Why you should support the "Other OS" Lawsuits.

[LordZ]

...

So, as long as it isn't a murder or rape, it doesn't matter how much people break the laws? Yeah, I can see how much better the world would be if everyone just stop caring when people or corporations did the wrong thing.

 

[Flying Dagger]

So, as long as it isn't a murder or rape, it doesn't matter how much people break the laws? Yeah, I can see how much better the world would be if everyone just stop caring when people or corporations did the wrong thing.

I think you are missing his point.
If you want to "fight injustice" go campaign for human rights in china.

If you want to whine about losing a fringe benefit of your PS3, this is the place to do it.

 

[omega 616]

...

So, as long as it isn't a murder or rape, it doesn't matter how much people break the laws? Yeah, I can see how much better the world would be if everyone just stop caring when people or corporations did the wrong thing.

Talk about twisting my words, I never said that. I said, if murders can abuse the law like they have for centuries do you think this is going to change anything?

 

[LordZ]

I will bet you will install the firmware and in less than a year you will have forgotten all about this.

If you were that bothered you would be suing Sony aswell and I doubt you are.

I'm waiting for a custom firmware to be released. If that doesn't happen, I'll probably end up leaving it as-is and eBaying it for my refund. The only reason I haven't sued Sony myself is lawyers cost money that I don't have.

 

[LordZ]

Talk about twisting my words, I never said that. I said, if murders can abuse the law like they have for centuries do you think this is going to change anything?

This really has no relation, so why would I expect it to? Who says I don't argue against other forms of injustice? Do you really think that just because Sony didn't murder or rape someone that I should stop caring?

 

[Text_D]

Citizen Snips strikes again, except for:

If people don't assert their rights when they're violated, they will be increasingly violated, if anything, these plaintiffs are acting in our best interest.

I just registered to thank you.

Seriously.

I see valid legal reasoning, and I see valid inductive and deductive reasoning. That is much more than I can say for most people on the Escapist. Probably to be expected with so many 13-year-olds around, but hey, there are smart kids. You might be a kid, I dunno. But lots of kids are dumb and eat up whatever they're told.

Anyway, from my experience, an illogical debater does not like having their faulty logic used against them. Someone said something like "I don't have time for this debate, I have to get in bed with my girlfriend now, hur." Yeah, well I have a smarter and hotter girlfriend, and *I* don't have time for this debate, hur.

And then there was that guy who says "I'm tired of this shit, good day sir!", and then keeps replying! Classic.

And let's not forget the idiot with the "physics degree" who doesn't understand that water can be hotter than 100 degrees Celsius, or that coffee isn't water, or that primary sources are more reliable than conjecture.

Lots of fun to be had in the topic, a great read. Needless to say, I agree with most of what you said. Not all of it, mind you. Since I have never seen a PS3 box, or the back of a PS3 game, I don't know if the premise of "you are entitled to play all future games that come out for this system if you buy it now" is true. I would like it very much to be true in legal law, and it may fall under 'fitness for an obvious intended use' or some such thing. However, I would most certainly expect it to work with all past games released up until the point I paid for it.

Basically, I have minor doubts about the premises of some of what you're saying, but the premises in your arguments SHOULD all be true. I should be allowed to own the hardware and software I've paid for and been promised. I understand that I'm not, legally. But I if they're going to lawyer-talk me into accepting damaged goods, I'm going to have someone lawyer-talk them into paying me back for some of it when they break it.

This is relevant to me, even though I don't own a PS3, because I have seen the effects of this stuff on the 360 and Wii. I buy a new-ish game, put the disk in, and see this:

"Oh hi, I'm your new game! I have a firmware update on me. If you want to play your new game, you need to install it. If not, you can go back to the store and return the game. Oh wait, you can't! I only told you about this after you opened the shrink wrap! Whoops."

So basically I have things thrust upon me I don't want. Most recently, that Datel memory card thing screwed me over a little bit. Can't use it. Not a whole lot of damage, but money is money. It's unfortunate that it's usually the intelligent people who can afford to take the hit, but are the only ones who realize it's a problem. Poor people who can't take the hit as well are usually the ones who don't understand that their rights are being trampled on. (I say usually because I'm talking statistics, not absolutes. If you understand my point then you should have no objection to what I said. Not all poor people are less intelligent, thanks for not calling me out on stereotyping when I'm not.)

Which is why I'm thanking you. You're not affected by the problem, yet you're promoting awareness about it. The people you're trying to help are hitting you with sticks and rocks, but you're still doing it. To be cool? To be right? To win an argument? To be nice? Your motives are not my concern. All I know is that the day people stop complaining is the day that we're all steamrolled by people who are more powerful than us.

Also, the prevailing argument AGAINST you is that there are bigger fish to fry, more important things to do, and that people are money-grubbing greedy bastards who only seek to fuel frivolous lawsuits.

Shut up. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and you are not seeing the benefits.

There was a fire in a nightclub somewhere in Rhode Island, and 100 people were killed. Obviously, someone got sued. Many people think this was frivolous, as money won't bring people back, and layers got like 40% of the money. However, (ignoring injured people and orphaned children, which completely STOMP any notion that the lawsuit was frivolous) just by HAVING the lawsuit win at all means that many buildings in the US were inspected, and people were held accountable if they did a shitty job before and needed to be fired. I certainly wouldn't want a failure fire chief checking my office building if a nightclub he checked was not up to code and he did nothing about it.

So yes, if everyone was simply a homeless, nameless vagrant in that fire and someone sued, it would have still benefited society for those greedy asshole lawyers to sue someone about it.

Now, life and death is NOT AT ALL the same thing as video games, but my point is that even if they serve no purpose that YOU can personally see, some lawsuits are not as frivolous as they can appear. Some protect your rights, as a consumer or otherwise, just like the overly-dramatic above example could protect your safety indirectly.

I have no faith that people who were too ignorant to read the entire OP or the entire thread are capable of reading and understanding my entire post before trying to pick apart some lines they don't like in quotes.

I could have just said "thanks danpascooch" but maybe my huge post will have some sort of tangential butterfly-effect-esque benefit.

 

[Mark Kennard]

I totally agree with these lawsuit, even despite my hatred towards consoles. I am in no way a console user but I still think that Sony are being dicks by removing Linux. All the way through the PS3s life they have removed features such as playing music and using the XMB at the same time, Linux, PS2 emulation, TIFFs (even though they were only for pirates really), and I think it's abut time we say enough is enough to them. Corporations should be making products to meet our requests (like Windows 7) instead of getting rid of stuff to cut costs and make the companies life easier (like the PS3).

Come on Sony, if you can't fix a hyperviser to stop people breaking into the system then ask experts like VMWare or even an open source group like Bochs or something. I'm sure they'd be happy to help out.

As for the whole arguement 'you can keep using Linux if you give up PSN', that means:

* giving up playing new release games
* obviously no PSN and online play
* no Playstation Store
* if Sony stops removing features and actually adds an interesting feature in the next patch which makes a cup of coffee or something, you can't get that

Yeah, when you look at all that stuff you will be missing out on, it makes the sticking with Linux option harder to make, and it is a decision you really shouldn't have to make in the first place. Aside from reducing piracy, Microsoft has done nothing but adding more features to the Xbox, while Sony seems to think it will be smart to get rid of stuff. Not trying to say Microsoft are heroes here though but what I'm trying to say, yes, go with the lawsuit. Sony needs to realise they can't mess with the people or else the people will get pissed.

 

[omega 616]

I will bet you will install the firmware and in less than a year you will have forgotten all about this.

If you were that bothered you would be suing Sony aswell and I doubt you are.

I'm waiting for a custom firmware to be released. If that doesn't happen, I'll probably end up leaving it as-is and eBaying it for my refund. The only reason I haven't sued Sony myself is lawyers cost money that I don't have.

I think your lieing, although that statement is redundant since your going to say "I am not".

Have you already installed another OS? No? So why are you angry about it? 'cos Sony changed it's mind.

The PS3 is more than a computer it's meant for gaming, with PC capabilities tacked on (and later removed) as an after thought.

Will you get a slim, that never claimed to have Linux capabilities.

 

[Ghostkai]

Snip

Thanks for posting, I admit I was a little shady on the details of the Lawsuit, and their implications. This has helped greatly, and I'm now in full support of the Lawsuit.

 

[Danpascooch]

My point is, the Air Force is funded by tax dollars, they can't just use those dollars to sue Sony, it's not the same as a private citizen suing Sony over this, I don't know all of the intricacies of how and whether or not a government agency can pursue a lawsuit like that, but the point is it's not the same as a private lawsuit, so don't compare them.

And yes, Sony COULD shut down PSN, because it requires upkeep from them, but Linux required no upkeep from them, and it was actually LESS effort to leave it there than to remove it, it was a feature, not a service, very big difference there.

And of course Sony will get their best lawyers on this, how is that relevant?

And yet again, it's not THEIR console, it's YOUR console, if you purchased it, you OWN IT. Otherwise, what did people pay $600 for? Just because they made it doesn't mean they own it, for god sakes, these people BOUGHT it so THEY own it.

1. The airforce may be funded by tax dollars but it can spend them how it wants, if it thought the act warranted a lawsuit, they'd do one, knowing that Sony would have to cough up their fees.

2. The point being that the lawyers are already being paid, cutting a huge amount of the extraneous legal costs.

3. Who own's the rights to the Linux software, PS3 firmware, or even a game software?
Just because you paid for something doesn't mean you own it.

1.) How many times have you seen the Air Force sue a private company

2.) I still see no relevance to the argument that Sony did something illegal

3.) Linux is free software, there are no rights to it, and when somebody buy's a PS3, they own their own copies of the software, and the right to not have Sony decide they want to rip it apart.

 

[Danpascooch]

I will bet you will install the firmware and in less than a year you will have forgotten all about this.

If you were that bothered you would be suing Sony aswell and I doubt you are.

I'm waiting for a custom firmware to be released. If that doesn't happen, I'll probably end up leaving it as-is and eBaying it for my refund. The only reason I haven't sued Sony myself is lawyers cost money that I don't have.

I think your lieing, although that statement is redundant since your going to say "I am not".

Have you already installed another OS? No? So why are you angry about it? 'cos Sony changed it's mind.

The PS3 is more than a computer it's meant for gaming, with PC capabilities tacked on (and later removed) as an after thought.

Will you get a slim, that never claimed to have Linux capabilities.

Who cares if he's lying, that doesn't make Sony's actions legal.

 

[Danpascooch]

Citizen Snips strikes again, except for:

If people don't assert their rights when they're violated, they will be increasingly violated, if anything, these plaintiffs are acting in our best interest.

I just registered to thank you.

Seriously.

I see valid legal reasoning, and I see valid inductive and deductive reasoning. That is much more than I can say for most people on the Escapist. Probably to be expected with so many 13-year-olds around, but hey, there are smart kids. You might be a kid, I dunno. But lots of kids are dumb and eat up whatever they're told.

Anyway, from my experience, an illogical debater does not like having their faulty logic used against them. Someone said something like "I don't have time for this debate, I have to get in bed with my girlfriend now, hur." Yeah, well I have a smarter and hotter girlfriend, and *I* don't have time for this debate, hur.

And then there was that guy who says "I'm tired of this shit, good day sir!", and then keeps replying! Classic.

And let's not forget the idiot with the "physics degree" who doesn't understand that water can be hotter than 100 degrees Celsius, or that coffee isn't water, or that primary sources are more reliable than conjecture.

Lots of fun to be had in the topic, a great read. Needless to say, I agree with most of what you said. Not all of it, mind you. Since I have never seen a PS3 box, or the back of a PS3 game, I don't know if the premise of "you are entitled to play all future games that come out for this system if you buy it now" is true. I would like it very much to be true in legal law, and it may fall under 'fitness for an obvious intended use' or some such thing. However, I would most certainly expect it to work with all past games released up until the point I paid for it.

Basically, I have minor doubts about the premises of some of what you're saying, but the premises in your arguments SHOULD all be true. I should be allowed to own the hardware and software I've paid for and been promised. I understand that I'm not, legally. But I if they're going to lawyer-talk me into accepting damaged goods, I'm going to have someone lawyer-talk them into paying me back for some of it when they break it.

This is relevant to me, even though I don't own a PS3, because I have seen the effects of this stuff on the 360 and Wii. I buy a new-ish game, put the disk in, and see this:

"Oh hi, I'm your new game! I have a firmware update on me. If you want to play your new game, you need to install it. If not, you can go back to the store and return the game. Oh wait, you can't! I only told you about this after you opened the shrink wrap! Whoops."

So basically I have things thrust upon me I don't want. Most recently, that Datel memory card thing screwed me over a little bit. Can't use it. Not a whole lot of damage, but money is money. It's unfortunate that it's usually the intelligent people who can afford to take the hit, but are the only ones who realize it's a problem. Poor people who can't take the hit as well are usually the ones who don't understand that their rights are being trampled on. (I say usually because I'm talking statistics, not absolutes. If you understand my point then you should have no objection to what I said. Not all poor people are less intelligent, thanks for not calling me out on stereotyping when I'm not.)

Which is why I'm thanking you. You're not affected by the problem, yet you're promoting awareness about it. The people you're trying to help are hitting you with sticks and rocks, but you're still doing it. To be cool? To be right? To win an argument? To be nice? Your motives are not my concern. All I know is that the day people stop complaining is the day that we're all steamrolled by people who are more powerful than us.

Also, the prevailing argument AGAINST you is that there are bigger fish to fry, more important things to do, and that people are money-grubbing greedy bastards who only seek to fuel frivolous lawsuits.

Shut up. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and you are not seeing the benefits.

There was a fire in a nightclub somewhere in Rhode Island, and 100 people were killed. Obviously, someone got sued. Many people think this was frivolous, as money won't bring people back, and layers got like 40% of the money. However, (ignoring injured people and orphaned children, which completely STOMP any notion that the lawsuit was frivolous) just by HAVING the lawsuit win at all means that many buildings in the US were inspected, and people were held accountable if they did a shitty job before and needed to be fired. I certainly wouldn't want a failure fire chief checking my office building if a nightclub he checked was not up to code and he did nothing about it.

So yes, if everyone was simply a homeless, nameless vagrant in that fire and someone sued, it would have still benefited society for those greedy asshole lawyers to sue someone about it.

Now, life and death is NOT AT ALL the same thing as video games, but my point is that even if they serve no purpose that YOU can personally see, some lawsuits are not as frivolous as they can appear. Some protect your rights, as a consumer or otherwise, just like the overly-dramatic above example could protect your safety indirectly.

I have no faith that people who were too ignorant to read the entire OP or the entire thread are capable of reading and understanding my entire post before trying to pick apart some lines they don't like in quotes.

I could have just said "thanks danpascooch" but maybe my huge post will have some sort of tangential butterfly-effect-esque benefit.

Wow, thanks, I really appreciate it.

Not only was that very flattering, I had to laugh at the outside perspective on some of the people I've been arguing with, there are bound to be some characters on the internet after all, lol.

 

[Danpascooch]

Is there some badge for creating a thread that gets two people to make new accounts with The Escapist? Lol.

 

[Flying Dagger]

I have no faith that people who were too ignorant to read the entire OP or the entire thread are capable of reading and understanding my entire post before trying to pick apart some lines they don't like in quotes.

I did read the entire OP, I did read your entire post.

And here's my problem.
In some cases, the law is faulty.
In some cases, the law is right.
But it doesn't matter, because the law is not what is decided at a lawsuit.

Has the law been broken, or not?
That is what a lawsuit decides.

The law here, is firmly on the side of Sony.

Complain to your senator to change the law, or however it works in your country, but that's the way things are.

This lawsuit will go nowhere.

 

[Mark Kennard]

1.) How many times have you seen the Air Force sue a private company

Stupid question, but seeing I'm not American I don't know how this works but couldn't the USAF say that Sony's action by removing OtherOS is unpatriotic and order them to put it back in or else they are a terrorist or something?

 

[Danpascooch]

That is a bad analogy, but it seems to be one you adhere to with your argument that they "have since changed" the advertising.

Let me set this straight, at PURCHASE TIME (the only time that matters, once you've already payed them, you're already out the $600) they said they had Linux, now they don't. It was a feature not a service, so they can't just cancel it like they could something that requires upkeep costs from them.

And sure, they could change the prices on those grapes for FUTURE PURCHASES much like Sony stopped advertising the feature and anyone who bought a PS3 after that point has no case, HOWEVER those grape sellers could NOT visit the houses of all the grape customers who have bought grapes in the past and demand more money because the price changed. Which is what Sony did, they retroactively slashed a feature, instead of simply not including it in future units.

The way the website tells it to me, and as someone who does not own a ps3 and is looking at this from a purely legal and economic standpoint, is that updating is not compulsory. You have access to the linux firmware, it just voids access to the service of PSN.
From that legal standpoint, you have access to all your features, just not all at once.

Your analogy would be improved if you changed it from "coming to your house and stealing your grapes" with "changed your green grapes for red grapes"
Sure some people will be outraged and want nothing to do with red grapes, some might be a little upset but realise the two are, on the whole, interchangeable, and most will not care.

But you see, it's worse than that, people who do not agree to have the firmware removed lose the ability to play any new release PS3 games from this point onward.

It's not "we are exchanging ____ for ____" as per your grape analogy, it is "You have a choice, you can let us take away this feature, or we will take away these three other features" either way, you are losing something significant from a device that you ALREADY PAID FOR

 

[LordZ]

I think your lieing, although that statement is redundant since your going to say "I am not".

Have you already installed another OS? No? So why are you angry about it? 'cos Sony changed it's mind.

The PS3 is more than a computer it's meant for gaming, with PC capabilities tacked on (and later removed) as an after thought.

Will you get a slim, that never claimed to have Linux capabilities.

Way to be completely wrong. Since you're convinced I'm lying I wont bother to say it. However, I will point out that you have it completely backwards. All consoles are computers. It's just that most consoles have been stripped down and restricted to make them locked down. They weren't really adding Linux support, they were simply not blocking it.

No, I wont be getting a slim, for any reason. I hardly game on consoles anymore. I mostly use my PC for gaming. Of all of my consoles, my Wii sees the most activity and that is rather sparse as well. So, yeah, Linux on the PS3 was a big deal for me. Being able to use it as a PC when I wasn't gaming on it was a real benefit. However, they've basically sealed the deal for me never wanting to game on it and it's a bit too expensive to use only for my Linux needs. So, if it becomes definite that Linux support will never return I'm getting my refund through eBay.

 

[omega 616]

Talk about twisting my words, I never said that. I said, if murders can abuse the law like they have for centuries do you think this is going to change anything?

This really has no relation, so why would I expect it to? Who says I don't argue against other forms of injustice? Do you really think that just because Sony didn't murder or rape someone that I should stop caring?

It's picking your battles, getting amped up over something as worthless as this is a waste of effort. Get angry over something that matters. If you have a list of problems you start with the biggest not mess around with the little ones.

Who cares if he's lying, that doesn't make Sony's actions legal.

No company is squeeky clean and yet the world goes on turning and your non the wiser, in the grand scheme of unlawful things it's insignificant.

Way to be completely wrong. Since you're convinced I'm lying I wont bother to say it. However, I will point out that you have it completely backwards. All consoles are computers. It's just that most consoles have been stripped down and restricted to make them locked down. They weren't really adding Linux support, they were simply not blocking it.

No, I wont be getting a slim, for any reason. I hardly game on consoles anymore. I mostly use my PC for gaming. Of all of my consoles, my Wii sees the most activity and that is rather sparse as well. So, yeah, Linux on the PS3 was a big deal for me. Being able to use it as a PC when I wasn't gaming on it was a real benefit. However, they've basically sealed the deal for me never wanting to game on it and it's a bit too expensive to use only for my Linux needs. So, if it becomes definite that Linux support will never return I'm getting my refund through eBay.

So you game on PC, bought a PS3 for Linux (maybe a tiny big of gaming) and are now waiting for firmware to get Linux back, if that doesn't happen your going to sell it on ebay for full price? I apologize in advance but I am simply returning the favor, that plan fails.

Unless the PS3 is still boxed nobody will buy it full price, even thats unlikely. If your mainly a PC gamer, why would you need a part time PC? It doesn't make sense.

This thread has been a source of some good laughs, not at the people who have quoted me though.

 

[Danpascooch]

I have no faith that people who were too ignorant to read the entire OP or the entire thread are capable of reading and understanding my entire post before trying to pick apart some lines they don't like in quotes.

I did read the entire OP, I did read your entire post.

And here's my problem.
In some cases, the law is faulty.
In some cases, the law is right.
But it doesn't matter, because the law is not what is decided at a lawsuit.

Has the law been broken, or not?
That is what a lawsuit decides.

The law here, is firmly on the side of Sony.

Complain to your senator to change the law, or however it works in your country, but that's the way things are.

This lawsuit will go nowhere.

The law is not decided at a lawsuit, but something that is very near the equivalent happens.

The law is INTERPRETED

and that interpretation sets a legal precedent that has an effect almost as powerful as making a new law itself. If legal precedent is available when a case comes along, it is always factored into the decision of the court. It has immense power.

 

[Text_D]

I have no faith that people who were too ignorant to read the entire OP or the entire thread are capable of reading and understanding my entire post before trying to pick apart some lines they don't like in quotes.

I did read the entire OP, I did read your entire post.

And here's my problem.
In some cases, the law is faulty.
In some cases, the law is right.
But it doesn't matter, because the law is not what is decided at a lawsuit.

Has the law been broken, or not?
That is what a lawsuit decides.

The law here, is firmly on the side of Sony.

Complain to your senator to change the law, or however it works in your country, but that's the way things are.

This lawsuit will go nowhere.

I don't know if you're really well-versed in law or not, but I hope that there's either no lawsuit, or that Sony loses. I think you're right about the fact that Sony isn't breaking a "hard law", but sometimes common sense prevails in the courtroom and sets a new precedent.

Because if someone sues and loses AGAINST Sony based on "hard law", companies like Apple and Microsoft will from then on be allowed to remove popular features if they ever become a security risk, even if it was advertised as a feature, simply because it's cheaper to remove rather than patch.