Why you should support the "Other OS" Lawsuits.

[Weaver]

What did people here use Linux for on their PS3?

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

Here is my opinion: This kind of lawsuit destroys personal responsibility. Sony may be wrong about removing the OS, but the man should have been an informed customer and done his research.

Lawsuits like this clog up the justice system, and destroy the thought that sometimes it isn't the company, dog, coffees fault, it's just your own damn fault.

The man isn't being forced to update his PS3. He can still play games, he just can't get online.
For Sony to offer a good online service he needs to be uniform with everyone else.

He wants his Linux? Fine, he just can't get on PSN.
PSN is an option; his accusation of being forced is a load of shit.

He can keep his PSN if he doesn't want to continue playing games? That's a winner of an argument there. On the one hand he loses a feature most people never used. On the other, he could keep the feature and lose the functionality most people purchased the system for.

You read that very wrong.

He can still play games with Lunix on there, he just doesn't get online play.

 

[Danpascooch]

"removing of the Other OS is illegal in the EU,
EU Directive 1999/44/EC:
The goods must
? comply with the description given by the seller and posses the same qualities and characteristics as other similar goods
? be fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase. <??
? are fit for the purpose for which goods of the same type are used
? show the same quality and performance, which are normal in goods of the same type and which consumers can reasonably expect. This will also take into account any public statements made about the specific characteristics of the goods by the producer, seller or in their advertising.
I think that this Up(Down)date clearly violates the second point, every person in the EU should report to their local consumer authority."

I found this online, it doesn't apply to the US, but I'll keep looking, as I am willing to bet the US has a similar, if not identical law.

It wouldn't surprise me if there is. I just didn't find it.

Of course, if there is, Sony might be able to get away with it just by releasing new advertisements specifically stating that the Other OS option no longer exists. The US false advertising law has some pretty slap-on-the-wristish reprecussions to it.

Believe me, I support the use of alternate OSes on hardware. I'm just not sure yet as to if Sony really did break the law.

I just found this, but it is a bit up to interpretation, as the law always is, otherwise court would never be necessary


[HEADING=3]Federal Trade Commission Policy Statement on Deceptive Advertising[/HEADING]
I. SUMMARY

Certain elements undergird all deception cases. First, there must be a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer.4 Practices that have been found misleading or deceptive in specific cases include false oral or written representations, misleading price claims, sales of hazardous or systematically defective products or services without adequate disclosures, failure to disclose information regarding pyramid sales, use of bait and switch techniques, failure to perform promised services, and failure to meet warranty obligations.5

Second, we examine the practice from the perspective of a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances. If the representation or practice affects or is directed primarily to a particular group, the Commission examines reasonableness from the perspective of that group.

Third, the representation, omission, or practice must be a "material" one. The basic question is whether the act or practice is likely to affect the consumer's conduct or decision with regard to a product or service. If so, the practice is material, and consumer injury is likely, because consumers are likely to have chosen differently but for the deception. In many instances, materiality, and hence injury, can be presumed from the nature of the practice. In other instances, evidence of materiality may be necessary.

Thus, the Commission will find deception if there is a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer's detriment. We discuss each of these elements below.

Let's break this up shall we?

1.) "First, there must be a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer."

Well this is easy, the product was "represented" as having the ability to use Playstation Network and the ability to run Linux, and the "practice" of making the consumer choose between the two means that it was mis-"represented"

2.)"Second, we examine the practice from the perspective of a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances."

Obviously it was reasonable to assume that buying the PS3 under pretense that it had Linux and PSN capability was reasonable, it was ON THE FREAKING BOX!

3.)"Third, the representation, omission, or practice must be a "material" one. The basic question is whether the act or practice is likely to affect the consumer's conduct or decision with regard to a product or service. If so, the practice is material, and consumer injury is likely, because consumers are likely to have chosen differently but for the deception."

Just to clarify, they don't mean physical injury.

The United States Airforce bought PS3's solely for the linux capability for use as server clusters, so that covers #3, I cannot speak for each individual consumer, but I assume at least some of them would have acted differently if the PS3 never had Linux support in the first place (IE, Not bought it)

 

[JEBWrench]

Thanks, time to do me some digging through this site.

I don't agree with what I've seen from you so far, but massive props for citation and quoting actual law, too many people are just shouting their head off here.

False advertising / deceptive claims are getting to be a big deal for us here - because we're in the process of changing our small business' "mission statement". So we take this stuff pretty seriously.

Like I said, if you find something that I couldn't, then I'm willing to admit I'm wrong.

Well this fourth lawsuit is alleging that Sony is in violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies act. You can find it here:http://www.harp.org/clra.htm

This part in particular:

(19) Inserting an unconscionable provision in the contract.

That's the part that has me wondering. Would the average person agree to that term if presented with it?

 

[shadow skill]

*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.

Even if the change in the EULA is valid you would only be bound by the version of the EULA you agreed to at the time of purchase or the last firmware version you installed. The problem I see with that language is that some may try to claim that you agree to anything they change the EULA to implicitly because of your initial agreement.

 

[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.

I personally think the move was warranted by Sony. And as I do sort of feel bad for the Scientists who won't be able to get new Fat PS3's (because...you know, they totally have had that ability since the Slim launched...right?), to add to existing clusters. The option was allowing easier access to nefarious individuals intent on hacking the system. Sony preemptively removed the support before said individuals got any further. It's a bummer that the option was removed...I guess, but, seriously, where was all the bitching when they implemented the first phases of this move, with the launch of the Slim?

I'm rooting for Sony, and I don't care what precedents it sets. But, I promise, if I ever see George Hotz on the road, I'll knife him for all of us.

Like I said, I can sympathize with people who agree with the move, although I'm sure they could have found a way to patch it without removing Linux.

The question is whether it is LEGAL.

And you really should care about the precedent, it affects us all.

 

[Danpascooch]

*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.

Read my Part II: Irrelevant Arguments

Within I explain why the EULA is completely irrelevant to the entire argument.

 

[JEBWrench]

Obviously it was reasonable to assume that buying the PS3 under pretense that it had Linux and PSN capability was reasonable, it was ON THE FREAKING BOX!

I was unaware of this, having never seen a PS3 box before.

Is it still on there? (I mean, have they at some point stopped making those boxes?)

 

[Danpascooch]

Here is my opinion: This kind of lawsuit destroys personal responsibility. Sony may be wrong about removing the OS, but the man should have been an informed customer and done his research.

Lawsuits like this clog up the justice system, and destroy the thought that sometimes it isn't the company, dog, coffees fault, it's just your own damn fault.

The man isn't being forced to update his PS3. He can still play games, he just can't get online.
For Sony to offer a good online service he needs to be uniform with everyone else.

He wants his Linux? Fine, he just can't get on PSN.
PSN is an option; his accusation of being forced is a load of shit.

He can keep his PSN if he doesn't want to continue playing games? That's a winner of an argument there. On the one hand he loses a feature most people never used. On the other, he could keep the feature and lose the functionality most people purchased the system for.

You read that very wrong.

He can still play games with Lunix on there, he just doesn't get online play.

And Online Play AND Linux was advertised, having to choose is false advertising.

I don't care whether you think it's right or wrong, it's not LEGALLY justifiable.

 

[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.

Your entire post is not about other os issue. It is not my fault that the main point of your argument is about EULA and not other os. You are arguing over what makers can and cannot do with their product after you buy it. That is it. There is nothing in it about other OS or anything along those lines.

It is not false advertising when it was not on the box to begin with. Nowhere on the box does it say linux compatibility. It may be in the instruction books, but it was not on the box. I have a black monolith model and not a slim.

Not convinced by your arguments and It seems that very few people are taken by them as well. Try again.

I don't care if people agree with me, but you underestimate the number of people who do.

Anyway, whether it was advertised or not is not up for debate here, it was clearly advertised, if you cannot find it on your box then either you bought it after it was removed from the box and this doesn't apply to you, or you're not looking hard enough.

Either way, I'm not going to hold your hand while you look for it.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

And Online Play AND Linux was advertised, having to choose is false advertising.

I don't care whether you think it's right or wrong, it's not LEGALLY justifiable.

Sony removed Linux to try and thwart piracy and cheating online.
They stopped one federal crime just to get in trouble over a FTC issue.

I think Sonys removal to thwart piracy would legally justify themselves.
Kinda like you see a guy about to get shot so you wound the shooter. You committed a crime to stop a more serious one.

 

[shadow skill]

Like I said, I can sympathize with people who agree with the move, although I'm sure they could have found a way to patch it without removing Linux.

The question is whether it is LEGAL.

And you really should care about the precedent, it affects us all.

I fight the battles worth fighting, and as I ultimately feel Sony's in the right, I have no inherent interest in helping people late to the ballgame. I still hope Sony wins though. And this coming from someone who paid the original launch price for a 60g

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?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Here is my opinion: This kind of lawsuit destroys personal responsibility. Sony may be wrong about removing the OS, but the man should have been an informed customer and done his research.

Lawsuits like this clog up the justice system, and destroy the thought that sometimes it isn't the company, dog, coffees fault, it's just your own damn fault.

The man isn't being forced to update his PS3. He can still play games, he just can't get online.
For Sony to offer a good online service he needs to be uniform with everyone else.

He wants his Linux? Fine, he just can't get on PSN.
PSN is an option; his accusation of being forced is a load of shit.

He can keep his PSN if he doesn't want to continue playing games? That's a winner of an argument there. On the one hand he loses a feature most people never used. On the other, he could keep the feature and lose the functionality most people purchased the system for.

And yet, the core of my assertion still stands. You can keep the other OS option if you are willing to sacrifice the ability to play games online. I'm fairly certain you choice (which does indeed exist) is similar to that facing Sophie. Only instead of children you're asking a person to sacrifice advertised features.

You read that very wrong.

He can still play games with Lunix on there, he just doesn't get online play.

 

[Danpascooch]

Here is my opinion: This kind of lawsuit destroys personal responsibility. Sony may be wrong about removing the OS, but the man should have been an informed customer and done his research.

Lawsuits like this clog up the justice system, and destroy the thought that sometimes it isn't the company, dog, coffees fault, it's just your own damn fault.

The man isn't being forced to update his PS3. He can still play games, he just can't get online.
For Sony to offer a good online service he needs to be uniform with everyone else.

He wants his Linux? Fine, he just can't get on PSN.
PSN is an option; his accusation of being forced is a load of shit.

Tell me, if I bought a PS3 two years ago, what sort of "research" could I have done that would have told me Linux would not be available in the future? Perhaps some sort of fortune telling?

This for one. [http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/03/28/ps3-firmware-v3-21-update/]
Sonys blog always updates regarding firmware updates.

And here. [http://gamefocus.ca/?nav=new&nid=8795]
Also here. [http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=7619]

Many websites talked about this change in Firmware. A quick Google search, or visit to the PlayStation Blog is all it takes.

Also if he had PSN when he originally bought the PS3 (which I bet he did) in this case (I know you don't want to hear it) the EULA does apply.
You can't get on to PSN with Linux now, but you can still game.

While Sony didn't intentionally put the option on there so they could remove it, their blog and other websites gave warning... Not much, but there was enough to say: "Hey if you don't want this you can't get on PSN so maybe get another PS3 and use that one online and the other for Linux? Or just use a PC for Linux?"

I said when could I have known that Linux would be removed BEFORE purchasing the product when it was released (years ago)

It doesn't help the consumer to know that it's going to happen ONCE THEY'VE ALREADY PAYED FOR THE PS3!!!

And I said it like 15 times, so you're damn right I don't want to hear you say "the EULA applies" because [HEADING=1]ONCE AGAIN[/HEADING] [HEADING=3] EULA's DO NOT ALLOW YOU TO BREAK THE LAW!!![/HEADING]

You keep jumping back to the same argument that I continually dismantle, it's impossible to argue with you when you don't adhere to logic. Read the OP, as I am sure you haven't yet.

 

[shadow skill]

Thanks, time to do me some digging through this site.

I don't agree with what I've seen from you so far, but massive props for citation and quoting actual law, too many people are just shouting their head off here.

False advertising / deceptive claims are getting to be a big deal for us here - because we're in the process of changing our small business' "mission statement". So we take this stuff pretty seriously.

Like I said, if you find something that I couldn't, then I'm willing to admit I'm wrong.

Well this fourth lawsuit is alleging that Sony is in violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies act. You can find it here:http://www.harp.org/clra.htm

This part in particular:

(19) Inserting an unconscionable provision in the contract.

That's the part that has me wondering. Would the average person agree to that term if presented with it?

I don't understand the question.

 

[Danpascooch]

Here is my opinion: This kind of lawsuit destroys personal responsibility. Sony may be wrong about removing the OS, but the man should have been an informed customer and done his research.

Lawsuits like this clog up the justice system, and destroy the thought that sometimes it isn't the company, dog, coffees fault, it's just your own damn fault.

The man isn't being forced to update his PS3. He can still play games, he just can't get online.
For Sony to offer a good online service he needs to be uniform with everyone else.

He wants his Linux? Fine, he just can't get on PSN.
PSN is an option; his accusation of being forced is a load of shit.

He can keep his PSN if he doesn't want to continue playing games? That's a winner of an argument there. On the one hand he loses a feature most people never used. On the other, he could keep the feature and lose the functionality most people purchased the system for.

And yet, the core of my assertion still stands. You can keep the other OS option if you are willing to sacrifice the ability to play games online. I'm fairly certain you choice (which does indeed exist) is similar to that facing Sophie. Only instead of children you're asking a person to sacrifice advertised features.

You read that very wrong.

He can still play games with Lunix on there, he just doesn't get online play.

[HEADING=3] Penalties for not allowing Sony to remove your Linux Feature:[/HEADING]
They aren't just not allowing you online

Some people are saying "Well, it's their online service, they can choose whether to let you use it" that's not the case, but for a moment let's say I agree.

But that's not all they are doing, they aren't just making you choose between an advertised Console feature and an advertised Online feature, they are making you choose between two advertised CONSOLE features. Check out this link:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/sony-steals-feature-from-your-playstation-3

That's right, if you don't allow them to get rid of Linux [HEADING=3]YOU CANNOT PLAY ANY PS3 GAMES RELEASED FROM THIS POINT ON![/HEADING]

There goes that argument!

 

[Danpascooch]

I'm taking a break, don't worry, I'll be back to shatter all of your well thought out arguments later

EDIT: Wow, I leave for a break and everyone stops yelling, nice to know I can take breaks without all hell breaking loose. Still, feel free to post, I will be back to answer later, count on it.