[Danpascooch]

I disagree with the lawsuit and while you make a good argument remember the fact the they didn't have to include the support other OS option in the first place and there was very little in it for them by doing so and it was the only console of this generation or the last to support such an option.

As a Consumer you're probably right and i should be concerned at this but as a gamer i'm just saddened it will be yet another reason for console manufactures to just play things safe and be less inclined to experiment with different options and features.

You don't bite the hand that feeds you

They didn't have to include it?

Well they did, and some people bought it under that pretense and then it was taken away, that's illegal, and sets a dangerous precedent.

I'm sick of people acting as though a company is doing you a FAVOR by including a feature when you PURCHASED something. People PAYED for that feature, and you act like it was Sony doing them some sort of favor.

You've just got to love soap box threads!

My point that you so gleefully interpreted into something you could write another little rebuttal about was that while you are probably right this is not a good thing for gaming or the industry and discourages experimentation which is also pretty bad for the consumer.....

Actually you know what judging from many of you're replies to people no matter what they say or how they say it you are always just so eager for conflict, i won't bother telling you what i actually thought because while i have stated i essentially agree with you it does deviate a little from the planned criteria of what has any merit in this thread ie your exact opinion.

I hate soap box anything, I'm a realist, and if I appear "eager for conflict" that is merely an unintended side effect of my trying to stress the importance of this precedent.

Actually, if you bother to read the thread, a good number of people I have simply agreed with or complimented, and to the few that have valid opposing arguments or cite legal code, I disagree with but compliment them on their effort. Don't confuse conflict with you as "me wanting conflict with everybody" because you are not everybody.

You make it very hard to give credit to your point of view when your point of view is: "i won't bother telling you what i actually thought" That's a cop out if I've ever seen one.

 

[Danpascooch]

You know quite a lot on the legal side of this, are you a lawyer/are you going to law school?

I am going into the Game Development and Design program at the Rochester Institute of Technology this fall, I'm no lawyer, nor do I intend to be one, but I appreciate what I assume is a compliment.

My Dad is a lawyer, but he deals with Union Negotiations, so it barely applies to....well, anything. I just have an interest in law.

 

[shadow skill]

You aren't presented with the EULA until after you buy the product. It also does not address whether or not removing the feature after the purchase has occurred in this manner is actually legal in the first place. The EULA contains provisions for banning people's accounts. That does not necessarily mean that if they ban you, that the banning is legal.

That is a really, REALLY good point. It says ON THE BOX that the system can run Linux, right? Then you BUY IT, THEN AFTER THAT you can see the little clause hiding in the EULA that talks about how Linux functionality MIGHT be removed in the future.

And then it is. And you (the Air Force) spent a crapload of money on the product that doesn't do the only thing you wanted it for.

Forget lawyers, if I were the Air Force I'd fly fighter jets in formation over Sony USA's headquarters 24/7 until they agreed to put Linux back in there. Maybe drop some dummy bombs.

This is what would happen if MS. pulled this kind of stunt with peoples nics:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwlNPhn64TA

The lawsuits from other corporations would rain down until court houses everywhere were buried in paper.

 

[Danpascooch]

Holy crap! My personal "About the PS3 lawsuit" thread has almost double the Escapist News Story about the latest PS3 lawsuit that triggered this thread.

Never expected that!

 

[Danpascooch]

You aren't presented with the EULA until after you buy the product. It also does not address whether or not removing the feature after the purchase has occurred in this manner is actually legal in the first place. The EULA contains provisions for banning people's accounts. That does not necessarily mean that if they ban you, that the banning is legal.

That is a really, REALLY good point. It says ON THE BOX that the system can run Linux, right? Then you BUY IT, THEN AFTER THAT you can see the little clause hiding in the EULA that talks about how Linux functionality MIGHT be removed in the future.

And then it is. And you (the Air Force) spent a crapload of money on the product that doesn't do the only thing you wanted it for.

Forget lawyers, if I were the Air Force I'd fly fighter jets in formation over Sony USA's headquarters 24/7 until they agreed to put Linux back in there. Maybe drop some dummy bombs.

This is what would happen if MS. pulled this kind of stunt with peoples nics:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwlNPhn64TA

The lawsuits from other corporations would rain down until court houses everywhere were buried in paper.

Funny, Microsoft was always considered the "bad guy" but between the Wii, Sony's latest choices (OS removal) and the huge mountain of crap Apple is pulling, I've been trusting them more and more lately.

 

[omega 616]

Funny, sounds like the United States Air Force uses thousands of them, I think that counts as "any PS3 owner"

Your argument is "it's illegal, but it doesn't affect me so I don't care"

My argument is "That's incredibly selfish and narrow minded of you, the world doesn't revolve around you and just because you don't care doesn't mean nobody cares, and it sets a very dangerous legal precedent"

The united states air force sound like a joke to be honest. If the PS3 never came with Linux do you think the air force would be grounded? No, they would have done what they should have done and got a monster super computer.

My argument has been stated numberous times, a tiny percentage use Linux so the effect of removing it was negligable, so they did it to save money, the very thing every business is built around. If Linux was a big thing to people who bought it, they would never have even considered removing 'cos the cost (not just moeny) would have been to great.

Thats the difference, this thing with Linux won't have any impact on the legal world. There is no big scandle or groundbreaking, awe insipring event, just some money hungry people making a mountian out of a mole hill, with any luck they will get stuck with court costs and wont be so sue happy in feature.

I bet corporations get away with much bigger things than this all the time.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

You know quite a lot on the legal side of this, are you a lawyer/are you going to law school?

I am going into the Game Development and Design program at the Rochester Institute of Technology this fall, I'm no lawyer, nor do I intend to be one, but I appreciate what I assume is a compliment.

My Dad is a lawyer, but he deals with Union Negotiations, so it barely applies to....well, anything. I just have an interest in law.

It was, your welcome.

Of course being a lawyer implies one is evil... but I digress.

 

[Danpascooch]

You know quite a lot on the legal side of this, are you a lawyer/are you going to law school?

I am going into the Game Development and Design program at the Rochester Institute of Technology this fall, I'm no lawyer, nor do I intend to be one, but I appreciate what I assume is a compliment.

My Dad is a lawyer, but he deals with Union Negotiations, so it barely applies to....well, anything. I just have an interest in law.

It was, your welcome.

Of course being a lawyer implies one is evil... but I digress.

Well of course, I would be a lawyer if they officially gave you horns and a pitchfork, lol

 

[LordZ]

I very highly doubt any PS3 owner bought one on the sole basis of Linux, you can buy a PC for that price.

If a serious amount of people actually used this feature Sony would have fixed it, they didn't so it's obvious only a tiny amount of people made use of it.

I will now continue to watch bleach.

The USAF and many science labs did. The ability to use Linux was a big selling point for a lot of people. The early versions of the PS3 were rather expensive. The ability to load it with Linux really added a lot of value for some people and was the only way they could justify the expense. Sony just told them to fuck off.

I figured the number of law suits and amount bad press over it was fairly evident that a lot of people are upset about this and a lot of people did use it. Feel free to continue to ignore logic and remain ignorant to the truth staring you in the face.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

You know quite a lot on the legal side of this, are you a lawyer/are you going to law school?

I am going into the Game Development and Design program at the Rochester Institute of Technology this fall, I'm no lawyer, nor do I intend to be one, but I appreciate what I assume is a compliment.

My Dad is a lawyer, but he deals with Union Negotiations, so it barely applies to....well, anything. I just have an interest in law.

It was, your welcome.

Of course being a lawyer implies one is evil... but I digress.

Well of course, I would be a lawyer if they officially gave you horns and a pitchfork, lol

True... My family is filled with lawyers... makes for some very interesting family get togethers... espiscially weddings.

 

[Danpascooch]

I very highly doubt any PS3 owner bought one on the sole basis of Linux, you can buy a PC for that price.

If a serious amount of people actually used this feature Sony would have fixed it, they didn't so it's obvious only a tiny amount of people made use of it.

I will now continue to watch bleach.

The USAF and many science labs did. The ability to use Linux was a big selling point for a lot of people. The early versions of the PS3 were rather expensive. The ability to load it with Linux really added a lot of value for some people and was the only way they could justify the expense. Sony just told them to fuck off.

I figured the number of law suits and amount bad press over it was fairly evident that a lot of people are upset about this and a lot of people did use it. Feel free to continue to ignore logic and remain ignorant to the truth staring you in the face.

Oh believe me, he's WAY ahead of you, lol

 

[shadow skill]

This case involving Netscape is pretty interesting:http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9587085159184835436&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

 

[Dexiro]

Wow some people are whiny bitches. The amount of times i saw "legally" in the first post make me cringe, who in hell gives a crap. Arguments like "who cares" aren't legal arguments, it's a statement on the fact that noone actually cares.

The only reason people are opposing this whole lawsuit thing is either because they like to make a big fuss or they're hoping to get money out of it. Noone wanted to use that feature until they were told they weren't allowed to use it.

Personally i think Sony should be allowed to remove a feature like that. It's been clearly demonstrated that it was a security risk if it wasn't already obvious. Hey i bet half the stuff people were planning to do with that feature weren't legal anyway.

 

[Arehexes]

Can I anti-sign this lawsuit?

I like the quip, but seriously, did you read the OP? I would like to know your opinion, but only if you actually read it.

Well, I guess I just don't see this as that much of an issue. It's one function that yes, was advertised, but it was taken out to stop PSN credit information being stolen. And that's enough of a reason for me to accept it.

Dude you are way off, the credit card theft was a message people send to psn members saying hey go here and enter your info and you get free psn points(like what happened on myspace where someone would say "Hey I got these songs for free go here" and it would show you a "fake" myspace login where when you enter your login info it is sent to them and they hijack your account). A hacker named Geohot said he found a way to hack ps3 using otherOS which would let people play burned ps3 games on the ps3. Check this out

http://www.maxconsole.net/content.php?40173-Geohot-Where-are-you-and-are-you-going-to-fix-this-mess

This is the real reason why it happened, this dude did it.

 

[Danpascooch]

Wow some people are whiny bitches. The amount of times i saw "legally" in the first post make me cringe, who in hell gives a crap. Arguments like "who cares" aren't legal arguments, it's a statement on the fact that noone actually cares.

The only reason people are opposing this whole lawsuit thing is either because they like to make a big fuss or they're hoping to get money out of it. Noone wanted to use that feature until they were told they weren't allowed to use it.

Personally i think Sony should be allowed to remove a feature like that. It's been clearly demonstrated that it was a security risk if it wasn't already obvious. Hey i bet half the stuff people were planning to do with that feature weren't legal anyway.

They could have patched the security holes without removing the whole damn feature.

And yes I say legally a LOT because it is very important that you understand the impact this has on your legal rights.

You missed the point entirely, it's not about the Linux, it's about the legal precedent it sets, it's about how if Sony wins, then it is legal for companies to strip features you may actually care about in the future.

So yes, all of the importance is in the legality of the issue.

Did I say legal enough for you there!?

Your whole post makes no sense, you seem to be AGAINST people opposing the lawsuit, yet you say that Sony should be allowed to remove Linux, you can't think both of those things are true, they contradict each other.

 

[ClunkiestTurtle]

I hate soap box anything, I'm a realist, and if I appear "eager for conflict" that is merely an unintended side effect of my trying to stress the importance of this precedent.

Actually, if you bother to read the thread, a good number of people I have simply agreed with or complimented, and to the few that have valid opposing arguments or cite legal code, I disagree with but compliment them on their effort. Don't confuse conflict with you as "me wanting conflict with everybody" because you are not everybody.

You make it very hard to give credit to your point of view when your point of view is: "i won't bother telling you what i actually thought" That's a cop out if I've ever seen one.

Actually i have bothered to read the thread funnily enough and while i am far to lazy and uninterested to go through and quote your conflict mongering replies they are there for you to go over at your leisure. Maybe you don't intend to but that is how many come across and even when you "compliment" it comes across as insincere like they obviously haven't understood what you said. Its the subtle jabs and indirect insults that i'm referring to, the kind of things that you know will rile someone but if brought up you can deny it was meant to be insulting.

As for not telling you my point of view, well if you actually bothered to read my posts (see this is the kind of thing i mean...)I have pretty much loosely summed it up for you in both of them, as many times as you have gone for just the bits that give you an excuse to try and make some sort of happy slap retort so i would gladly rather cop out in your eyes then waste my time.

 

[Arehexes]

*snip*

I'd like to point out that in most, if not all EULA's, they have this line:

"COMPANY reserves the right to change this EULA at any given time"

So unless I'm missing something, what they're doing is completly within their right to do so because you accepted that they have THAT right to change it whenever they feel like it. Now, I have no idea if Sony have that, but it would not suprise me.

The EULA no matter what revision it goes over can not and will not go over the law. You can't have someone rape you and then you sign a contract saying "I won't tell anyone this man raped me", that man who raped you still broke the law.

 

[Danpascooch]

I hate soap box anything, I'm a realist, and if I appear "eager for conflict" that is merely an unintended side effect of my trying to stress the importance of this precedent.

Actually, if you bother to read the thread, a good number of people I have simply agreed with or complimented, and to the few that have valid opposing arguments or cite legal code, I disagree with but compliment them on their effort. Don't confuse conflict with you as "me wanting conflict with everybody" because you are not everybody.

You make it very hard to give credit to your point of view when your point of view is: "i won't bother telling you what i actually thought" That's a cop out if I've ever seen one.

Actually i have bothered to read the thread funnily enough and while i am far to lazy and uninterested to go through and quote your conflict mongering replies they are there for you to go over at your leisure. Maybe you don't intend to but that is how many come across and even when you "compliment" it comes across as insincere like they obviously haven't understood what you said. Its the subtle jabs and indirect insults that i'm referring to, the kind of things that you know will rile someone but if brought up you can deny it was meant to be insulting.

As for not telling you my point of view, well if you actually bothered to read my posts (see this is the kind of thing i mean...)I have pretty much loosely summed it up for you in both of them, as many times as you have gone for just the bits that give you an excuse to try and make some sort of happy slap retort.

Were my jabs and insults subtle? I apologize, I certainly don't mean them to be subtle when I make them.

When I compliment someone, you are faulting me by saying it's "insincere"? Are you freaking serious? You know how to make a compliment sincere, you make eye contact, you use the proper tone of voice, you can follow it up by putting your hand on their shoulder or some other gesture to show that you mean it. Funny thing is, NONE OF THAT IS POSSIBLE IN A POST!

I make no attempts to be friendly with anyone who uses the "I have a great argument, but I'm not going to tell you what it is" trick, it's lazy and a waste of time.

If you want to make some coherent points, I'll apologize and admit I was overly harsh, but if not, I believe what I said was justified.

 

[Arehexes]

SNIP

You constantly insulting me makes you sound more and more irritating.

When I buy bread at the store I don't know if it'll go bad before I eat all of it, and I don't know if a mouse will get into my kitchen and eat it.
If those things happen I don't go complaining to the store about them.

When my phone needs a software update and I looses non essential features but it still performs its primary task I don't go complaining to the phone company.

If all you're after is what is and isn't legal then every single person in the world should be serving up to 50 years in jail.

We need to let things slide so the system can run. Sony removing this isn't a big deal. This man is bitching to make a quick dollar.

I will not sympathize with him unless he was doing research with it.

Legal? Probably not.
Pointless Lawsuit? Very much so.

If the guy wants Linux so badly he can either get another PS3 or get a PC. He wants an easy dollar, so stop supporting people who sue for easy money.
You are helping destroy the justice system and personal responsibility.

Good day to you sir.

The mouse isn't the bread maker or the store just so you know. And to for the bitching to make a quick dollar um no I wanted it my brother wanted a lot of my comp sci friends wanted it to use it to work with. It isn't a big deal to "YOU", I hope sony removes a feature you want so I can watch you try your hardest to not complain.

 

[Danpascooch]

SNIP

You constantly insulting me makes you sound more and more irritating.

When I buy bread at the store I don't know if it'll go bad before I eat all of it, and I don't know if a mouse will get into my kitchen and eat it.
If those things happen I don't go complaining to the store about them.

When my phone needs a software update and I looses non essential features but it still performs its primary task I don't go complaining to the phone company.

If all you're after is what is and isn't legal then every single person in the world should be serving up to 50 years in jail.

We need to let things slide so the system can run. Sony removing this isn't a big deal. This man is bitching to make a quick dollar.

I will not sympathize with him unless he was doing research with it.

Legal? Probably not.
Pointless Lawsuit? Very much so.

If the guy wants Linux so badly he can either get another PS3 or get a PC. He wants an easy dollar, so stop supporting people who sue for easy money.
You are helping destroy the justice system and personal responsibility.

Good day to you sir.

The mouse isn't the bread maker or the store just so you know. And to for the bitching to make a quick dollar um no I wanted it my brother wanted a lot of my comp sci friends wanted it to use it to work with. It isn't a big deal to "YOU", I hope sony removes a feature you want so I can watch you try your hardest to not complain.

I expected people to make arguments that had no merit, and I expected them to call people whiners, what I did NOT expect were people like this saying "well what's the big deal, just go out and spend more money"

This kid obviously didn't work a day in his life for something he wanted. And I'm willing to bet everything I own that if he cared about what they removed he'd ***** till he passed out from lack of air.