JDKJ said:
Traun said:
Sony could have bought new machines and rolled back the service by now, if it was internal. Whatever is happening isn't, completely, their fault.
kortin said:
It may seem random but I wanna know why there are so many people defending geohotz (anonymous included). I mean, he went against the Licesne Agreement and was sued for it. He got what he deserved.
"2. RESTRICTIONS
You may not lease, rent, sublicense, publish, modify, adapt, or translate any portion of the System Software."
(
http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html)
Unless I misunderstand that, he went against the software license agreement.
Because the End-User License Agreement isn't legally binding. There are a lot of people and organizations who purchased the PS3 for the OS running capabilities, not to play games and Sony took the service away, despite being a major selling point.
Just because OtherOS was a major selling point doesn't mean they can't remove OtherOS. Sony informed all those purchasers beforehand in the EULA that there was a possibility of their console being update for security reasons and that those updates could result in loss of feature and/or functionality:
3. SERVICES AND UPDATES
From time to time, SCE may provide updates, upgrades or services to your PS3? system to ensure it is functioning properly in accordance with SCE guidelines or provide you with new offerings. Some services may be provided automatically without notice when you are online, and others may be available to you through SCE's online network or authorized channels. Without limitation, services may include the provision of the latest update or download of new release that may include security patches, new technology or revised settings and features which may prevent access to unauthorized or pirated content, or use of unauthorized hardware or software in connection with the PS3? system. Additionally, you may not be able to view your own content if it includes or displays content that is protected by authentication technology. Some services may change your current settings, cause a loss of data or content, or cause some loss of functionality. http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html
The fact is that it was an advertised feature. Someone who PAID for all the features should HAVE all the features, not have to pick and choose. What's more, you completely ignored what Traun said, which is that the EULA
isn't legally binding. Furthermore, beyond PSN access, some new games (such as Gran Turismo 5) won't even play except on the latest firmware. A consumer who has not upgraded, so that he may keep Linux support, will not find out until AFTER he has purchased the game, and is unable to play it.
But the fact of the matter is, whether legal or not, "shrink-wrap" and "click-wrap" licenses [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement#Shrink-wrap_and_click-wrap_licenses] such as the PS3 EULA are extremely unethical, forcing you to agree to terms that are not explicitly presented to you until AFTER purchase, or else have a multi-hundred dollar paperweight that can neither be returned nor resold for full price. EULAs are a dishonest business practice, questionably legal or enforceable depending on the jurisdiction.
Additionally, what Sony has done in removing an advertised and paid-for feature is tantamount to false advertising [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising], which is against federal and state laws throughout the United States, as well as most of the developed world. An EULA that is only visible after purchase does not somehow make this practice acceptable or legal.
P.S. Thanks
