I suppose by the time these cases are resolved, everyone's forgotten about them. Will we hear the outcome of things like the class-action suit brought against MS for pirates being locked out of Live!, for example?
Sony Disable “Install Other OS” in firmware (v3.21)
- Thread starter Alucardx23
- Start date
Silent_Buddha
Legend
If the pirates win, we'll probably hear about it. If MS wins, it's unlikely anyone will breathe a word of it.
I don't think the pirates have a chance.
Regards,
SB
At the end of the day piracy is illegal and wrong, and by removing otherOS Sony is combating piracy.
Legally, the system software is subject to a limited license (system software license agreement) listed in the manual.
Someone should really read their manual before suing.
Except that a license someone agrees to isn't absolute in the eyes of the law and can be disputed if considered unfair. eg.
In UK law, this is considered unfair and Gamestation wouldn't be legally entitled to people souls. Souls can be replaced with 'all income in perpetuity' as a more realistic example of an unreasonable claim. Are Sony's T&C's fair and valid? As a gaming legal fellow says...
GI.biz said:
Manual's mean nothing when the law is involved. As do warranties.
As a longtime fat PS3 owner who has no interest whatsoever in installing Linux on the device, or having custom firmware on it for that matter, I'd just like to say I hope they sue Sony, I hope they win and I hope they'll make em pay through the nose just for being a bunch of wankers.
You mean that you hope Sony wins? Your sentence isn't quite clear on that.
I guess you're right. No, I hope Sony loses.
eh??
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I don't think that would matter. Pirate chatter about DeCSS back in the day when DVD protection cracking was relatively immature didn't alter courts decision that it was OK for a consumer to use it to backup his own media.
This situation is a bit unique however, as Sony are removing a feature of a product that was advertised as part of the product. Consumers entered into the exchange contract (buying the console) assuming they would have this feature with their console for as long as they owned it while still being able to do everything else that was advertised for their hardware assuming they didn't break any TOS with Sony.
Sony removing features in later consoles sold isn't a problem as they are then no longer advertising or promoting said feature, thus consumers wouldn't be fooled (bait and switch, etc.) by missing features in something they purchased.
You can't even bring in the spector of piracy into the argument as this change is unilateral across the board before anyone even has a chance to break the law. Patching it such that the exploit is rendered unuseable would be OK. Removing a feature you used to sell the product to a consumer would get you in trouble with the law.
Grey area would be if it was removed after a person had broken the terms of service or used it in such a way as it would break the law. But in this case, 99% of the people affected hadn't done anything to violate any terms of service.
I'm a rampant anti-piracy advocate (just look at my post history), but I don't see how Sony comes out ahead in this. And I'm certainly not Anti-Sony, I just bought my 3rd Sony Reader.
/sigh. And the quality isn't as good as the first gen Sony Reader. Regards,
SB
Not all ToS and EULA are legal, especially if they are not visible upon purchase, violate local/state/federal laws, or if they void the advertised purpose of the devise. The fact it was a promoted feature of the platform does give a foundation for a suit; whether they will win is another issue. As for Sony and marketing the feature I don't think I will dignify a response. Hit: Ars has a fair number of quotes showing it was an actively marketed features and, interestingly, execs were saying even after the Slims were released that the feature WOULD remain.
We all know this, as well as your feelings about most things Sony. I'm just curious to know if there were a solid logical if not legal basis for the decision.
If an end user had to agree with a specific ToS in order to enable the feature then would we say Sony acted within reason? A judge could still easily say otherwise.
If you download and install software it comes with a specific ToS. Would a piece of built in but disabled software be seen as any different by the courts? If you can only enable that built in piece of software by agreeing with a ToS that allowed for Sony's actions then are Sony's actions that terrible?
It's a curiosity of mine and until I know if a ToS was even in place prior to being able to using the feature the whole situation I describe might be moot. I still think it's a valid question and one I haven't seen discussed.
specwarGP2
Regular
I disagree that it was a marketed featured. It was never in any advertisements and not listed as a feature on the box either. If I didnt read gaming forums/websites I would have never known that the ability to install linux existed until after I bought it and started playing around in the XMB.
Also, I seriously doubt that any statements made by sony employees promoting the otherOS functionality is legally binding. If that were true, then people could sue best buy into oblivion for all the lies their employees tell in order to trick customers to buy stuff there.
