Why you should support the "Other OS" Lawsuits.

[Flying Dagger]

Not entitled to everything they want, but how about entitled to everything they PAID FOR.

The thing is, something like 90 hours of fun is not provable, and subject to interpretation, this is bare bones "Advertised to have Linux" "has linux" and now "does not have linux"

I would think it would be more than reasonable for Sony to offer even a PARTIAL refund for this change, but they basically repossessed an advertised feature of the console with no compensation, the suers are not assholes, and they are not selfish, they are looking out for consumer rights.

If sony say to a judge (again I mentioned I don't know the legal system you guys use), "we will offer anyone who was mis-sold this console a full refund at current market price" I can't see anyone being able to argue against that.

I was throwing in the witcher example as showing my personal opinions on the matter.
Being someone who is currently abstaining from benefits I could claim because I do not need them, I am disgusted by those who are just seeking what they can gain from this.

Truth be told, I never saw a single advert for the console advertising linux capabilities. If you can link me to a youtube video, or a picture of an advert claiming it does this, I'll eat those words. A screenshot of "capabilities" is not good enough. There is a major difference between false advertising and removing a capability.

It also seems that Sony have fairly good reasons to remove this, if it allows people to play burned copies of games, they would be shooting themselves in the foot to allow it to continue.

All of this amounts to a petty, pathetic lawsuit, that I see no reason to support. It doesn't aid business, and the precedent set would be worse if it came out in favour of those against Sony.
Can people sue Halo 2, which was advertised as having online play, now they can no longer access it?
I'm currently very overtired and cannot think of any decent examples here, but this is not a cause worth fighting for.
It puts the whiny needs of a very small minority over pushing the development and rights of a company that brings much needed contest to an industry that would become monopolous (Sp?)without it.

If you are making a loss on every console, I think you have the right to fight tooth and claw to stomp out piracy. Especially when the human costs are this low.

 

[sunburst]

Your trying to rally the troops to a war that you have no influence in, I am watching bleach, who's making the most of there time?

Watching Bleach can hardly be considered good use of your time. It's certainly no better than arguing over something you feel strongly about.

The thing that gets me though is how you repeatedly claim to not care and yet you keep posting in this thread. A few different people have done something similar and I really don't understand. If you don't care, why do you keep coming back? You're not making any headway in advancing your philosophy of not caring. Both sides are just repeating the exact same things ad infinitum. It just seems like you care way too much.

 

[LordZ]

Were is this advertisement? I saw them advertise a gaming console, not a computer.

This news comes a little more a month after Sony management confirmed to the PS3-Linux community that the company was committed to keeping this feature on systems sold with this feature:

>> The feature of ?Install Other OS? was removed from the new
>> ?Slim? PS3 model to focus on delivering games and other
>> entertainment content.
>>
>> Please be assured that SCE is committed to continue
>> the support for previously sold models that have the
>> ?Install Other OS? feature and that this feature will
>> not be disabled in future firmware releases.

Until recently, Playstation.com stated that: "it was fully intended that you, a PS3 owner, could play games, watch movies, view photos, listen to music, and run a full-featured Linux operating system that transforms your PS3 into a home computer." Over the past four years, Sony has released Linux Distributor Starter Kits (2006-2009); one-time president Phil Harrison (2005-2008) is on record saying: "We believe the PS3 will be the place where our users play games, watch films, browse the Web, and use other computer functions. The Playstation 3 is a computer. We do not need the PC."

Read more: http://hothardware.com/News/Penguinistas-Strike-Back-Sony-Sued-For-Killing-Other-OS-Functionality/#ixzz0onkaPasg

If you aren't convinced yet take a look at the link below.

http://playedstation.blogspot.com/p/sony-ps3-promotion.html

 

[Danpascooch]

Not entitled to everything they want, but how about entitled to everything they PAID FOR.

The thing is, something like 90 hours of fun is not provable, and subject to interpretation, this is bare bones "Advertised to have Linux" "has linux" and now "does not have linux"

I would think it would be more than reasonable for Sony to offer even a PARTIAL refund for this change, but they basically repossessed an advertised feature of the console with no compensation, the suers are not assholes, and they are not selfish, they are looking out for consumer rights.

If sony say to a judge (again I mentioned I don't know the legal system you guys use), "we will offer anyone who was mis-sold this console a full refund at current market price" I can't see anyone being able to argue against that.

I was throwing in the witcher example as showing my personal opinions on the matter.
Being someone who is currently abstaining from benefits I could claim because I do not need them, I am disgusted by those who are just seeking what they can gain from this.

Truth be told, I never saw a single advert for the console advertising linux capabilities. If you can link me to a youtube video, or a picture of an advert claiming it does this, I'll eat those words. A screenshot of "capabilities" is not good enough. There is a major difference between false advertising and removing a capability.

It also seems that Sony have fairly good reasons to remove this, if it allows people to play burned copies of games, they would be shooting themselves in the foot to allow it to continue.

All of this amounts to a petty, pathetic lawsuit, that I see no reason to support. It doesn't aid business, and the precedent set would be worse if it came out in favour of those against Sony.
Can people sue Halo 2, which was advertised as having online play, now they can no longer access it?
I'm currently very overtired and cannot think of any decent examples here, but this is not a cause worth fighting for.
It puts the whiny needs of a very small minority over pushing the development and rights of a company that brings much needed contest to an industry that would become monopolous (Sp?)without it.

If you are making a loss on every console, I think you have the right to fight tooth and claw to stomp out piracy. Especially when the human costs are this low.

If Sony offered every victim of this a full refund, I would send them a gift basket and a letter letting them know that I think they are showing the best display of corporate accountability I've ever seen.

But they aren't.

 

[omega 616]

The title says "why you should care" not "how/why you should influence"

Do you only care about things that you have power over?

This is were I come across as cold, I only barely care about things that effect me. Which is evident from my posts in this thread alone.

 

[Danpascooch]

The title says "why you should care" not "how/why you should influence"

Do you only care about things that you have power over?

This is were I come across as cold, I only barely care about things that effect me. Which is evident from my posts in this thread alone.

If you looked at it with a wider perspective, you would see that in fact the legal repercussions of this case WILL effect you in the future.

 

[Flying Dagger]

Now if Sony wants to take those capabilities away from something they sell in the future and take those statements off of the box, that is fine. But they CANNOT do it retroactively. That would be like a car company no longer offering leather seats on a car, so they visit every person they sold that car with leather seats to, and rip the seats out of the car with no compensation

Now this is the crunch zone.
Your analogy is greatly flawed.

Firstly, they offer a replacement OS, so you are not left with a car without seats, as is implied.
Secondly, A car either comes with leather seats or it doesn't. To my knowledge cars do not come with interchangeable seats.
Thirdly, A car that has had the leather seats ripped out can still have those seats replaced with new leather ones, this option is not available to PS3 owners.

And here's where it gets really interesting.
Now if you have Linux operating now, and haven't updated, IIRC, you are running linux, at which point I believe your complaint becomes you cannot access the PSN.
But you can access the PSN, as long as you update. So the counter-argument becomes, well you can access both, but you must choose one.
But technically, it still does both of the things it says on the box.

Also for an 8 page thread, I wasn't expecting 4 pages of the responses to be from the OP.

Props, I guess.

 

[OmegaXzors]

I don't support the lawsuit because companies have rights regardless of a EULA. For example? Any company over an MMO have full ownership over everything you do in their game. World of Warcraft is an easy example. It clearly says they can revoke whatever they want.

I have not read the EULA for the PS3, however, if anywhere it says that anything in it is subject to change in the future, they're safe. Simply because, it's their product. If World of Warcraft bans you, you can't sue them. I think it works both ways.

They're trying to stop pieces of shit from stealing. It was the easiest way to do so by modifying the product. Such as a 'skill' in Guild Wars being nerfed to the point where it was ridiculous. They couldn't simply just remove it from the coding of their game, so they made it so dumb that no one would want to use it. You may wonder what the connection is, but it's obvious.

 

[Flying Dagger]

If Sony offered every victim of this a full refund, I would send them a gift basket and a letter letting them know that I think they are showing the best display of corporate accountability I've ever seen.

But they aren't.

They aren't because a total of somwhere in region of 4 people have come forward and complained.
The army have begrudgingly said it's an annoyance, but have not made any legal complaints (again not fully up to date with this.)
This is because the army realises it is a losing cause.

They'll probably come to some arrangement with sony being able to offset some tax in the form of consoles.

 

[Danpascooch]

Now if Sony wants to take those capabilities away from something they sell in the future and take those statements off of the box, that is fine. But they CANNOT do it retroactively. That would be like a car company no longer offering leather seats on a car, so they visit every person they sold that car with leather seats to, and rip the seats out of the car with no compensation/quote]

Now this is the crunch zone.
Your analogy is greatly flawed.

Firstly, they offer a replacement OS, so you are not left with a car without seats, as is implied.
Secondly, A car either comes with leather seats or it doesn't. To my knowledge cars do not come with interchangeable seats.
Thirdly, A car that has had the leather seats ripped out can still have those seats replaced with new leather ones, this option is not available to PS3 owners.

And here's where it gets really interesting.
Now if you have Linux operating now, and haven't updated, IIRC, you are running linux, at which point I believe your complaint becomes you cannot access the PSN.
But you can access the PSN, as long as you update. So the counter-argument becomes, well you can access both, but you must choose one.
But technically, it still does both of the things it says on the box.

Also for an 8 page thread, I wasn't expecting 4 pages of the responses to be from the OP.

Props, I guess.

First of all, analogies are flawed by nature, if I wanted it to be perfect, it wouldn't be an analogy, it would be an account of what actually happened. Secondly, Sony did not offer any sort of replacement OS, they didn't change out one for another, they just took something away.

And lastly, in my OP I detail that you lose a lot more than PSN access, because without the firmware update, you won't be able to play any PS3 games that are released from now on.

 

[Danpascooch]

If Sony offered every victim of this a full refund, I would send them a gift basket and a letter letting them know that I think they are showing the best display of corporate accountability I've ever seen.

But they aren't.

They aren't because a total of somwhere in region of 4 people have come forward and complained.
The army have begrudgingly said it's an annoyance, but have not made any legal complaints (again not fully up to date with this.)
This is because the army realises it is a losing cause.

They'll probably come to some arrangement with sony being able to offset some tax in the form of consoles.

Do you know what a "class action" lawsuit means? It means that the plaintiff is MORE than one person.

And if it REALLY is just four people, then Sony are even bigger assholes than I thought, because they could just pay $2,400 (which is basically a penny compared to what they are paying to fight this lawsuit) and be done with it!

A hell of a lot more than "four" people are victims here, there are thousands of people who used that feature.

Also, it's not the army, it's the Air Force, and they aren't suing because it would be a PR disaster to fund a lawsuit with taxpayer dollars.

 

[omega 616]

Your trying to rally the troops to a war that you have no influence in, I am watching bleach, who's making the most of there time?

Watching Bleach can hardly be considered making good use of your time. It's certainly no better than arguing over you feel strongly about.

The thing that gets me though is how you repeatedly claim to not care and yet you keep posting in this thread. A few different people have done something similar and I really don't understand. If you don't care, why do you keep coming back? You're not making any headway in advancing your philosophy of not caring. Both sides are just repeating the exact same things ad infinitum. It just seems like you care way too much.

Should have had "/joke", to late now.

Without being insulting, I was raised with manors, so if somebody quotes me I feel the need to respond 'cos it's polite. It does usually mean I end up going round in circles, which frustrates me to no end.

snip

Never saw it before, it's not on the box either.

So they changed there mind about it being a pc, big deal, if you want a pc you should have bought one. Personally, them being separate is better, surf the net during loading screens and boring cut scenes.

The title says "why you should care" not "how/why you should influence"

Do you only care about things that you have power over?

This is were I come across as cold, I only barely care about things that effect me. Which is evident from my posts in this thread alone.

If you looked at it with a wider perspective, you would see that in fact the legal repercussions of this case WILL effect you in the future.

Laws are very rarely changed, it's like a glitch or bug in a game, unless it's massively abused or exploited it won't change. This case won't bring that change around, consumers are barely bothered by it.

The only significant people affected by this are corporation who aren't going to be able to repair there PS3's.

If they pull something useful I will agree with you, I wont happen though.

 

[Danpascooch]

Your trying to rally the troops to a war that you have no influence in, I am watching bleach, who's making the most of there time?

Watching Bleach can hardly be considered making good use of your time. It's certainly no better than arguing over you feel strongly about.

The thing that gets me though is how you repeatedly claim to not care and yet you keep posting in this thread. A few different people have done something similar and I really don't understand. If you don't care, why do you keep coming back? You're not making any headway in advancing your philosophy of not caring. Both sides are just repeating the exact same things ad infinitum. It just seems like you care way too much.

Should have had "/joke", to late now.

Without being insulting, I was raised with manors, so if somebody quotes me I feel the need to respond 'cos it's polite. It does usually mean I end up going round in circles, which frustrates me to no end.

snip

Never saw it before, it's not on the box either.

So they changed there mind about it being a pc, big deal, if you want a pc you should have bought one. Personally, them being separate is better, surf the net during loading screens and boring cut scenes.

The title says "why you should care" not "how/why you should influence"

Do you only care about things that you have power over?

This is were I come across as cold, I only barely care about things that effect me. Which is evident from my posts in this thread alone.

If you looked at it with a wider perspective, you would see that in fact the legal repercussions of this case WILL effect you in the future.

Laws are very rarely changed, it's like a glitch or bug in a game, unless it's massively abused or exploited it won't change. This case won't bring that change around, consumers are barely bothered by it.

The only significant people affected by this are corporation who aren't going to be able to repair there PS3's.

If they pull something useful I will agree with you, I wont happen though.

If you don't think our legal system is heavily influenced and shaped by precedent, then you don't know anything about US law.

Many of the most important cases in history were decided on legal precedent.

 

[LordZ]

I don't support the lawsuit because companies have rights regardless of a EULA. For example? Any company over an MMO have full ownership over everything you do in their game. World of Warcraft is an easy example. It clearly says they can revoke whatever they want.

I have not read the EULA for the PS3, however, if anywhere it says that anything in it is subject to change in the future, they're safe. Simply because, it's their product. If World of Warcraft bans you, you can't sue them. I think it works both ways.

They're trying to stop pieces of shit from stealing. It was the easiest way to do so by modifying the product. Such as a 'skill' in Guild Wars being nerfed to the point where it was ridiculous. They couldn't simply just remove it from the coding of their game, so they made it so dumb that no one would want to use it. You may wonder what the connection is, but it's obvious.

Comparing a console to a game is apples and oranges. Try again.

Trying to stop people from stealing what? There has never been piracy on the PS3. The PSP is 100% proof positive that firmware updates do jack shit to stop pirates. Try again.

They've retroactively removed a feature from a product they sold you for no real reason at all. Sure, you get to choose which feature you lose but putting a gun to someone's head and saying you can choose to lose and arm or a leg isn't much of a choice. What they're doing is called extortion. They hold one feature hostage over another.

 

[Flying Dagger]

First of all, analogies are flawed by nature, if I wanted it to be perfect, it wouldn't be an analogy, it would be an account of what actually happened. Secondly, Sony did not offer any sort of replacement OS, they didn't change out one for another, they just took something away.

And lastly, in my OP I detail that you lose a lot more than PSN access, because without the firmware update, you won't be able to play any PS3 games that are released from now on.

Bad analogies are flawed by nature. Good analogies hit straight to the heart of the matter.
Here's a good one:
If there was only one PC OS that could pirate software, how long do you think it would take for it to get shut down?

It's a service they provide. The continued providing of such a service indefinitely is not contestable.
At which point people begin to make assumptions on how long the service will be supplied for.
It's a very easy point to make that it is not false advertising, because at the time, the service was available, and now it is discontinued, they have stopped advertising it.

Even if you can call it advertising. Which I still have not seen corroborated.

 

[OmegaXzors]

They've retroactively removed a feature from a product they sold you for no real reason at all. Sure, you get to choose which feature you lose but putting a gun to someone's head and saying you can choose to lose and arm or a leg isn't much of a choice. What they're doing is called extortion. They hold one feature hostage over another.

Considering there are over 40 million PS3's sold world-wide and so far everyone's concern here is the "thousands" losing Linux...

Well, blueberries and 39 million water melons. No one gives a shit.

 

[LordZ]

Never saw it before, it's not on the box either.

So they changed there mind about it being a pc, big deal, if you want a pc you should have bought one. Personally, them being separate is better, surf the net during loading screens and boring cut scenes.

I proved my point. The only thing you proved is that you're fine with them stealing from you as long as it's not something you care about. Congrats on failing at life.

 

[Danpascooch]

First of all, analogies are flawed by nature, if I wanted it to be perfect, it wouldn't be an analogy, it would be an account of what actually happened. Secondly, Sony did not offer any sort of replacement OS, they didn't change out one for another, they just took something away.

And lastly, in my OP I detail that you lose a lot more than PSN access, because without the firmware update, you won't be able to play any PS3 games that are released from now on.

Bad analogies are flawed by nature. Good analogies hit straight to the heart of the matter.
Here's a good one:
If there was only one PC OS that could pirate software, how long do you think it would take for it to get shut down?

It's a service they provide. The continued providing of such a service indefinitely is not contestable.
At which point people begin to make assumptions on how long the service will be supplied for.
It's a very easy point to make that it is not false advertising, because at the time, the service was available, and now it is discontinued, they have stopped advertising it.

Even if you can call it advertising. Which I still have not seen corroborated.

A service implies that it required regular upkeep on Sony's part, this was not a service, it was a FEATURE, the distinction being that it would continue to exist on its own had Sony not stepped in and actually made an effort to have it removed.

I know you think you have a good analogy there, but I have no idea what you're talking about with it, I would say it's not even an analogy, but to say that, I would have to understand what you're trying to say with it first. An analogy is "_____ is like ______" it's not "Here's a hypothetical question:" Perhaps you think my analogy is bad because you don't know what an analogy is?

 

[omega 616]

If you don't think our legal system is heavily influenced and shaped by precedent, then you don't know anything about US law.

Many of the most important cases in history were decided on legal precedent.

I admited that sometime ago.

All I know of law is it's a broken system, filled with loopholes, were all the evidence can point to somebody being the murderer but them being let off on a technicality.

Don't you think murderer cases are alot more important that a "install other OS"?

 

[LordZ]

Considering there are over 40 million PS3's sold world-wide and so far everyone's concern here is the "thousands" losing Linux...

Well, blueberries and 39 million water melons. No one gives a shit.

Yeah, thousands of people are no one. Congrats on not giving a damn. I'll be sure to laugh at you when you are upset at the next feature they decide to remove.