not sure anybody mentioned it before (i didn't read much beyond page 1), but under EULA you already waved your rights to changing situation. Hence, Sony is actually entitled to change EVERYTHING about PS3 WITHOUT prior notification NOR agreement with consumers. If you agree on EULA you basically signed a unilateral contract in Sony's favor.
dude, read the entire thing before quoting me out of context. I did mention that EULA is not above the law later. But most prob any challenges to it will fail.
Yeah I know. I should have made my response a bit more detailed. What I was meaning to say is that the EULA isn't above the law but the thing is it needs to be deemed as illegal before it can overide the EULA, ie they need to decide that yes Sony broke the law and then it's okay but if they say 'Nah they didn't break the law because the EULA says they can go ahead with it' then you're a bit screwed. It's all down to the judge and jury. If it was me, I'd say they broke the law, even if only a small one but that's just me biased against big corporations. Most judges are probably fat old men (no offence) and won't care or less.
Anyway under jury system, it is so easy for people to say "hey i wanna screw the big companies becuz big corporations are evil" and hence provide a skewed judgement.
Anyway under jury system, it is so easy for people to say "hey i wanna screw the big companies becuz big corporations are evil" and hence provide a skewed judgement.
that is actually quite dangerous, for i know for US their choice of Jury is not a good representation of the public. They actually make jury duty part of serving community time for small legal offenders? that's screwed up. Lets assume that there is proper representation of public opinions, but then is public opinion always right? I've demonstrated why EULA will most prob stay in my original post - becuz of the implication and economic inefficiency to have otherwise. And to date, most unilateral contracts are very carefully monitored so that corporations do not get societal backlash.
But yeah, i respectfully disagree with you that EULA is illegal, n not becuz many companies are doing it. There is this gentlemen agreement that corporations won't push things too far with EULA even though they are entitled to do it. Again the reasonableness test comes in. And i just feel that reasonableness is worst enforced by a jury system becuz the common people bias is super heavy without any proper understanding of subjects.
So you hope that companies like Microsoft being able to disable your nic because some people steal identities over the internet becomes a legal precedent?
No, I said I fight the battles worth fighting. This is hardly one of them. Such a move by Microsoft would be a different story, and in my opinion, an entirely different situation altogether. You're speaking of disabling what, 90% of the worlds computers ability to utilize their Network Interface Card? Kind of a melodramatic and silly analogy, don't you think?
The PS3 is neither in 1st, 2nd or 3rd amongst the big 4. PC's in the lead by about 100+ million over the Wii, to say nothing of the 360, nevermind the PS2, or Mac's. Does it being smaller matter too much? Meh...with these kinds of numbers no, not really, the point is this does nothing to currently sold PS3's, and you had the option of not updating until installing, which you were prompted for 3 different times.
Not at all. I haven't applied any sort of magical law of scale here. Microsoft could be within its rights according to the EULA to simply disable nic cards to prevent identity theft. The sheer volume of installed software would be entirely irrelevant. A disabled person doesn't have the right to have access to a public building just because a thousand other disabled people happen to also be in the area.
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
They do if they have safety problems. It's the same principal with electronics except that they are a much faster moving field, so updates have to be done much more frequently.
I would say there is a very significant difference between safety problems in a vehicle that moves upwards of 60 mph and a company no longer offering a feature on it's product. But it's irrelevant, because the analogy doesn't really change the argument at hand.
that is actually quite dangerous, for i know for US their choice of Jury is not a good representation of the public. They actually make jury duty part of serving community time for small legal offenders? that's screwed up. Lets assume that there is proper representation of public opinions, but then is public opinion always right? I've demonstrated why EULA will most prob stay in my original post - becuz of the implication and economic inefficiency to have otherwise. And to date, most unilateral contracts are very carefully monitored so that corporations do not get societal backlash.
But yeah, i respectfully disagree with you that EULA is illegal, n not becuz many companies are doing it. There is this gentlemen agreement that corporations won't push things too far with EULA even though they are entitled to do it. Again the reasonableness test comes in. And i just feel that reasonableness is worst enforced by a jury system becuz the common people bias is super heavy without any proper understanding of subjects.
So far, in all of the lawsuits where an EULA was involved, only one case did the judge consider it legally binding and even then was only partially supported.
Generally speaking, you can get out of any contract that you did not have legal counsel for and that you did not actually sign. Further, I don't know any EULA that you've ever had to agree to before purchasing something. Trying to force someone to sign it after the purchase is rather meaningless. Finally, even if it was binding in some way, no contract can ever override the law.
It depends how justified removing a particular feature is. What Sony did was probably the only feasible way to increase the security on the console, and i trust them enough not to go beserk claiming that removing the game playing feature increases security too.
For that matter i'm not entirely bothered about half the features my PS3 has, as long as it plays games and dvds ;D
I can't imagine any other companies i'd see in the same situation, but if they catch on and remove something worth the effort THEN i'll make a fuss.
It's not THEIR product, how dense are you? I must have explained this 15 times, when you PURCHASE something, YOU own it, not the company that made it.
Last time I explained this to you I put "OWN" in massive h2 tag font so you would ACTUALLY READ IT, but maybe you need h1 font before you will f--king listen.
WHEN A PERSON PURCHASES SOMETHING THEY
[HEADING=1]OWN[/HEADING]
The thing they PAID MONEY FOR. The company doesn't own it, if they did, you wouldn't have PURCHASED IT.
So let me get this straight, you go on and on about me still posting, I tell you how to make me stop posting, you agree to disagree and I walk away thinking "that was an okay talk, got insulted a bit but oh well", then you drag me back into it by quoting me? If you want me gone stop quoting me, it's not hard.
Do you realize how worked up you are over something you never had? Why not get mad over something that effects you?
That comment I made was off hand, I don't actually believe Sony still own it. Just tried to put something relevant to topic matter.
Katana314 said:
While I marginally see how you feel you're being flamed, he did not in fact say anything insulting towards you.
Example one is just above there, calling somebody dense is an insult. I am not insulted 'cos I think insults are funny, I have been called just about everything under the sun so nothing anybody says to me has any real impact, it also winds the other person up as I laugh it off.
Katana314 said:
Murder is illegal, false advertising is illegal. It was an analogy. He was saying that 'everyone does it' is not an excuse for anything. Also, I'd like you to name for me at least 10 specific cases of companies doing things that are factually illegal before you continue with that argument. (honestly unsure whether you'll successfully go through the effort, but if you don't, you don't really have business discussing it)
If you honestly believe that every company is squeaky clean, your quite naive. Some companies cut corners and be a little under hand, I am not saying every company but if the royal family are breaking the law
and politicians are doing the same, I am pretty sure companies aren't above breaking the odd law, probably got away with it alot aswell.
I won't spend hours researching into companies to find any skeletons just to prove some person wrong who I have never met, 'cos what a waste of time. You would probably wouldn't even look at or or pay much attention if I did. The end result wouldn't be worth it.
Wait, I flamed somebody? I may have made a few condescending or sarcastic posts but never actually flamed anything, as far as I can remember.
You are also putting words in my mouth and twisting my words, you were saying things like sony are murdering people, that blowing it way out of proportion and is actually rather slanderous. If your attempting to make me look stupid saying things like that make you look way more stupid.
Are you know comparing Sony to Hitler? It wouldn't surprise me after some of you other posts involving rather fantastical lines,
Mark Kennard said:
So two wrongs make a right then? So because everyone does it, it's all right? So if Sony murders someone and Toshiba, Samsung, Microsoft, Apple, Dell, HP, Logitech, Intel, AMD and IBM all go murder someone as well it's all right because they all did it so if you sue one of them it won't stop VMWare from jumping in and doing it to. Companies need to be told when enough is enough. They are children and if you let them get away with it like we have, they will get away with murder next.
Hitler didn't start with false advertising and Sony executives are not trying to over throw Obama.
You want a serious debate then with a previous post like that? It's the tsar bomba to serious debate.
I don't understand why you quoted me then said thank you but your welcome.
In all honesty, it's nothing to get worked up over and yet alot of you seem to be doing so. I guess you just want a thread full of people saying "yeah, Sony sucks. Sue the bastards for false advertising", just a feeling I am getting.
I am not trying to flame, troll or wind people up just saying.
It depends how justified removing a particular feature is. What Sony did was probably the only feasible way to increase the security on the console, and i trust them enough not to go beserk claiming that removing the game playing feature increases security too.
For that matter i'm not entirely bothered about half the features my PS3 has, as long as it plays games and dvds ;D
I can't imagine any other companies i'd see in the same situation, but if they catch on and remove something worth the effort THEN i'll make a fuss.
What are you trying to prove OP? And yes, I read your little rendition. A majority of people either couldn't give a stuff or wouldn't use the "Other OS" feature or a lot of features for that matter. But that doesn't justify it. Why? Because people like yourself are trying to stop a precedent from happening.
It is down to interpretation. What do you want to be able to use from your device? Gaming Machine, Blu Ray Player/Media Centre or a cheaper option for a minority userbase of an OS that is commonly misrepresented or all of the above? YOU would expect anyone to be able use all these features, as you are entitled as a consumer.
What I don't understand from the twelve odd pages of this debate is, what are you doing to help this cause? Really? Are you going to screen grab all this and send it off to the guy in court? Email it off to Sony and tell them what you THINK? Im going with you wanted some insight to other people's understanding, but didn't like what they had to say. Or is it the legal understanding?
If sony wins, cause a ruccus by removing other features or other companies take on the precedent of the win (getting away with removing features as supported by a EULA) maybe then people might DO SOMETHING about missing features and maybe a class action lawsuit will arise. If you are trying to do so by coming here and stirring up some flames, what is the point? to prove you are right and other's are wrong?
I don't feel as if it is a necessary requirement for people to act up over something they have no control over. Say what you will. Setting a precedent will not stop a consumer from flooding the legal system with their overly opinionated views.
It depends how justified removing a particular feature is. What Sony did was probably the only feasible way to increase the security on the console, and i trust them enough not to go beserk claiming that removing the game playing feature increases security too.
For that matter i'm not entirely bothered about half the features my PS3 has, as long as it plays games and dvds ;D
I can't imagine any other companies i'd see in the same situation, but if they catch on and remove something worth the effort THEN i'll make a fuss.
What are you trying to prove OP? And yes, I read your little rendition. A majority of people either couldn't give a stuff or wouldn't use the "Other OS" feature or a lot of features for that matter. But that doesn't justify it. Why? Because people like yourself are trying to stop a precedent from happening.
It is down to interpretation. What do you want to be able to use from your device? Gaming Machine, Blu Ray Player/Media Centre or a cheaper option for a minority userbase of an OS that is commonly misrepresented or all of the above? YOU would expect anyone to be able use all these features, as you are entitled as a consumer.
What I don't understand from the twelve odd pages of this debate is, what are you doing to help this cause? Really? Are you going to screen grab all this and send it off to the guy in court? Email it off to Sony and tell them what you THINK? Im going with you wanted some insight to other people's understanding, but didn't like what they had to say. Or is it the legal understanding?
If sony wins, cause a ruccus by removing other features or other companies take on the precedent of the win (getting away with removing features as supported by a EULA) maybe then people might DO SOMETHING about missing features and maybe a class action lawsuit will arise. If you are trying to do so by coming here and stirring up some flames, what is the point? to prove you are right and other's are wrong?
I don't feel as if it is a necessary requirement for people to act up over something they have no control over. Say what you will. Setting a precedent will not stop a consumer from flooding the legal system with their overly opinionated views.
It'll sure as hell stop them from actually winning litigation though. This simple fact is why cases that have the potential to set precedent are important. We have had First-Sale Doctrine in the U.S. for over a century because of a precedent setting case. The Betamax case which allowed for the continued existence of the video rental industry also set precedent. This thread was started to move discussion about the issue out of a thread in the news section dealing with the 4th otheros lawsuit. Lawsuits are already happening. Really what have you proven with your own post? (What a stupid thing to say given the fact that the purpose of this thread is to discuss the issue itself.)
I won't debate actual legality of it, (as many times as the same ideas have been repeated over & over again, it seems rather futile anyway,) but I will say I really like the SPIRIT of the lawsuit. That is to say "If it does x,y,&z when I buy it, that's what it should always do". I think it's a bunch of bull for a company to say "Yeah, it does all this stuff, but we reserve the right to remove any & all features but one at any time."
"...but it's for better security/greater good."
By all means, Sony should feel free to improve their product, not gimp it.
"...so do you expect them to still support the PSN forever, even when the PS6 is out?"
Nope. Internet service is a different animal, but the PS3 should be able to do everything else. If a blu-ray movie is released 15 years from now, and the PS3 needs a firmware update to play it, Sony should have one available. (I know. It sounds silly, but I think the whole idea of a disc player needing an update is silly in & of itself. I never had to update my CD or DVD player. That's another discussion though.)
I agree with this, funny enough I got horribly flamed when I posted this when it happened. I stated it's more about the principal of the matter and that they can't just remove features casually when they LIST IT ON THE BOX. And I got called a moron because linux isn't a useful feature, and "Sony owes me nothing".
They do when they list it on the fucking box of the unit I paid for or that's called FALSE ADVERTISING.
"It's not mandatory" doesn't work, because it doesn't say that on the freaking box now does it?
I don't care about linux, I did use it for a while when my PC had a issue but the thing is is, I knew it was there and I used it because it's a feature sony bragged about when selling the stupid thing to me for 600USD. Now they just take it out " 'cause we said so". They put out security updates all the time, they can fix it without removing every feature on the system.
What they did won't stop anyone from ripping their system apart, pirates will always come ahead because they work all day in groups to beat security, while the workers at any company probably work 8-10 hours a day just trying to counter what the pirates are making in beta.
Seriously in 3 years they'll just remove the feature to play games, go on the net, but you'll have that awesome slideshow option right? That'll show those pirates!
Seriously I like my PS3 all and all but I don't like to see the features being stripped from it like this. The other features that are removed were most likely removed from the boxes they're in as well (backwards compatibility, card readers) but still, sad to see them go as I liked using them. Yes they removed them to save money, that's understandable, but a "Deluxe Model" probably would have had a lot of buyers all the same, then again what do I know I don't make systems I just collect 'em. :\
As I see it:
Sony is guilty of false advertising because they did indeed say that "other OSs" i.e. Linux could be installed.
Sony has the right to do whatever the fuck they want with there OS because you agree to it and as far as I know this is one of those "subject to change without notice" things that basically says they are good and if you don't like it then get bent.
Suing them because they change there "install other OS" option seems like people trying to bend Sony to their will on their own system, which I frown upon with great intensity.
Overall, Sony needs to needs to be put on the chopping block for making the stupid decision of advertising the ability to use Linix, if anything at at the decision of a judge not an internet community, but should not be forced to be hamstrung by various clauses ion their agreements because they should have the right alter them as necessary. Of course, because there is a contract Sony cannot retroactively stop user's privileges but they can terminate future contract and negotiable services, as far as I know Online services are terminable under their agreement because they can ban people. In the case of the OS, Sony should be allowed to stop issuing you updates and services if you choose not to agree in the future to their terms, thus preserving your option under the terms of the old contract (we will let you play so long as as you follow our rules) and not removing a promised feature from a previous agreement.
In sum, I think Sony has the right to do this thing, but should let customers choose to end their agreement if they so choose, which would be stupid for people who don't need the feature. I would like to see the agreement, the parts that pertain to this issue, in full and have any flaws in my argument pointed out.
EDIT: Upon further review, this seems more like a battle of legitimacy of the EULA and customer rights. Videogames are largely liberal and support customer rights and freedoms while Sony obviously defends business rights. We have us a boiling kettle over who has the right to piss on who's lawn. I still stand by my decision and want nothing to do with this mess.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
