Why you should support the "Other OS" Lawsuits.

[Danpascooch]

I absolutely disagree with Sony retroactively removing Linux capabilities for PS3 users, but it isn't quite as simple as the OP's analogy:

" 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."

It doesn't really fit because a car company does not have to make updates, or work with the programming, in fact the seats have 0 effect whatsoever on the company.

Also, there's another thread about this already, here's a link:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.196716-Sony-Hit-With-4th-Other-OS-Lawsuit

I know the analogy doesn't fit perfectly, but that's the very nature of analogies, they aren't meant to fit perfectly, but rather to grant a new perspective.

And I think it fits better than you give it credit for, after all, car companies don't have to work with code, but code and programming don't change the fact that false advertising is illegal, and legally, there isn't really a difference between my analogy, and this case.

Also, I know that thread exists, but it isn't "a thread already made for this" because "this" is my opinion on the matter, and people's responses to my opinion, and I had enough to say to warrant a thread. and that is not what that other thread is for.

 

[Danpascooch]

Though I, for the most part agree, I don't have to worry since I don't have a PS3. And why was the Air Force using video Games anyways?

They were using Linux run PS3's wired together as a cheap alternative to normal server clusters.

 

[malestrithe]

I checked the box my PS3 came in and it does not say anything about a linux based operating system on it.

Not convinced by your reasonings. I do not support the lawsuits not because of your claims but because every single last one of them is full of sour grapes.

You should just come out and say what you really mean. You think the lawsuits are good because of the EULA.

 

[Buizel91]

Though I, for the most part agree, I don't have to worry since I don't have a PS3. And why was the Air Force using video Games anyways?

For their brakes? hehe XD

Can just imagine, the Air Force gets called, everyone saves their games, then get in the plane XD

 

[Danpascooch]

I posted this in the other thread, but since the discussion has now moved, I figure I have a better chance of getting a straight answer here:

*ahem*

For the record, I didn't personally use the feature, however I don't believe that they're in the right to remove an advertised feature of the console.

That said, something I've been wondering, because my law skills are far from stellar.

We're talking about two advertised features here: PSN and Other OS. We've established that taking away either of these constitutes false advertising. Anyway, my question:

When does removal of online stop being false advertising?

Like, when the PS4 has been out for a few years and such, if they decommission the now ancient servers that still maintain the PS3 section of the network, does that count as feature removal? Can the guys who bought Halo 2 sue because the "online play" promised on the box no longer works?

Obviously, I get that there's common sense around this. You can't maintain an infrastructure forever, but does selling something that says "online play" mean that, according to the letter of the law, you're contractually obligated to?

If so, man is EA ever screwed. If not, it would seem that there is a way to revoke an advertised feature. No?

- J

Actually, EA doesn't have to maintain the online system for another day if they don't want to. That wouldn't be false advertising at all.

Why? Because the online network is not technically a feature of the CONSOLE, but an outside service, however, they could not use it as leverage to strong arm consumers into giving up a feature of THE CONSOLE as Sony is doing, because that forces a choice between the two advertised features while PSN still exists.

Still, I have to say this is a well thought out argument, even if I don't agree with it.

 

[Danpascooch]

I checked the box my PS3 came in and it does not say anything about a linux based operating system on it.

Not convinced by your reasonings. I do not support the lawsuits not because of your claims but because every single last one of them is full of sour grapes.

You should just come out and say what you really mean. You think the lawsuits are good because of the EULA.

I did, the thread is actually ENTITLED "why you should SUPPORT the lawsuits.

And your PS3 might not have that feature advertised depending on when you bought it, if it's not on the box, then you are not a victim of the false advertising. However, thousands of people DO have that feature advertised on the box.

 

[sunburst]

And yes, I can punch you in the face over the internet, it's a new feature

We're actually removing that feature. You can keep it but your keyboard won't work.

I don't even own a PS3, PC gamerz 4 lyfe yo, but these suits definitely have my support. Precedent is a dangerous thing.

 

[Danpascooch]

Did McDonald's actually lose or did they settle out of court?

McDonalds lost (though the numbers were reduced), both sides then appealed and then they settled out of court for a confidential amount. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Verdict]

In the end they settled so my point stands, it's not a loss since the appeal went through and it was turned to a compromise. Macdonald's can play the reasonability card.

I don't think that's true, Mcdonald's was court ordered damages equivalent to two days of coffee sales, whatever you want to call it, that was millions of dollars in damages, and in my book that is DEFINITELY a loss.

 

[Danpascooch]

And yes, I can punch you in the face over the internet, it's a new feature

We're actually removing that feature. You can keep it but your keyboard won't work.

I don't even own a PS3, PC gamerz 4 lyfe yo, but these suits definitely have my support. Precedent is a dangerous thing.

DAMMIT! Now I have to choose between my advertised keyboard functionality or my advertised "web-punching" functionality!!!

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Does the fact that people were using it to hack the thing matter?

I support them taking it off over having hackers.

It's also possible they took it off, and plan to re-release it when they fix the hacking thing.

I haven't researched the topic much, as I didn't use other OS, but there's my two cents.

 

[Danpascooch]

Does the fact that people were using it to hack the thing matter?

I support them taking it off over having hackers.

It's also possible they took it off, and plan to re-release it when they fix the hacking thing.

I haven't researched the topic much, as I didn't use other OS, but there's my two cents.

I can sympathize with people thinking it's justified, but whether it's legal is what I am concerned with.

 

[Irridium]

I also support them. I'm sick of companies getting away with basically anything because they put it in fucking writing. Just because you put something in writing does not make it law.

And I feel this is relevant to the whole EULA nonsense, granted it was written for games, but still fits in this situation rather nicely.

EULAs are not contracts people need to stop pretending they are. Copyright laws are pretty clear in countries and all countries that are a part of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (almost all of them) share copyrights across boards and have the same basic protections.

First Sale Doctrine (using the US example but mostly the same everywhere) means you own a copy of whatever material you bought. Inherent is the rights to sale the copy, and use the copy how you please. Think of a book. This is the traditional way to view copyrighted materials sold on some type of media, and the one I believe they should force companies to abide by.

Software companies try to get around this by saying they are selling you a license to use their product, not a copy of the software. The EULAs are to that effect. However courts have held up in some situations where if the EULA was not fully disclosed to the customer prior to the sell (remember not agreeing means you can't use it, and since you have to start to install it to see it you can no longer return the opened copy of the software) that the EULA is void that First Sale Doctrine applies.

EULAs get a way with it mostly because nobody challenges them. At least in the US they have a track record of losing on many of the more restrictive clauses.

Just because they put it in writing does not mean it's legal.

 

[malestrithe]

I checked the box my PS3 came in and it does not say anything about a linux based operating system on it.

Not convinced by your reasonings. I do not support the lawsuits not because of your claims but because every single last one of them is full of sour grapes.

You should just come out and say what you really mean. You think the lawsuits are good because of the EULA.

I did, the thread is actually ENTITLED "why you should SUPPORT the lawsuits.

And your PS3 might not have that feature advertised depending on when you bought it, if it's not on the box, then you are not a victim of the false advertising. However, thousands of people DO have that feature advertised on the box.

It is up to them to prove that. They will need to brandish the box and show the world the lines about other os support.

No you did not. Your thread title is not about EULA. It is about other OS lawsuits. Those are two different things.

 

[JEBWrench]

You can be retroactively nailed with false advertising if you make those changes retroactively.

If they didn't include it in a future product, that's one thing, but when they change something on an already purchased product, they are subject to the constraints of advertising that was made when that product was purchased.

Only a violation of Switch After Sale if Sony were to start selling a new model PS3 with Linux capability.

Sorry, you'll have to try harder to make stuff up.

Sec. 238.4 Switch after sale.

No practice should be pursued by an advertiser, in the event of sale of the advertised product, of "unselling" with the intent and purpose of selling other merchandise in its stead. Among acts or practices which will be considered in determining if the initial sale was in good faith, and not a stratagem to sell other merchandise, are:

(a) Accepting a deposit for the advertised product, then switching the purchaser to a higher-priced product,

(b) Failure to make delivery of the advertised product within a reasonable time or to make a refund,

(c) Disparagement by acts or words of the advertised product, or the disparagement of the guarantee, credit terms, availability of service, repairs, or in any other respect, in connection with it,

(d) The delivery of the advertised product which is defective, unusable or impractical

 

[Danpascooch]

I checked the box my PS3 came in and it does not say anything about a linux based operating system on it.

Not convinced by your reasonings. I do not support the lawsuits not because of your claims but because every single last one of them is full of sour grapes.

You should just come out and say what you really mean. You think the lawsuits are good because of the EULA.

I did, the thread is actually ENTITLED "why you should SUPPORT the lawsuits.

And your PS3 might not have that feature advertised depending on when you bought it, if it's not on the box, then you are not a victim of the false advertising. However, thousands of people DO have that feature advertised on the box.

It is up to them to prove that. They will need to brandish the box and show me the line about other os support.

No you did not. Your thread title is not about EULA. It is about other OS lawsuits. Those are two different things.

My thread is about the lawsuits, I don't really get what you mean, what are you claiming I should come out and say?

I am saying that the suers are justified and that the lawsuit is important, I mention the EULA simply because it is the number one argument people use as to why these lawsuits are NOT justified.

 

[Danpascooch]

You can be retroactively nailed with false advertising if you make those changes retroactively.

If they didn't include it in a future product, that's one thing, but when they change something on an already purchased product, they are subject to the constraints of advertising that was made when that product was purchased.

Only a violation of Switch After Sale if Sony were to start selling a new model PS3 with Linux capability.

Sorry, you'll have to try harder to make stuff up.

Sec. 238.4 Switch after sale.

No practice should be pursued by an advertiser, in the event of sale of the advertised product, of "unselling" with the intent and purpose of selling other merchandise in its stead. Among acts or practices which will be considered in determining if the initial sale was in good faith, and not a stratagem to sell other merchandise, are:

(a) Accepting a deposit for the advertised product, then switching the purchaser to a higher-priced product,

(b) Failure to make delivery of the advertised product within a reasonable time or to make a refund,

(c) Disparagement by acts or words of the advertised product, or the disparagement of the guarantee, credit terms, availability of service, repairs, or in any other respect, in connection with it,

(d) The delivery of the advertised product which is defective, unusable or impractical

I'm not making anything up.

They are not guilty of a "Switch After Sale", but that doesn't mean they didn't commit ANY false advertising that is outlined in other sections of the law.

They are also not guilty of Arson, but I didn't mention that and quote it's section in the legal code because it's IRRELEVANT!

I never claimed they specifically committed a "switch after sale" so maybe you should try harder when telling me I'm wrong about them committing a crime I NEVER SAID THEY COMMITTED!

 

[reg42]

Well, thanks to our talk earlier I now see that what they did was illegal. It was lawfully wrong for them to take away the other OS feature.
I still maintain that it was the right thing to do. It was an anti-piracy measure, after all. As long as they don't take this any further than it already is, I myself have no problem with it. I suppose my position is different because I didn't use the feature anyway.

 

[Danpascooch]

Not going to happen. Maybe if they'd just decided to remove it and Slims were also affected. Sad truth is, people are whining about a function that hasn't been available on current hardware for over a year. Scientists and Researchers who had contracts with Sony have a footing to stand on, as that's all they wanted it for. The rest? Just a bunch of hypocrites. Free PSN and updates are great when you're getting something out of it for free, right? But, of the few times they've removed a function from the PS3, the money-grubbers come out of the woodwork. Typical human behavior.

Did you even read the OP? It's not about the whining or the money, it's about the precedent.

Precedents have unbelievable legal power, it's an important lawsuit.

 

[JEBWrench]

I'm not making anything up.

They are not guilty of a "Switch After Sale", but that doesn't mean they didn't commit ANY false advertising that is outlined in other sections of the law.

They are also not guilty of Arson, but I didn't mention that and quote it's section in the legal code because it's IRRELEVANT!

I never claimed they specifically committed a "switch after sale" so maybe you should try harder when telling me I'm wrong about them committing a crime I NEVER SAID THEY COMMITTED!

That's the only part of FTC's advertising laws that specifically refer to a change in service or a feature removed from a product.