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.
They claim to have removed the feature because of safety risks (identity theft). If that is the case then it would be the same as if the leather seats in a car weren't fitted properly, and the manufacturers went around to every car they had sold and removed the seats.
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.
They claim to have removed the feature because of safety risks (identity theft). If that is the case then it would be the same as if the leather seats in a car weren't fitted properly, and the manufacturers went around to every car they had sold and removed the seats.
Not entirely. Sony arte removing the feature and giving nothing new back. If a car company ripped out my seats because they made a mistake I'd be pissed if they didn't put new ones back in.
I think we have it all in this thread.
-The guy who sees a consumer vs. corporate battle over any detail, and where curtailing business-practices of any kind is evil, anti-market socialism.
-The dude who valiantly proclaims not to be emotionally involved, and keeps spending time denouncing everyone else's arguments as emotional drivel: only his argument is cold, bare, logic. Meanwhile, admitting personal interest - of any kind, no matter how legitimate, is an admittance of defeat.
-The guy who can't read, which proves he is right.
-The guy with a degree in internet searches, who finds one example where there might semantically be a weakness with the argument - which therefore proves the entire thing, and everything else in the entire world, is proven wrong.
-The guy who thinks the corporations love us, and wants to do things for us since we pay for a service.
-The guy who says: more power to the companies, even though I don't actually own stock!
-The guy who is personally insulted that it's even possible to draw up a reasonable argument that disagrees with his opinion.
-The guy who thinks that because his opinion is unaffected by reason, this means his opinion is a valid counter-example to any argument.
I'm sure I forgot: "the guy who will insult people, but thinks he is smart enough to do it so people don't noticie - and takes his continued lack of a ban as proof of his remarkable wit".
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.
They claim to have removed the feature because of safety risks (identity theft). If that is the case then it would be the same as if the leather seats in a car weren't fitted properly, and the manufacturers went around to every car they had sold and removed the seats.
Not entirely. Sony arte removing the feature and giving nothing new back. If a car company ripped out my seats because they made a mistake I'd be pissed if they didn't put new ones back in.
I think we have it all in this thread.
-The guy who sees a consumer vs. corporate battle over any detail, and where curtailing business-practices of any kind is evil, anti-market socialism.
-The dude who valiantly proclaims not to be emotionally involved, and keeps spending time denouncing everyone else's arguments as emotional drivel: only his argument is cold, bare, logic. Meanwhile, admitting personal interest - of any kind, no matter how legitimate, is an admittance of defeat.
-The guy who can't read, which proves he is right.
-The guy with a degree in internet searches, who finds one example where there might semantically be a weakness with the argument - which therefore proves the entire thing, and everything else in the entire world, is proven wrong.
-The guy who thinks the corporations love us, and wants to do things for us since we pay for a service.
-The guy who says: more power to the companies, even though I don't actually own stock!
-The guy who is personally insulted that it's even possible to draw up a reasonable argument that disagrees with his opinion.
-The guy who thinks that because his opinion is unaffected by reason, this means his opinion is a valid counter-example to any argument.
I'm sure I forgot: "the guy who will insult people, but thinks he is smart enough to do it so people don't noticie - and takes his continued lack of a ban as proof of his remarkable wit".
You missed the Lurkers. The ones that read everything, but don't post. Either because they can't be bothered or they are afraid of flaming / being flamed.
Off the shelf, left field remark guy, who.. no, wait, that's me.
..anyway. It's a bad precedent, with the software updates that remove functionality. It's a difficult problem because it's software - after all, it's not the retailer that has anything to do with the software updates. So it's Sony who will be the ones the retailer will refer to, with some right. Even if it's advertised features that users would expect to be there for the lifetime of the product.
-The guy with a degree in internet searches, who finds one example where there might semantically be a weakness with the argument - which therefore proves the entire thing, and everything else in the entire world, is proven wrong.
To get back on topic, I support these suits. Not because I'm an avid user of the "Other OS" option, but because of the precedent this sets.
There have been rumblings that Sony are going to release the PS2 emulation software so they can sell PS2 games on PSN. How is that going to affect everyone with PS2 backwards compatibility? I'm worried that they are going to remove it, then sell it back to us. If they have precedent set by the "Other OS" then there is nothing to stop them from doing this. Apart from the Law of course, but since when did multi-national corporations take notice of them?
Well I am going to give my two cents, and excuse if anything I say has been said before I don't really have the time or patients for going through 300+ posts of increasing trolling and flaming.
Now for me on my "care-o-meter" the Other OS rates at a zero. I had no use for it because I have a computer with enough space for another partition on my HDD if I so choose to try out Linux. (SP?)
Now for the rest of the people who have been fucked over in this situation, it sucks and I would be just as pissed off if I were in your boots. But does it hold water in a legal case, I can't say myself because I have as much legal knowledge as some one who watches Law and Order every night... which I do.
But lets look not at the present or future but the past my fellow man! Not long ago the much awaited "Slim" was being rumored (More like leaked, well really gushing in reality) during TGS if my memory serves me correct. New price point bla, bla, bla. Then the news struck that they would no longer be making any more "Fat" PS3's and the rest of the fats would stay on rotation till sold out. Once they were sold out they were gone.
Now remember two things that were happening during the Slim? One was no backwards compatibility, and two no Other OS. Now this is the big thing in this situation, they are no longer producing BC and Other OS PS3's, so right their they shouldn't be helled for "False Advertising" because when the slim came out they were not advertising that option because it was gone.
Now lets go to February or March, doesn't matter which. Some person announces that he has finally broken the PS3 into being able to play pirated games. This is huge, no one has has been able to "To Sony's knowledge" crack a PS3 into being able to play pirated games. Now they have a security leek and if this spreads they could be in the same situation Microsoft is in with the Xbox and the ridiculous amount of pirates they deal with. Now between then and the removal of the OS option they must of found out that the cause of the crack was from the OS option, the coincidence would be to great.
So now Sony has a choice, let the situation run out of control and potentially be in the same boat as Microsoft. Or take a chance and remove the feature that caused the security instability. So they did what any large company would do, cut their losses pissing off a small fan base and assure the security of their own system and games. Now the one other problem is the pre-slim advertising of the OS option. I think that because of the security risk they had to take action and that should give them the right to remove that option.
So I do feel your pain and anger, but I don't think that they should be legally reprimanded for protecting their protecting.
I give you this.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/25/playstation_cracked_wide_open/
More impotently this paragraph
"I have read/write access to the entire system memory, and HV level access to the processor," geohot wrote. "In other words, I have hacked the PS3."
The hack will allow PS3 users for the first time to run unrestricted versions of Linux that have full access to the system's central processing unit and graphical processing unit. That will greatly expand the kinds of things users can do with the console. For starters, they could use the mod to run emulators that will play PS2 games on the machine, something Sony strictly forbids. It could also allow programs like the VLC media player to run much more robustly. The hack also opens the door to pirated games on the console, although geohot said that's an activity he's not interested in pursuing.
We will never know if there were other alternatives for fixing the leak, but it seems that because of the OS option that person was able to open up the PS3, while not perfectly (We don't know how much fixing and de-bugging he did on this code), it gives the user full access to the console and gives them the ability to use pirated games.
The point seems to be that this might be a case of False Advertising.
At the moment (as I haven't bothered looking for a specific precedent) SONY appears to have done everything required of them through contract law and advertising law. So long as the EULA is determined to be legally binding they are fine.
I would say SONY doing this violates the spirit of the law if not the word of law. At this point their is no clear result and it will probably all depend on the judge in question.
I give you this.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/25/playstation_cracked_wide_open/
More impotently this paragraph
"I have read/write access to the entire system memory, and HV level access to the processor," geohot wrote. "In other words, I have hacked the PS3."
The hack will allow PS3 users for the first time to run unrestricted versions of Linux that have full access to the system's central processing unit and graphical processing unit. That will greatly expand the kinds of things users can do with the console. For starters, they could use the mod to run emulators that will play PS2 games on the machine, something Sony strictly forbids. It could also allow programs like the VLC media player to run much more robustly. The hack also opens the door to pirated games on the console, although geohot said that's an activity he's not interested in pursuing.
We will never know if there were other alternatives for fixing the leak, but it seems that because of the OS option that person was able to open up the PS3, while not perfectly (We don't know how much fixing and de-bugging he did on this code), it gives the user full access to the console and gives them the ability to use pirated games.
It's in either that report or another follow-up one where the hacker in question says they had to open up the console, rewire it, then reboot it again and again until it actually worked. He proved it was possible to hack the PS3 mainly using hardware. This allowed him to access the Other OS features without limitations.
This was not a software hack, nor was it a stable hack. Sony are using this as an excuse to stop having to support people that wont buy games. Game sales are where the money is in this business.
If it was purely an anti-hacker move by Sony, why didn't they do what they've done with the PSP, or Apple with the iPhone, and released firmware that patches the problem rather than removing it fully?
Either they are being lazy, or they aren't telling us the whole truth.
I give you this.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/25/playstation_cracked_wide_open/
More impotently this paragraph
"I have read/write access to the entire system memory, and HV level access to the processor," geohot wrote. "In other words, I have hacked the PS3."
The hack will allow PS3 users for the first time to run unrestricted versions of Linux that have full access to the system's central processing unit and graphical processing unit. That will greatly expand the kinds of things users can do with the console. For starters, they could use the mod to run emulators that will play PS2 games on the machine, something Sony strictly forbids. It could also allow programs like the VLC media player to run much more robustly. The hack also opens the door to pirated games on the console, although geohot said that's an activity he's not interested in pursuing.
We will never know if there were other alternatives for fixing the leak, but it seems that because of the OS option that person was able to open up the PS3, while not perfectly (We don't know how much fixing and de-bugging he did on this code), it gives the user full access to the console and gives them the ability to use pirated games.
It's in either that report or another follow-up one where the hacker in question says they had to open up the console, rewire it, then reboot it again and again until it actually worked. He proved it was possible to hack the PS3 mainly using hardware. This allowed him to access the Other OS features without limitations.
This was not a software hack, nor was it a stable hack. Sony are using this as an excuse to stop having to support people that wont buy games. Game sales are where the money is in this business.
I don't think Sony would use this as an excuse to stop supporting a business that they stopped supporting a while back. They would gain nothing out of getting rid of OS option on the older PS3's. The Slims don't have that option, and they stopped producing the fats. They only logical reason for getting rid of the OS was for protection. What other possible reason would they get rid of it?
Money. PS3's are only just being sold for a profit, the real money is in games and accessories. People that use Linux bought PS3's because they are amazingly powerful computers, so they buy the console and that's it. Sony loses money, so Sony doesn't care about them.
If all you ever talk about are legal bullshit and legal bullshit then why should anyone care, doesn't seem to concern many people except for lawyers apparently.
This thread doesn't talk about "Why I should support the 'other OS' lawsuit", it talks about how our opinions doesn't matter since they don't matter legally, which is quite ironic that you even made this thread since our "support" also doesn't matter.
Even if all the fat PS3 users were compensated for a feature that clearly wasn't useful for most of them in the first place, is too little for anybody to care. At the end of the day, the lawyers win a % of total compensation and us consumers get 5 bucks?
And for the record, your a fucking idiot for claiming MacDonald is bigger than Sony.
Sony is ~4x the size of mickey D in terms of total assets and revenue.
If all you ever talk about are legal bullshit and legal bullshit then why should anyone care, doesn't seem to concern many people except for lawyers apparently.
This thread doesn't talk about "Why I should support the 'other OS' lawsuit", it talks about how our opinions doesn't matter since they don't matter legally, which is quite ironic that you even made this thread since our "support" also doesn't matter.
Even if all the fat PS3 users were compensated for a feature that clearly wasn't useful for most of them in the first place, is too little for anybody to care. At the end of the day, the lawyers win a % of total compensation and us consumers get 5 bucks?
And for the record, your a fucking idiot for claiming MacDonald is bigger than Sony.
Sony is ~4x the size of mickey D in terms of total assets and revenue.
The danger is not that they have removed software that few people use, it's that it sets a very powerful precedence. If this doesn't pass then all companies can alter their software regardless of how it affects the users.
Sony has shafted their supporters once again. This lawsuit is to stop them from being able to do it again.
Well I am going to give my two cents, and excuse if anything I say has been said before I don't really have the time or patients for going through 300+ posts of increasing trolling and flaming.
Now for me on my "care-o-meter" the Other OS rates at a zero. I had no use for it because I have a computer with enough space for another partition on my HDD if I so choose to try out Linux. (SP?)
Now for the rest of the people who have been fucked over in this situation, it sucks and I would be just as pissed off if I were in your boots. But does it hold water in a legal case, I can't say myself because I have as much legal knowledge as some one who watches Law and Order every night... which I do.
But lets look not at the present or future but the past my fellow man! Not long ago the much awaited "Slim" was being rumored (More like leaked, well really gushing in reality) during TGS if my memory serves me correct. New price point bla, bla, bla. Then the news struck that they would no longer be making any more "Fat" PS3's and the rest of the fats would stay on rotation till sold out. Once they were sold out they were gone.
Now remember two things that were happening during the Slim? One was no backwards compatibility, and two no Other OS. Now this is the big thing in this situation, they are no longer producing BC and Other OS PS3's, so right their they shouldn't be helled for "False Advertising" because when the slim came out they were not advertising that option because it was gone.
Now lets go to February or March, doesn't matter which. Some person announces that he has finally broken the PS3 into being able to play pirated games. This is huge, no one has has been able to "To Sony's knowledge" crack a PS3 into being able to play pirated games. Now they have a security leek and if this spreads they could be in the same situation Microsoft is in with the Xbox and the ridiculous amount of pirates they deal with. Now between then and the removal of the OS option they must of found out that the cause of the crack was from the OS option, the coincidence would be to great.
So now Sony has a choice, let the situation run out of control and potentially be in the same boat as Microsoft. Or take a chance and remove the feature that caused the security instability. So they did what any large company would do, cut their losses pissing off a small fan base and assure the security of their own system and games. Now the one other problem is the pre-slim advertising of the OS option. I think that because of the security risk they had to take action and that should give them the right to remove that option.
So I do feel your pain and anger, but I don't think that they should be legally reprimanded for protecting their protecting.
I give you this.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/25/playstation_cracked_wide_open/
More impotently this paragraph
"I have read/write access to the entire system memory, and HV level access to the processor," geohot wrote. "In other words, I have hacked the PS3."
The hack will allow PS3 users for the first time to run unrestricted versions of Linux that have full access to the system's central processing unit and graphical processing unit. That will greatly expand the kinds of things users can do with the console. For starters, they could use the mod to run emulators that will play PS2 games on the machine, something Sony strictly forbids. It could also allow programs like the VLC media player to run much more robustly. The hack also opens the door to pirated games on the console, although geohot said that's an activity he's not interested in pursuing.
We will never know if there were other alternatives for fixing the leak, but it seems that because of the OS option that person was able to open up the PS3, while not perfectly (We don't know how much fixing and de-bugging he did on this code), it gives the user full access to the console and gives them the ability to use pirated games.
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.
I don't buy for a second that it was the only way, seems awfully convenient for Sony who loses money when groups mass buy PS3's for server clustering.
How often is there such a big security hole that a whole OS cannot be patched and must be eliminated as the only feasible option, hint: It's never happened.
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.
