PS3 "Other OS" Removal Case Thrown Out by Judge

[Owyn_Merrilin]

[
They may have been around that long, but they've only been accepted for about 20 years -- and even then, only in the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit court of appeals, and only because there was a ruling in the late 80's that completely ignored both existing case law and, you know, the actual law, which they've been following ever since. I'm sure that the fact that the 9th circuit holds court in San Francisco, within shouting distance of Silicon Valley, has absolutely nothing to do with that. Anyway, the guy who said that if the case had been tried anywhere else in the country, this would not have flown was right; this is patently illegal, it's just that the judges in California have a blind spot when it comes to consumer rights, almost as big as the one the Supreme Court has in regards to dress code based gender discrimination. (No, your honor, the law does not say anything about it not being discrimination if it's "equally burdensome." Do I need to staple a copy of Title IX to your desk, so you have to look at it while we discuss this?)

Ah yes the usual fashionable nonsense about evil corporations doing down poeple rights. Small but important point, you are factually incorrect both the 7th and 8th circuits have upheld eulas in the past and so has the Federal court of appeals. So do I need to staple check your facts to your forehead before you go mindlessly repeating other peoples opinions. Does it not occur to you that after 20 years (your figure after all) that they are still extant in the most litigious country in the world means they are pretty much a done deal?

Ah yes, the usual fashionable nonsense about corporations just wanting to be our friends, and never letting their own profit trump consumer rights. Listen, capitalism only works when consumers and producers are constantly at each others' throats. The corporations realize this, but far too many consumers do not, and they let the corporations walk all over them as a result. As for "repeating other peoples opinions?" No. I've done the research. The 7th circuit and the 8th circuit each have one ruling in favor of click wrap agreements a piece, and they both overturned a ruling from a lower court that had apparently read the law. What's more, the second circuit likes to overturn clickwrap agreements, and even a cursory look at the case law shows that there are almost as many cases in which the things were thrown out as there are where they were upheld. This is at best a case where certain old fogeys have been confused by PR departments telling them that the software industry is in some way materially different from any other industry in which copyright is an issue, and at worst, a case of certain judges being /way/ too sympathetic to the interests of the software industry. It's not just me who disagrees with these judges; the very law that they claim to be interpreting does.

 

[Epona]

So the game industry:

- Doesn't want you to own the games you buy
- Doesn't want you to resale the games you buy
- Doesn't want you to own the hardware you buy
- Doesn't want to offer refunds for defective software
- Reserves the right to sell you a console based on features and then remove those same features at a later date

What an anti-consumer, abusive industry. Remind me, why do we support these greedy bastards?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

So the game industry:

- Doesn't want you to own the games you buy
- Doesn't want you to resale the games you buy
- Doesn't want you to own the hardware you buy
- Doesn't want to offer refunds for defective software
- Reserves the right to sell you a console based on features and then remove those same features at a later date

What an anti-consumer, abusive industry. Remind me, why do we support these greedy bastards?

[strawman industry apologist]Because we're obligated to put food on the table for these poor souls who make the games we love! Every time you pirate a game, you steal food from some poor, starving child in North America, and that's just evil. Buying used is even worse, since you steal the food from that child and then feed it to someone who has already fed the child, making it work out so that effectively, neither one of you helped to feed the child. If you then sell it on yourself, you've made it so the three of you have a net effect of not only not supporting the poor, defenseless developers, but of actively removing food from their table, the same as a pirate! Nevermind the fact that developers are paid to make the game, and their salary has nothing to do with how well it sells, or the fact that it's actually the shareholders at the /publisher/ who take in all the profits; those devs need food, and since we enjoy their work, we're obligated to put it on the table for them![/strawman industry apologist]

Or, in other words: Gamers are terrible consumers.

 

[Epona]

So the game industry:

- Doesn't want you to own the games you buy
- Doesn't want you to resale the games you buy
- Doesn't want you to own the hardware you buy
- Doesn't want to offer refunds for defective software
- Reserves the right to sell you a console based on features and then remove those same features at a later date

What an anti-consumer, abusive industry. Remind me, why do we support these greedy bastards?

[strawman industry apologist]Because we're obligated to put food on the table for these poor souls who make the games we love! Every time you pirate a game, you steal food from some poor, starving child in North America, and that's just evil. Buying used is even worse, since you steal the food from that child and then feed it to someone who has already fed the child, making it work out so that effectively, neither one of you helped to feed the child. If you then sell it on yourself, you've made it so the three of you have a net effect of not only not supporting the poor, defenseless developers, but of actively removing food from their table, the same as a pirate! Nevermind the fact that developers are paid to make the game, and their salary has nothing to do with how well it sells, or the fact that it's actually the shareholders at the /publisher/ who take in all the profits; those devs need food, and since we enjoy their work, we're obligated to put it on the table for them![/strawman industry apologist]

Or, in other words: Gamers are terrible consumers.

Loved the apologist rant, 2 thumbs up.

Gamers ARE terrible consumers. Caring more about giving as much money as possible (always buy new) to multi million dollar corporations than about saving money is not the correct way for consumers to act. It's no wonder things have gotten out of control, both the consumer and the corporation are interested in the corporation getting richer. Once they are richer, they use that money against consumers.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

It's shit like this, Sony...

Does this apply to Europe too or would that be a separate legal case?

This practice is banned in Europe so they're not allowed.

Least I HOPE it is. >_>

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

It's shit like this, Sony...

Does this apply to Europe too or would that be a separate legal case?

This practice is banned in Europe so they're not allowed.

Least I HOPE it is. >_>

Not exactly banned, but the law falls squarely on the side of the consumer when companies overstep their bounds. In Germany, for example (for example because I just ran across an article about how it applies to German copyright law) there's essentially a list of things that consumers can expect to be in an EULA, and should therefore be able to click "I agree" to any EULA without actually reading it. Anything that turns up in an EULA which would be unexpected will be thrown out if it ever goes to court.

Edit: In fact, not only does the offending line get thrown out, but it gets changed to what German law considers the bare minimum protection for the copyright holder on the matter -- a protection that gives the consumer considerable rights. Needless to say, companies are more careful with German EULAs than they are with American ones.

 

[Phishfood]

I kind of feel for sony with the whole piracy issue the Other OS feature had[...]

Sources or it didn't happen. Or better, get your facts right, because that statement is just wrong.

I don't own a PS3, but I followed the "scene" from it's very beginning, as I had a "Homebrew-Enabled-PSP" and find it rather interesting.
I know why this "argument" is used so often:
Because there are people that join discussions, even if they do not know s**t!

Ok, I don't have a source to hand. If I did, it would probably be Sony. The gist was that people were taking advantage of installing another OS to bypass features of the regular OS such as the DRM.

Same way I have a linux live CD to reset passwords on locked out windows machines.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

I think it's funny because Sony did change the EULA about class action lawsuites.....so that means they can change it to "We can brick your system" and it would then be legal?

 

[ph0b0s123]

And people still keep on buying. I really believe that even if a new EULA was to come out with the next firmware updates, that said you had to eat poo to keep using PSN, most consumers would eat the poo...

You're not going far enough. You KNOW there would be a bunch of threads on this site and others saying "I don't mind eating shit, I don't know why people are whining about it."

The thing is I actually first put that and then deleted it, as being probably to antagonistic. You are also not a big fan of the industry apologists then?

 

[Memoriae]

I think it's funny because Sony did change the EULA about class action lawsuites.....so that means they can change it to "We can brick your system" and it would then be legal?

No, don't be so fucking stupid. That amounts to actual removal of all features, which unless you've done something illegal, they have no legal right to do.


And I'll continue to raise this point... How many of you who are complaining, or did complain, about Other OS being removed... How many of you legitimately bought a PS3 for nothing but that function? How many of you actually installed Linux, and booted into it, as opposed to the PS3 OS?

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

I think it's funny because Sony did change the EULA about class action lawsuites.....so that means they can change it to "We can brick your system" and it would then be legal?

No, don't be so fucking stupid. That amounts to actual removal of all features, which unless you've done something illegal, they have no legal right to do.


And I'll continue to raise this point... How many of you who are complaining, or did complain, about Other OS being removed... How many of you legitimately bought a PS3 for nothing but that function? How many of you actually installed Linux, and booted into it, as opposed to the PS3 OS?

One I'm not being "fucking stupid" I'm being serious, if the EULA can be upheld as what Sony says is legal in regards to software going by this judge then they can change it and remove SOFTWARE FEATURES if they want (You know like playing games, movies, and using the PSN). Again Sony has control over the software, while from my understanding we have the hardware (meaning they can render the Firmware useless, but not blow out the hardware).

Also I didn't get a chance to find a phat model PS3 that didn't over heat to use it. I know I wanted it, besides it doesn't matter if people used it or bloody not. It's the fact that Sony has had a win in "what they can do with their software after we bought a system with said advertised feature removed".

I'm not going to take the "Did you ever use the X feature" as a argument because it's just you acting like it doesn't matter since you felt it isn't useful. This argument is bigger then OtherOS.

 

[Something Amyss]

The thing is I actually first put that and then deleted it, as being probably to antagonistic. You are also not a big fan of the industry apologists then?

No, and considering their tendency to call us entitled and spoiled, I'm not too worried about being inflammatory. I'd choose my words more carefully if I were dealing with people who have not called me spoiled for being a consumer instead of a wallet with legs time and again.

 

[Epona]

So if they can remove Other OS in the name of fighting piracy, what stops them from removing anything else?

- The ability to play Blu-Ray Movies
- The HDD
- The USB ports
- The Blu-Ray player itself (this is where most piracy has occurred in past consoles)

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The thing is I actually first put that and then deleted it, as being probably to antagonistic. You are also not a big fan of the industry apologists then?

No, and considering their tendency to call us entitled and spoiled, I'm not too worried about being inflammatory. I'd choose my words more carefully if I were dealing with people who have not called me spoiled for being a consumer instead of a wallet with legs time and again.

Funny thing is, most of the time we are entitled -- legally, as in "these companies are taking away things we are legally entitled to." "Entitlement" is not an insult, despite what gamers at large seem to think.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

And people still keep on buying. I really believe that even if a new EULA was to come out with the next firmware updates, that said you had to eat poo to keep using PSN, most consumers would eat the poo...

You're not going far enough. You KNOW there would be a bunch of threads on this site and others saying "I don't mind eating shit, I don't know why people are whining about it."

The thing is I actually first put that and then deleted it, as being probably to antagonistic. You are also not a big fan of the industry apologists then?

I used to have a t-shirt appropriate to this line of reasoning:

"Eat shit, millions of flies can't be wrong!"

 

[bridgerbot]

"... unfortunately those emotions have no impact on the legal scope of things". That says it all really. This should never have gone to court

Sony actually lost in court in Norway. In my opinion, they should have lost here too.

 

[bridgerbot]

It's shit like this, Sony...

Does this apply to Europe too or would that be a separate legal case?

This practice is banned in Europe so they're not allowed.

Least I HOPE it is. >_>

Not exactly banned, but the law falls squarely on the side of the consumer when companies overstep their bounds. In Germany, for example (for example because I just ran across an article about how it applies to German copyright law) there's essentially a list of things that consumers can expect to be in an EULA, and should therefore be able to click "I agree" to any EULA without actually reading it. Anything that turns up in an EULA which would be unexpected will be thrown out if it ever goes to court.

Edit: In fact, not only does the offending line get thrown out, but it gets changed to what German law considers the bare minimum protection for the copyright holder on the matter -- a protection that gives the consumer considerable rights. Needless to say, companies are more careful with German EULAs than they are with American ones.

That's nice that some countries protect their consumers, you know, unlike the United States that sides with big businesses.