Sony CEO: "Free" PSN Wasn't a Likely Target

[Danceofmasks]

That's fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games. That's what the PlayStation has done since it started! It's MADE by the gaming division of Sony.

If anyone honestly bought a PS3 with no intention of playing games or Bluray movies on it, get the fuck out of the gaming community and terrorize some other bastards who want to deal with your shit.

Seriously.

THAT'S fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games.

Now, if Sony suddenly decides the PS3 no longer plays movies, DO YOU HAVE A FUCKING RIGHT TO BE UPSET?

"RUNS LINUX" is a feature of the PS3 when it was sold, exactly the same as being able to play blu-rays.

Read further down. I note Bluray movies as well. It plays Bluray movies and games. It's what it does. The PS2, etc didn't NEED Linux, why should any other video game console?

A very vocal minority used it for running Linux. The MAJORITY are actual gamers, who bought it because it's a PlayStation, which has played video games for MANY YEARS.

You're buying the console, yes. You OWN that console, yes. YOU DO NOT OWN SONY'S TECHNOLOGY. It is well within their right to remove/refuse access to anything on THEIR TECHNOLOGY that is causing issues. Do whatever the fuck you like to the CONSOLE. Tweak a setting, update fans, whatever. That's YOUR box. But the tech that runs it IS Sony's.

Fucking hell, extremist hackers/elitist wankers piss me off..

What, a feature only matters because most people use it?!
A PS3 plays games, blu-rays, AND runs Linux.

That was what it was advertised to do.

At the same, it was made clear to anyone who bothered to read the fine print that an advertised feature could be removed at Sony's discretion. Which is precisely what Sony did. No need to act surprised or cheated. Ya shoulda seen that possibility beforehand.

So?
That's irrelevant.

Let's say the PS4 comes out, and Sony suddenly decides that the PS3 no longer needs to be able to run games.

That kind of fine print is illegal in Europe

 

[JDKJ]

That's fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games. That's what the PlayStation has done since it started! It's MADE by the gaming division of Sony.

If anyone honestly bought a PS3 with no intention of playing games or Bluray movies on it, get the fuck out of the gaming community and terrorize some other bastards who want to deal with your shit.

Seriously.

THAT'S fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games.

Now, if Sony suddenly decides the PS3 no longer plays movies, DO YOU HAVE A FUCKING RIGHT TO BE UPSET?

"RUNS LINUX" is a feature of the PS3 when it was sold, exactly the same as being able to play blu-rays.

Read further down. I note Bluray movies as well. It plays Bluray movies and games. It's what it does. The PS2, etc didn't NEED Linux, why should any other video game console?

A very vocal minority used it for running Linux. The MAJORITY are actual gamers, who bought it because it's a PlayStation, which has played video games for MANY YEARS.

You're buying the console, yes. You OWN that console, yes. YOU DO NOT OWN SONY'S TECHNOLOGY. It is well within their right to remove/refuse access to anything on THEIR TECHNOLOGY that is causing issues. Do whatever the fuck you like to the CONSOLE. Tweak a setting, update fans, whatever. That's YOUR box. But the tech that runs it IS Sony's.

Fucking hell, extremist hackers/elitist wankers piss me off..

What, a feature only matters because most people use it?!
A PS3 plays games, blu-rays, AND runs Linux.

That was what it was advertised to do.

At the same, it was made clear to anyone who bothered to read the fine print that an advertised feature could be removed at Sony's discretion. Which is precisely what Sony did. No need to act surprised or cheated. Ya shoulda seen that possibility beforehand.

So?
That's irrelevant.

Let's say the PS4 comes out, and Sony suddenly decides that the PS3 no longer needs to be able to run games.

That kind of fine print is illegal in Europe

Can you point me to a European law or the decision of of a European court that says it is illegal for a seller of software to modify that software post-sale?

And it certainly isn't irrelevant in the United States. There's no law or court decision that I know of in the States that makes it illegal. And if there was, I would know about it. And it's a frequent occurrence. There are any number of software programs that updates themselves to add and remove features. Happens all the time.

 

[Danceofmasks]

That's fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games. That's what the PlayStation has done since it started! It's MADE by the gaming division of Sony.

If anyone honestly bought a PS3 with no intention of playing games or Bluray movies on it, get the fuck out of the gaming community and terrorize some other bastards who want to deal with your shit.

Seriously.

THAT'S fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games.

Now, if Sony suddenly decides the PS3 no longer plays movies, DO YOU HAVE A FUCKING RIGHT TO BE UPSET?

"RUNS LINUX" is a feature of the PS3 when it was sold, exactly the same as being able to play blu-rays.

Read further down. I note Bluray movies as well. It plays Bluray movies and games. It's what it does. The PS2, etc didn't NEED Linux, why should any other video game console?

A very vocal minority used it for running Linux. The MAJORITY are actual gamers, who bought it because it's a PlayStation, which has played video games for MANY YEARS.

You're buying the console, yes. You OWN that console, yes. YOU DO NOT OWN SONY'S TECHNOLOGY. It is well within their right to remove/refuse access to anything on THEIR TECHNOLOGY that is causing issues. Do whatever the fuck you like to the CONSOLE. Tweak a setting, update fans, whatever. That's YOUR box. But the tech that runs it IS Sony's.

Fucking hell, extremist hackers/elitist wankers piss me off..

What, a feature only matters because most people use it?!
A PS3 plays games, blu-rays, AND runs Linux.

That was what it was advertised to do.

At the same, it was made clear to anyone who bothered to read the fine print that an advertised feature could be removed at Sony's discretion. Which is precisely what Sony did. No need to act surprised or cheated. Ya shoulda seen that possibility beforehand.

So?
That's irrelevant.

Let's say the PS4 comes out, and Sony suddenly decides that the PS3 no longer needs to be able to run games.

That kind of fine print is illegal in Europe

Can you point me to a European law or the decision of of a European court that says it is illegal for a seller of software to modify that software post-sale?

And it certainly isn't irrelevant in the United States. There's no law or court decision that I know of in the States that makes it illegal. And if there was, I would know about it. And it's a frequent occurrence. There are any number of software programs that updates themselves to add and remove features. Happens all the time.

Wait what ... I've already provided more information in this thread than anyone, the OP included.
I shouldn't have to dig up case law for your convenience since it's bleedin' obvious what flies and what doesn't if you just look up how the terms and conditions are actually worded differently in Europe.

What's more, if you think a PS3 is software, you're a moron.

The entire argument is over legality and/or the fairness of altering firmware.

 

[JDKJ]

That's fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games. That's what the PlayStation has done since it started! It's MADE by the gaming division of Sony.

If anyone honestly bought a PS3 with no intention of playing games or Bluray movies on it, get the fuck out of the gaming community and terrorize some other bastards who want to deal with your shit.

Seriously.

THAT'S fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games.

Now, if Sony suddenly decides the PS3 no longer plays movies, DO YOU HAVE A FUCKING RIGHT TO BE UPSET?

"RUNS LINUX" is a feature of the PS3 when it was sold, exactly the same as being able to play blu-rays.

Read further down. I note Bluray movies as well. It plays Bluray movies and games. It's what it does. The PS2, etc didn't NEED Linux, why should any other video game console?

A very vocal minority used it for running Linux. The MAJORITY are actual gamers, who bought it because it's a PlayStation, which has played video games for MANY YEARS.

You're buying the console, yes. You OWN that console, yes. YOU DO NOT OWN SONY'S TECHNOLOGY. It is well within their right to remove/refuse access to anything on THEIR TECHNOLOGY that is causing issues. Do whatever the fuck you like to the CONSOLE. Tweak a setting, update fans, whatever. That's YOUR box. But the tech that runs it IS Sony's.

Fucking hell, extremist hackers/elitist wankers piss me off..

What, a feature only matters because most people use it?!
A PS3 plays games, blu-rays, AND runs Linux.

That was what it was advertised to do.

At the same, it was made clear to anyone who bothered to read the fine print that an advertised feature could be removed at Sony's discretion. Which is precisely what Sony did. No need to act surprised or cheated. Ya shoulda seen that possibility beforehand.

So?
That's irrelevant.

Let's say the PS4 comes out, and Sony suddenly decides that the PS3 no longer needs to be able to run games.

That kind of fine print is illegal in Europe

Can you point me to a European law or the decision of of a European court that says it is illegal for a seller of software to modify that software post-sale?

And it certainly isn't irrelevant in the United States. There's no law or court decision that I know of in the States that makes it illegal. And if there was, I would know about it. And it's a frequent occurrence. There are any number of software programs that updates themselves to add and remove features. Happens all the time.

Wait what ... I've already provided more information in this thread than anyone, the OP included.
I shouldn't have to dig up case law for your convenience since it's bleedin' obvious what flies and what doesn't if you just look up how the terms and conditions are actually worded differently in Europe.

What's more, if you think a PS3 is software, you're a moron.

The entire argument is over legality and/or the fairness of altering firmware.

Feel free to visit Sony's website where they provide the PS3 license agreements for different regions: http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/index.html . If you select the agreement for the Americas and the agreement for Europe and compare the two, you'll see where they are word-for-word identical (in fact, Sony uses the same http link (http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html) to direct users to the license agreements for the two different regions, thus making the license agreements literally "identical"). If you cannot provide support for your assertion that European law makes "X" illegal, then you leave me very little alternative but to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you mistakenly think that the PS3 license agreements for the Americas and Europe are worded differently suggest to me that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

What I think is that a PS3 contains software and it is this software which is licensed to those who purchase and use a PS3. Are you saying that a PS3 does not contain software? That's strange. The license agreement is actually entitled "SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (Version 1.4) FOR THE PlayStation®3 SYSTEM" (emphasis supplied).

The terms "firmware" and "software," when speaking of the programming code found in a piece of hardware, are of loose enough definition to be interchangeable. But if that causes you confusion, we can simply refer to the subject matter of this discussion as "programming code."

 

[Jammy2003]

That's fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games. That's what the PlayStation has done since it started! It's MADE by the gaming division of Sony.

If anyone honestly bought a PS3 with no intention of playing games or Bluray movies on it, get the fuck out of the gaming community and terrorize some other bastards who want to deal with your shit.

Seriously.

THAT'S fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games.

Now, if Sony suddenly decides the PS3 no longer plays movies, DO YOU HAVE A FUCKING RIGHT TO BE UPSET?

"RUNS LINUX" is a feature of the PS3 when it was sold, exactly the same as being able to play blu-rays.

Read further down. I note Bluray movies as well. It plays Bluray movies and games. It's what it does. The PS2, etc didn't NEED Linux, why should any other video game console?

A very vocal minority used it for running Linux. The MAJORITY are actual gamers, who bought it because it's a PlayStation, which has played video games for MANY YEARS.

You're buying the console, yes. You OWN that console, yes. YOU DO NOT OWN SONY'S TECHNOLOGY. It is well within their right to remove/refuse access to anything on THEIR TECHNOLOGY that is causing issues. Do whatever the fuck you like to the CONSOLE. Tweak a setting, update fans, whatever. That's YOUR box. But the tech that runs it IS Sony's.

Fucking hell, extremist hackers/elitist wankers piss me off..

What, a feature only matters because most people use it?!
A PS3 plays games, blu-rays, AND runs Linux.

That was what it was advertised to do.

At the same, it was made clear to anyone who bothered to read the fine print that an advertised feature could be removed at Sony's discretion. Which is precisely what Sony did. No need to act surprised or cheated. Ya shoulda seen that possibility beforehand.

So?
That's irrelevant.

Let's say the PS4 comes out, and Sony suddenly decides that the PS3 no longer needs to be able to run games.

That kind of fine print is illegal in Europe

Can you point me to a European law or the decision of of a European court that says it is illegal for a seller of software to modify that software post-sale?

And it certainly isn't irrelevant in the United States. There's no law or court decision that I know of in the States that makes it illegal. And if there was, I would know about it. And it's a frequent occurrence. There are any number of software programs that updates themselves to add and remove features. Happens all the time.

Wait what ... I've already provided more information in this thread than anyone, the OP included.
I shouldn't have to dig up case law for your convenience since it's bleedin' obvious what flies and what doesn't if you just look up how the terms and conditions are actually worded differently in Europe.

What's more, if you think a PS3 is software, you're a moron.

The entire argument is over legality and/or the fairness of altering firmware.

Feel free to visit Sony's website where they provide the license agreements for different regions: http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/index.html . If you select the agreement for the Americas and the agreement for Europe and compare the two, you'll see where they are word-for-word identical (in fact, Sony uses the same http link (http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html) to direct users to the license agreements for the two different regions, thus making the license agreements literally "identical"). If you cannot provide support for your assertion that European law makes "X" illegal, then you leave me very little alternative but to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you mistakenly think that the PS3 license agreements for the Americas and Europe are worded differently suggest to me that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

What I think is that a PS3 contains software and it is this software which is licensed to those who purchase and use a PS3. Are you saying that a PS3 does not contain software? That's strange. The license agreement is actually entitled "SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (Version 1.4) FOR THE PlayStation®3 SYSTEM" (emphasis supplied).

The terms "firmware" and "software," when speaking of the programming code found in a piece of hardware, are of loose enough definition to be interchangeable. But if that causes you confusion, we can simple refer to the subject matter of this discussion as "programming code."

The law, I believe, that is being referred to is a part of contract law that means that a contract that is too one sided is considered void. And this is what many people are waiting for as we want a precedent to be set within the game industry to show exactly what kind of agreements are forced upon us. The tone set is "Agree to this long list of agreements that basically make you our *****, if we wish to add a feature that melts your PS3 disks when inserted, and sets fire to your house, that's allowed." Slightly exaggerated but I've had a drink, so can't think of a slightly less extreme one, and the point still stands. Ticking a box is not the same a signing a legal contract, and that is where the law is hazy.

 

[JDKJ]

That's fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games. That's what the PlayStation has done since it started! It's MADE by the gaming division of Sony.

If anyone honestly bought a PS3 with no intention of playing games or Bluray movies on it, get the fuck out of the gaming community and terrorize some other bastards who want to deal with your shit.

Seriously.

THAT'S fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games.

Now, if Sony suddenly decides the PS3 no longer plays movies, DO YOU HAVE A FUCKING RIGHT TO BE UPSET?

"RUNS LINUX" is a feature of the PS3 when it was sold, exactly the same as being able to play blu-rays.

Read further down. I note Bluray movies as well. It plays Bluray movies and games. It's what it does. The PS2, etc didn't NEED Linux, why should any other video game console?

A very vocal minority used it for running Linux. The MAJORITY are actual gamers, who bought it because it's a PlayStation, which has played video games for MANY YEARS.

You're buying the console, yes. You OWN that console, yes. YOU DO NOT OWN SONY'S TECHNOLOGY. It is well within their right to remove/refuse access to anything on THEIR TECHNOLOGY that is causing issues. Do whatever the fuck you like to the CONSOLE. Tweak a setting, update fans, whatever. That's YOUR box. But the tech that runs it IS Sony's.

Fucking hell, extremist hackers/elitist wankers piss me off..

What, a feature only matters because most people use it?!
A PS3 plays games, blu-rays, AND runs Linux.

That was what it was advertised to do.

At the same, it was made clear to anyone who bothered to read the fine print that an advertised feature could be removed at Sony's discretion. Which is precisely what Sony did. No need to act surprised or cheated. Ya shoulda seen that possibility beforehand.

So?
That's irrelevant.

Let's say the PS4 comes out, and Sony suddenly decides that the PS3 no longer needs to be able to run games.

That kind of fine print is illegal in Europe

Can you point me to a European law or the decision of of a European court that says it is illegal for a seller of software to modify that software post-sale?

And it certainly isn't irrelevant in the United States. There's no law or court decision that I know of in the States that makes it illegal. And if there was, I would know about it. And it's a frequent occurrence. There are any number of software programs that updates themselves to add and remove features. Happens all the time.

Wait what ... I've already provided more information in this thread than anyone, the OP included.
I shouldn't have to dig up case law for your convenience since it's bleedin' obvious what flies and what doesn't if you just look up how the terms and conditions are actually worded differently in Europe.

What's more, if you think a PS3 is software, you're a moron.

The entire argument is over legality and/or the fairness of altering firmware.

Feel free to visit Sony's website where they provide the license agreements for different regions: http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/index.html . If you select the agreement for the Americas and the agreement for Europe and compare the two, you'll see where they are word-for-word identical (in fact, Sony uses the same http link (http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html) to direct users to the license agreements for the two different regions, thus making the license agreements literally "identical"). If you cannot provide support for your assertion that European law makes "X" illegal, then you leave me very little alternative but to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you mistakenly think that the PS3 license agreements for the Americas and Europe are worded differently suggest to me that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

What I think is that a PS3 contains software and it is this software which is licensed to those who purchase and use a PS3. Are you saying that a PS3 does not contain software? That's strange. The license agreement is actually entitled "SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (Version 1.4) FOR THE PlayStation®3 SYSTEM" (emphasis supplied).

The terms "firmware" and "software," when speaking of the programming code found in a piece of hardware, are of loose enough definition to be interchangeable. But if that causes you confusion, we can simple refer to the subject matter of this discussion as "programming code."

The law, I believe, that is being referred to is a part of contract law that means that a contract that is too one sided is considered void. And this is what many people are waiting for as we want a precedent to be set within the game industry to show exactly what kind of agreements are forced upon us. The tone set is "Agree to this long list of agreements that basically make you our *****, if we wish to add a feature that melts your PS3 disks when inserted, and sets fire to your house, that's allowed." Slightly exaggerated but I've had a drink, so can't think of a slightly less extreme one, and the point still stands. Ticking a box is not the same a signing a legal contract, and that is where the law is hazy.

The concept to which you refer is known in the law as an "unconscionable" contract. An unconscionable contract is one in which the terms are so one-sided or unfair so as to "shock the conscience." The concept of an unconscionable contract should not be confused with a so-called "click-through" contract (i.e., a "tick the box" contract). That is an entirely different but related area of contract law. Click-throughs implicate the legal principles of "offer and acceptance" and "contracts of adhesion" (and contracts of adhesion are related to unconscionable contracts because they are often closely scrutinized by courts to determine if they are in fact unconscionable). But, as a legal matter, the law on click-through contracts isn't all that "hazy." Click-throughs have been frequently recognized as a legitimate means of offering and accepting a contract.

And unconscionable contracts are not, contrary to your assertion, generally considered "void." They are considered "voidable." The two are not the same. A "void" contract is one that never existed. A "voidable" contract is one that did exist but can later be avoided. There's a subtle but important difference between the two.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Click-throughs have been frequently recognized as a legitimate means of offering and accepting a contract.

What do you mean, frequently?
The total number of cases can be counted on one hand, and has not been unanimous in their decisions.

What's more, you may want to find out why iPhone jailbreaking was ruled legal, and the DMCA was subsequently updated to reflect this.

 

[Bullzeye421]

What if Smith & Wesson developed a rifle that a hunter could point at a deer, lock onto it, and then fire a shot and the bullet acted like a guided missle? (something like what Gene Simmons used in the movie "Runaway". And if that reference is too old for you, how about the crazy fire arms Zod offered the Mangalores in the Bruce Willis movie "The Fifth Element")

Now say some street thug got a hold of it and tweeked the tech so that the homing feature could be used to track/lock onto people and started killing cops.

So S&W sends out an update to all their weapons that disables this feature. Yeah BillyBob and RayRay are gonna be pissed because now they've actually got to be good shots to fill the dinner pot with squirrel but officer Smith doesn't have to worry about pulling lead out of his ass.

I don't know squat about Linx, I hear some of you say it can be used to pirate games/hack systems and others say that's bullshit. I'm the kind of person that always likes to error on the side of caution and frankly I don't give a damn if I can't used my PS3's OS because I never intended to in the first place. I'm really not that upset that the network went down either because of this.

What I'm angry about is the potential cost this whole mess might have on the gaming community if these attacks continue. I don't want to have to pay for PSN access even though I don't use it that often. Neither do I want to see an increase in the cost of new games because Sony has to cover it's increasing security costs.

 

[jthm]

I'm just offended at their recompense. A free credit check? Paying my bank off for the cost of reissuing me plastic? How about paying me for the time I spent calling all the services I had to change my billing info with so I wouldn't have a bunch of declined payments against my credit? Netflix, Gamefly, Total Fitness, Toyota Motors, My landlord, my mattress store.

Oh, I get a two free games? Okay that's cool... wait. These aren't new releases. These are already discounted titles, several are available used for less than $20. If I wanted any of them, I'd have them already. I work in management and I know a promotional hook when I see one. I'd rather have $60.00 in store credit. Give me that and I'm back. My ps3 has been off all month, might turn it back on for netflix, but I can stream that to my computer, 360 or wii just as easily.

 

[jthm]

What if Smith & Wesson developed a rifle that a hunter could point at a deer, lock onto it, and then fire a shot and the bullet acted like a guided missle? (something like what Gene Simmons used in the movie "Runaway". And if that reference is too old for you, how about the crazy fire arms Zod offered the Mangalores in the Bruce Willis movie "The Fifth Element")

Now say some street thug got a hold of it and tweeked the tech so that the homing feature could be used to track/lock onto people and started killing cops.

So S&W sends out an update to all their weapons that disables this feature. Yeah BillyBob and RayRay are gonna be pissed because now they've actually got to be good shots to fill the dinner pot with squirrel but officer Smith doesn't have to worry about pulling lead out of his ass.

I don't know squat about Linx, I hear some of you say it can be used to pirate games/hack systems and others say that's bullshit. I'm the kind of person that always likes to error on the side of caution and frankly I don't give a damn if I can't used my PS3's OS because I never intended to in the first place. I'm really not that upset that the network went down either because of this.

What I'm angry about is the potential cost this whole mess might have on the gaming community if these attacks continue. I don't want to have to pay for PSN access even though I don't use it that often. Neither do I want to see an increase in the cost of new games because Sony has to cover it's increasing security costs.

It's the principle of the thing I have a problem with. I run Linux on a partition in my HD on my desktop. But I have desktop and linux already. I wasn't planning on putting a new OS on my ps3, but it was a selling point when I bought the system just like my backwards compatibility was. If Toyota mechanics came by tomorrow and disabled the car alarm on my car I'd be pissed too. I wasn't planning on using it, most nights I leave it off, but it was reflected in the MSRP when I bought the car and all of Sony's extras that they've removed were reflected in the price tag when I bought a ps3.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I...kind of agree. If my company offered a service for free that other companies make you pay out the ass for, I would expect anyone wanting to harm the company to look elsewhere.

Is it so hard to resist the urge to hack things? I mean, hell, the latest Pokemon game was supposed to be hack proof and someone put the ROM up within two hours or something.

Eh. Part of the problem is some people will hack things just to see if they can. It's like an intellectual puzzle to them.

But there's a difference in mentality between hacking something for the fun of it, and the kind of thing that results in the personal data of millions of people being stolen.

If you're stealing data, it's unlikely you did it just for the fun of it.

Breaking copy protection (such as creating a ROM image, or copying a DVD) is a little murkier, because some people just don't believe in copyright in the same way corporations do.

And I don't mean like distributing stuff on the internet, but more the issue of making copies for personal use.

Let's say I wanted to create a portable device that allows me to carry my entire DVD collection with me. (about 400 DVD's or so.)

A collection that large weighs quite a lot, but if I copied all of the content onto a hard drive (granted it would have to have a huge capacity), that'd be a lot more convenient.
But, like so many things, DVD's mostly have copy protection. (As well as legal protection that says I'm not allowed to copy them regardless of what reason I have for trying to make a copy).

To get past DVD copy protection requires hacking the copy protection system. Now, DVD's are old, so that was done a long time ago, but someone, somewhere had to hack it to make it possible to copy such DVD's for any reason at all.
(Or even just to let Linux play DVD's for that matter. The only way to get a Linux PC to play DVD's is to use a crack that bypasses copy protection, and in many countries is technically illegal.)

But, that's all a long-winded way of saying not everyone that hacks things does so for malicious reasons.
-Some do it for the fun of it.
-Some do it because they feel what they're asked to accept as a limitation of using some kind of service is unjust. (Irrespective of what the law says about the issue..)
-Some do it just because they're assholes.
-Some do it because they have a grudge against whoever they are hacking.
-Some do it because of greed or something similar.
-And some do it explicitly to show up weaknesses in security.

To think you will never get hacked is pretty much to assume all but one of these reasons won't ever be the case. (Someone having a grudge against your company.)
But at least two of these (for the fun of it, and just because the hacker is an asshole), don't require any reason whatsoever. They can happen no matter what you do, or why you provide a service...

And several of the others can happen even if you consider the service you're providing to be perfectly reasonable... (The hacker might think otherwise.)

 

[JDKJ]

Click-throughs have been frequently recognized as a legitimate means of offering and accepting a contract.

What do you mean, frequently?
The total number of cases can be counted on one hand, and has not been unanimous in their decisions.

What's more, you may want to find out why iPhone jailbreaking was ruled legal, and the DMCA was subsequently updated to reflect this.

frequently (frkwnt-l) adv. At frequent intervals; often.

If you're interested in a brief and easy-to-understand primer on the subject of the click-through agreement and it's first-cousin, the shrink wrap agreement (which might save you from appearing as if you're willing to speak on a subject about which you know precious little), I'd recommend:

http://www.jonesday.com/newsknowledge/publicationdetail.aspx?publication=1495

And if you really want to start counting cases that uphold click-through and shrink wrap agreements, you can start with these and, when you're done, I can give you some more to count:

See ProCD, Inc., v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (upholding the validity and enforceability of a shrink-wrapped EULA).

See Hill v. Gateway2000, Inc., 105 F.3d 1147, 1149 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that contract terms inside a box of software were binding on consumer who subsequently used it).

See Mudd-Lyman Sales and Serv. Corp v. UPS, Inc., 236 F.Supp. 907 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (ruling that plaintiff accepted terms of license by breaking shrink-wrap seal and by its on-screen acceptance of terms of software license agreement).

See M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568 (Supreme Court of Washington, 2000) (holding that the licensing agreement set forth in the software packaging and instruction manuals was part of a valid contract).

See Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 421 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding the validity of a shrink-wrapped license because the box provided clear notice of the terms and the box had been opened)

See Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (New York Supreme Ct. App. Div. [Aug.] 1998) (holding that a shrink-wrapped contract was formed when the plaintiffs retained the software for longer than the 30 day "approve or return" period).

See Rogers v. Dell Computer Corp., 2005 WL 1519233 (Okla. June 28, 2005) (holding that a contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Levy v. Gateway 2000, 1997 WL 823611 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997) (holding that consumer assented to EULA by keeping the product).

See I-Systems, Inc. v. Softwares, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6001 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2004) (denying summary judgment in part by upholding I-Systems' click-through and shrink-wrap licenses).

See Net2Phone, Inc. v. State ex rel Consumer Cause, Inc., 109Cal. App. 4th 583 (Cal. App. June 9, 2003) (implicitly upholding Net2Phone's forum selection clause, even though the user agreement was formed only through a hyper-linked contract with the language "by using the site or materials, you agree . . . .").

See Lively v IJAM, Inc., 2005 OK Civ. App. 29 (2005) (holding that an enforceable contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Rinaldi v. Iomega, 1999 WL 1442014 (Del. Super. Sept. 3, 1999) (enforcing a disclaimer of warranties contained inside product packaging when there was a refund opportunity).

See Westendorf v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 2000 WL 307369 (Del. Ch. Ct., March 16, 2000) (enforcing licensing agreement contained in the packaging even though the computer was paid for by someone else).

See Vernor v. Autodesk, No. 09-35969. DC No. 2:07-cv-01189-RAJ (2010) (concluding that a shrink-wrapped EULA created a license rather than a sale of the underlying software with the consequence that copyright law's first-sale doctrine did not apply)

I know precisely why the smartphone jailbreak was ruled a legal modification and the DMCA revised to reflect that ruling. I've read the Register's opinion in that matter several times. What's your point? Other than making mistaken assumptions about my familiarity with the smartphone jailbreak case. Because that case is not analogous to Hotz' jailbreak of the PS3. It is entirely distinguishable. The smartphone modification is allowed for the very limited purpose of enhancing interoperability of applications and does not substantially further the possibility of piracy. Unlike Hotz' jailbreak of the PS3 which does substantially further the possibility of piracy. An apple may be a round fruit, but that doesn't mean it's also an orange.

 

[JDKJ]

Double-post deleted by poster. My bad.

 

[Jammy2003]

That's fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games. That's what the PlayStation has done since it started! It's MADE by the gaming division of Sony.

If anyone honestly bought a PS3 with no intention of playing games or Bluray movies on it, get the fuck out of the gaming community and terrorize some other bastards who want to deal with your shit.

Seriously.

THAT'S fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games.

Now, if Sony suddenly decides the PS3 no longer plays movies, DO YOU HAVE A FUCKING RIGHT TO BE UPSET?

"RUNS LINUX" is a feature of the PS3 when it was sold, exactly the same as being able to play blu-rays.

Read further down. I note Bluray movies as well. It plays Bluray movies and games. It's what it does. The PS2, etc didn't NEED Linux, why should any other video game console?

A very vocal minority used it for running Linux. The MAJORITY are actual gamers, who bought it because it's a PlayStation, which has played video games for MANY YEARS.

You're buying the console, yes. You OWN that console, yes. YOU DO NOT OWN SONY'S TECHNOLOGY. It is well within their right to remove/refuse access to anything on THEIR TECHNOLOGY that is causing issues. Do whatever the fuck you like to the CONSOLE. Tweak a setting, update fans, whatever. That's YOUR box. But the tech that runs it IS Sony's.

Fucking hell, extremist hackers/elitist wankers piss me off..

What, a feature only matters because most people use it?!
A PS3 plays games, blu-rays, AND runs Linux.

That was what it was advertised to do.

At the same, it was made clear to anyone who bothered to read the fine print that an advertised feature could be removed at Sony's discretion. Which is precisely what Sony did. No need to act surprised or cheated. Ya shoulda seen that possibility beforehand.

So?
That's irrelevant.

Let's say the PS4 comes out, and Sony suddenly decides that the PS3 no longer needs to be able to run games.

That kind of fine print is illegal in Europe

Can you point me to a European law or the decision of of a European court that says it is illegal for a seller of software to modify that software post-sale?

And it certainly isn't irrelevant in the United States. There's no law or court decision that I know of in the States that makes it illegal. And if there was, I would know about it. And it's a frequent occurrence. There are any number of software programs that updates themselves to add and remove features. Happens all the time.

Wait what ... I've already provided more information in this thread than anyone, the OP included.
I shouldn't have to dig up case law for your convenience since it's bleedin' obvious what flies and what doesn't if you just look up how the terms and conditions are actually worded differently in Europe.

What's more, if you think a PS3 is software, you're a moron.

The entire argument is over legality and/or the fairness of altering firmware.

Feel free to visit Sony's website where they provide the license agreements for different regions: http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/index.html . If you select the agreement for the Americas and the agreement for Europe and compare the two, you'll see where they are word-for-word identical (in fact, Sony uses the same http link (http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html) to direct users to the license agreements for the two different regions, thus making the license agreements literally "identical"). If you cannot provide support for your assertion that European law makes "X" illegal, then you leave me very little alternative but to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you mistakenly think that the PS3 license agreements for the Americas and Europe are worded differently suggest to me that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

What I think is that a PS3 contains software and it is this software which is licensed to those who purchase and use a PS3. Are you saying that a PS3 does not contain software? That's strange. The license agreement is actually entitled "SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (Version 1.4) FOR THE PlayStation®3 SYSTEM" (emphasis supplied).

The terms "firmware" and "software," when speaking of the programming code found in a piece of hardware, are of loose enough definition to be interchangeable. But if that causes you confusion, we can simple refer to the subject matter of this discussion as "programming code."

The law, I believe, that is being referred to is a part of contract law that means that a contract that is too one sided is considered void. And this is what many people are waiting for as we want a precedent to be set within the game industry to show exactly what kind of agreements are forced upon us. The tone set is "Agree to this long list of agreements that basically make you our *****, if we wish to add a feature that melts your PS3 disks when inserted, and sets fire to your house, that's allowed." Slightly exaggerated but I've had a drink, so can't think of a slightly less extreme one, and the point still stands. Ticking a box is not the same a signing a legal contract, and that is where the law is hazy.

The concept to which you refer is known in the law as an "unconscionable" contract. An unconscionable contract is one in which the terms are so one-sided or unfair so as to "shock the conscience." The concept of an unconscionable contract should not be confused with a so-called "click-through" contract (i.e., a "tick the box" contract). That is an entirely different but related area of contract law. Click-throughs implicate the legal principles of "offer and acceptance" and "contracts of adhesion" (and contracts of adhesion are related to unconscionable contracts because they are often closely scrutinized by courts to determine if they are in fact unconscionable). But, as a legal matter, the law on click-through contracts isn't all that "hazy." Click-throughs have been frequently recognized as a legitimate means of offering and accepting a contract.

And unconscionable contracts are not, contrary to your assertion, generally considered "void." They are considered "voidable." The two are not the same. A "void" contract is one that never existed. A "voidable" contract is one that did exist but can later be avoided. There's a subtle but important difference between the two.

True, I know they are two different issues, I merely brought them both up in the same comment, not meaning to imply they are both the same thing. Also, I was enjoying our conversation, and not having a flamewar, while learning some facts from you about things. But I have a dislike for your tone when talking to Dance of masks. To be frank, it makes you sound pretty pretentious after he simply asked you a question.

My bad, I was talking more in generalities with regards to that. But would you argue that these contracts are not one sided enough to be considered voidable or unconscionable? That to sign a contract with the intention of using that feature (perhaps only that feature) and then have it taken away with no repercussions makes it severely one sided? I am not an expert in law, though I am aware these click-throughs are legal, I merely question whether they SHOULD be so if we are all aware that the majority of people "signing" them do not read it at all, or that you agree to them AFTER buying the product.

 

[JDKJ]

That's fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games. That's what the PlayStation has done since it started! It's MADE by the gaming division of Sony.

If anyone honestly bought a PS3 with no intention of playing games or Bluray movies on it, get the fuck out of the gaming community and terrorize some other bastards who want to deal with your shit.

Seriously.

THAT'S fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games.

Now, if Sony suddenly decides the PS3 no longer plays movies, DO YOU HAVE A FUCKING RIGHT TO BE UPSET?

"RUNS LINUX" is a feature of the PS3 when it was sold, exactly the same as being able to play blu-rays.

Read further down. I note Bluray movies as well. It plays Bluray movies and games. It's what it does. The PS2, etc didn't NEED Linux, why should any other video game console?

A very vocal minority used it for running Linux. The MAJORITY are actual gamers, who bought it because it's a PlayStation, which has played video games for MANY YEARS.

You're buying the console, yes. You OWN that console, yes. YOU DO NOT OWN SONY'S TECHNOLOGY. It is well within their right to remove/refuse access to anything on THEIR TECHNOLOGY that is causing issues. Do whatever the fuck you like to the CONSOLE. Tweak a setting, update fans, whatever. That's YOUR box. But the tech that runs it IS Sony's.

Fucking hell, extremist hackers/elitist wankers piss me off..

What, a feature only matters because most people use it?!
A PS3 plays games, blu-rays, AND runs Linux.

That was what it was advertised to do.

At the same, it was made clear to anyone who bothered to read the fine print that an advertised feature could be removed at Sony's discretion. Which is precisely what Sony did. No need to act surprised or cheated. Ya shoulda seen that possibility beforehand.

So?
That's irrelevant.

Let's say the PS4 comes out, and Sony suddenly decides that the PS3 no longer needs to be able to run games.

That kind of fine print is illegal in Europe

Can you point me to a European law or the decision of of a European court that says it is illegal for a seller of software to modify that software post-sale?

And it certainly isn't irrelevant in the United States. There's no law or court decision that I know of in the States that makes it illegal. And if there was, I would know about it. And it's a frequent occurrence. There are any number of software programs that updates themselves to add and remove features. Happens all the time.

Wait what ... I've already provided more information in this thread than anyone, the OP included.
I shouldn't have to dig up case law for your convenience since it's bleedin' obvious what flies and what doesn't if you just look up how the terms and conditions are actually worded differently in Europe.

What's more, if you think a PS3 is software, you're a moron.

The entire argument is over legality and/or the fairness of altering firmware.

Feel free to visit Sony's website where they provide the license agreements for different regions: http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/index.html . If you select the agreement for the Americas and the agreement for Europe and compare the two, you'll see where they are word-for-word identical (in fact, Sony uses the same http link (http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html) to direct users to the license agreements for the two different regions, thus making the license agreements literally "identical"). If you cannot provide support for your assertion that European law makes "X" illegal, then you leave me very little alternative but to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you mistakenly think that the PS3 license agreements for the Americas and Europe are worded differently suggest to me that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

What I think is that a PS3 contains software and it is this software which is licensed to those who purchase and use a PS3. Are you saying that a PS3 does not contain software? That's strange. The license agreement is actually entitled "SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (Version 1.4) FOR THE PlayStation®3 SYSTEM" (emphasis supplied).

The terms "firmware" and "software," when speaking of the programming code found in a piece of hardware, are of loose enough definition to be interchangeable. But if that causes you confusion, we can simple refer to the subject matter of this discussion as "programming code."

The law, I believe, that is being referred to is a part of contract law that means that a contract that is too one sided is considered void. And this is what many people are waiting for as we want a precedent to be set within the game industry to show exactly what kind of agreements are forced upon us. The tone set is "Agree to this long list of agreements that basically make you our *****, if we wish to add a feature that melts your PS3 disks when inserted, and sets fire to your house, that's allowed." Slightly exaggerated but I've had a drink, so can't think of a slightly less extreme one, and the point still stands. Ticking a box is not the same a signing a legal contract, and that is where the law is hazy.

The concept to which you refer is known in the law as an "unconscionable" contract. An unconscionable contract is one in which the terms are so one-sided or unfair so as to "shock the conscience." The concept of an unconscionable contract should not be confused with a so-called "click-through" contract (i.e., a "tick the box" contract). That is an entirely different but related area of contract law. Click-throughs implicate the legal principles of "offer and acceptance" and "contracts of adhesion" (and contracts of adhesion are related to unconscionable contracts because they are often closely scrutinized by courts to determine if they are in fact unconscionable). But, as a legal matter, the law on click-through contracts isn't all that "hazy." Click-throughs have been frequently recognized as a legitimate means of offering and accepting a contract.

And unconscionable contracts are not, contrary to your assertion, generally considered "void." They are considered "voidable." The two are not the same. A "void" contract is one that never existed. A "voidable" contract is one that did exist but can later be avoided. There's a subtle but important difference between the two.

True, I know they are two different issues, I merely brought them both up in the same comment, not meaning to imply they are both the same thing. Also, I was enjoying our conversation, and not having a flamewar, while learning some facts from you about things. But I have a dislike for your tone when talking to Dance of masks. To be frank, it makes you sound pretty pretentious after he simply asked you a question.

My bad, I was talking more in generalities with regards to that. But would you argue that these contracts are not one sided enough to be considered voidable or unconscionable? That to sign a contract with the intention of using that feature (perhaps only that feature) and then have it taken away with no repercussions makes it severely one sided? I am not an expert in law, though I am aware these click-throughs are legal, I merely question whether they SHOULD be so if we are all aware that the majority of people "signing" them do not read it at all, or that you agree to them AFTER buying the product.

If you, like Danceofmasks, start treating me like I'm a fucking idiot who doesn't know anything about the smartphone jailbreak case and inviting me to go find out about a matter of which I'm already fully aware, then I'll probably take the same tone with you, too. That I haven't is only because you've given me no reason to do so. Unlike Danceofmasks.

Most all EULAs are, obviously, one-sided. Whether they are one-sided enough to "shock the conscience" as required by the legal standard is a more difficult call. Reasonable minds can differ on that issue. But "shocks the conscience" is a pretty high standard to reach.

That those who agree to a contract don't bother to read it before agreeing ain't gettin' no one outta no contract. The terms were there to be read if they wanted to read them. That they didn't read them ain't nobody's fault but their own.

EULAs don't apply to the sale of the product. They apply to the use of the product. And you are presented with the terms of the EULA before you use the product, either by discovering them in the product's box (shrink wrap) or discovered as a step towards actual use of the product (click-through). If you don't want to agree to the terms, then take the product back to the seller (shrink wrap) or discontinue the steps towards use (click-through).

If the OtherOS feature is removed, has the buyer been deprived of all value in the transaction? I don't think so. The console can still play a game or a DVD, and connect to the internet and PSN and PSN Store and Netflix. etc., etc., etc. Yes, there is an argument that if all you wanted was to run Linux with your PS3, then all that other stuff has no value to you. But if that's the case, ya shoulda bought a PC or a laptop. That OtherOS was removed in order to prevent piracy doesn't shock my conscience as unfair or one-sided.

 

[Jammy2003]

That's fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games. That's what the PlayStation has done since it started! It's MADE by the gaming division of Sony.

If anyone honestly bought a PS3 with no intention of playing games or Bluray movies on it, get the fuck out of the gaming community and terrorize some other bastards who want to deal with your shit.

Seriously.

THAT'S fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games.

Now, if Sony suddenly decides the PS3 no longer plays movies, DO YOU HAVE A FUCKING RIGHT TO BE UPSET?

"RUNS LINUX" is a feature of the PS3 when it was sold, exactly the same as being able to play blu-rays.

Read further down. I note Bluray movies as well. It plays Bluray movies and games. It's what it does. The PS2, etc didn't NEED Linux, why should any other video game console?

A very vocal minority used it for running Linux. The MAJORITY are actual gamers, who bought it because it's a PlayStation, which has played video games for MANY YEARS.

You're buying the console, yes. You OWN that console, yes. YOU DO NOT OWN SONY'S TECHNOLOGY. It is well within their right to remove/refuse access to anything on THEIR TECHNOLOGY that is causing issues. Do whatever the fuck you like to the CONSOLE. Tweak a setting, update fans, whatever. That's YOUR box. But the tech that runs it IS Sony's.

Fucking hell, extremist hackers/elitist wankers piss me off..

What, a feature only matters because most people use it?!
A PS3 plays games, blu-rays, AND runs Linux.

That was what it was advertised to do.

At the same, it was made clear to anyone who bothered to read the fine print that an advertised feature could be removed at Sony's discretion. Which is precisely what Sony did. No need to act surprised or cheated. Ya shoulda seen that possibility beforehand.

So?
That's irrelevant.

Let's say the PS4 comes out, and Sony suddenly decides that the PS3 no longer needs to be able to run games.

That kind of fine print is illegal in Europe

Can you point me to a European law or the decision of of a European court that says it is illegal for a seller of software to modify that software post-sale?

And it certainly isn't irrelevant in the United States. There's no law or court decision that I know of in the States that makes it illegal. And if there was, I would know about it. And it's a frequent occurrence. There are any number of software programs that updates themselves to add and remove features. Happens all the time.

Wait what ... I've already provided more information in this thread than anyone, the OP included.
I shouldn't have to dig up case law for your convenience since it's bleedin' obvious what flies and what doesn't if you just look up how the terms and conditions are actually worded differently in Europe.

What's more, if you think a PS3 is software, you're a moron.

The entire argument is over legality and/or the fairness of altering firmware.

Feel free to visit Sony's website where they provide the license agreements for different regions: http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/index.html . If you select the agreement for the Americas and the agreement for Europe and compare the two, you'll see where they are word-for-word identical (in fact, Sony uses the same http link (http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html) to direct users to the license agreements for the two different regions, thus making the license agreements literally "identical"). If you cannot provide support for your assertion that European law makes "X" illegal, then you leave me very little alternative but to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you mistakenly think that the PS3 license agreements for the Americas and Europe are worded differently suggest to me that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

What I think is that a PS3 contains software and it is this software which is licensed to those who purchase and use a PS3. Are you saying that a PS3 does not contain software? That's strange. The license agreement is actually entitled "SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (Version 1.4) FOR THE PlayStation®3 SYSTEM" (emphasis supplied).

The terms "firmware" and "software," when speaking of the programming code found in a piece of hardware, are of loose enough definition to be interchangeable. But if that causes you confusion, we can simple refer to the subject matter of this discussion as "programming code."

The law, I believe, that is being referred to is a part of contract law that means that a contract that is too one sided is considered void. And this is what many people are waiting for as we want a precedent to be set within the game industry to show exactly what kind of agreements are forced upon us. The tone set is "Agree to this long list of agreements that basically make you our *****, if we wish to add a feature that melts your PS3 disks when inserted, and sets fire to your house, that's allowed." Slightly exaggerated but I've had a drink, so can't think of a slightly less extreme one, and the point still stands. Ticking a box is not the same a signing a legal contract, and that is where the law is hazy.

The concept to which you refer is known in the law as an "unconscionable" contract. An unconscionable contract is one in which the terms are so one-sided or unfair so as to "shock the conscience." The concept of an unconscionable contract should not be confused with a so-called "click-through" contract (i.e., a "tick the box" contract). That is an entirely different but related area of contract law. Click-throughs implicate the legal principles of "offer and acceptance" and "contracts of adhesion" (and contracts of adhesion are related to unconscionable contracts because they are often closely scrutinized by courts to determine if they are in fact unconscionable). But, as a legal matter, the law on click-through contracts isn't all that "hazy." Click-throughs have been frequently recognized as a legitimate means of offering and accepting a contract.

And unconscionable contracts are not, contrary to your assertion, generally considered "void." They are considered "voidable." The two are not the same. A "void" contract is one that never existed. A "voidable" contract is one that did exist but can later be avoided. There's a subtle but important difference between the two.

True, I know they are two different issues, I merely brought them both up in the same comment, not meaning to imply they are both the same thing. Also, I was enjoying our conversation, and not having a flamewar, while learning some facts from you about things. But I have a dislike for your tone when talking to Dance of masks. To be frank, it makes you sound pretty pretentious after he simply asked you a question.

My bad, I was talking more in generalities with regards to that. But would you argue that these contracts are not one sided enough to be considered voidable or unconscionable? That to sign a contract with the intention of using that feature (perhaps only that feature) and then have it taken away with no repercussions makes it severely one sided? I am not an expert in law, though I am aware these click-throughs are legal, I merely question whether they SHOULD be so if we are all aware that the majority of people "signing" them do not read it at all, or that you agree to them AFTER buying the product.

If you, like Danceofmasks, start treating me like I'm a fucking idiot who doesn't know anything about the smartphone jailbreak case and inviting me to go find out about a matter of which I'm already fully aware, then I'll probably take the same tone with you, too. That I haven't is only because you've given me no reason to do so. Unlike Danceofmasks.

Most all EULAs are, obviously, one-sided. Whether they are one-sided enough to "shock the conscience" as required by the legal standard is a more difficult call. Reasonable minds can differ on that issue. But "shocks the conscience" is a pretty high standard to reach.

That those who agree to a contract don't bother to read it before agreeing ain't gettin' no one outta no contract. The terms were there to be read if they wanted to read them. That they didn't read them ain't nobody's fault but their own.

EULAs don't apply to the sale of the product. They apply to the use of the product. And you are presented with the terms of the EULA before you use the product, either by discovering them in the product's box (shrink wrap) or discovered as a step towards actual use of the product (click-through). If you don't want to agree to the terms, then take the product back to the seller (shrink wrap) or discontinue the steps towards use (click-through).

If the OtherOS feature is removed, has the buyer been deprived of all value in the transaction? I don't think so. The console can still play a game or a DVD, and connect to the internet and PSN and PSN Store and Netflix. etc., etc., etc. Yes, there is an argument that if all you wanted was to run Linux with your PS3, then all that other stuff has no value to you. But if that's the case, ya shoulda bought a PC or a laptop. That OtherOS was removed in order to prevent piracy doesn't shock my conscience as unfair or one-sided.

Wait, so I'm a fucking idiot as I don't know jack about the jailbreak case? To assume someone doesn't know about something isn't to assume they are an idiot. I accept you know more legal crap than I do, which I only learnt after speak to you for a while.

I would say that buying a box of parts that I can't change in any way, use software other than the pre-prescribed stuff, is allowed to change the functionality of the product at will, or cut your usage for... whatever reason they want? No reason at all?... Is pretty shocking of the conscience.

While not reading a contract doesn't get you out of it, the question is, can they be upheld if everyone knows that barely anyone reads them? Its effectively asking "Tick box to play game".

But that's exactly the problem. If the product has been opened and is not faulty, some shops will not take it back. And if I wish to use the product as anything more than a door-stop, surely is should be part of the buy process, as its integral to the product.

But to buy a computer that runs on the same level (in terms of pure processing power) is far more expensive. So what they "Should have done" is besides the point. Hindsight is wonderful, but not really relevant to all those left in the cold now. And also, they have to power to remove any feature at will, including those listed above. If they wanted to force all PS3 users to upgrade to PS4 by disabling all features of the PS3, (or one by one to make it less of a shock), then they are allowed to. That's the problem.

I'm partially aware on the law here, at least in the broadest sense of the word, I'm more questioning on whether the law is correct or not than if that is what the law states. This the point I am aiming at here.

 

[JDKJ]

That's fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games. That's what the PlayStation has done since it started! It's MADE by the gaming division of Sony.

If anyone honestly bought a PS3 with no intention of playing games or Bluray movies on it, get the fuck out of the gaming community and terrorize some other bastards who want to deal with your shit.

Seriously.

THAT'S fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games.

Now, if Sony suddenly decides the PS3 no longer plays movies, DO YOU HAVE A FUCKING RIGHT TO BE UPSET?

"RUNS LINUX" is a feature of the PS3 when it was sold, exactly the same as being able to play blu-rays.

Read further down. I note Bluray movies as well. It plays Bluray movies and games. It's what it does. The PS2, etc didn't NEED Linux, why should any other video game console?

A very vocal minority used it for running Linux. The MAJORITY are actual gamers, who bought it because it's a PlayStation, which has played video games for MANY YEARS.

You're buying the console, yes. You OWN that console, yes. YOU DO NOT OWN SONY'S TECHNOLOGY. It is well within their right to remove/refuse access to anything on THEIR TECHNOLOGY that is causing issues. Do whatever the fuck you like to the CONSOLE. Tweak a setting, update fans, whatever. That's YOUR box. But the tech that runs it IS Sony's.

Fucking hell, extremist hackers/elitist wankers piss me off..

What, a feature only matters because most people use it?!
A PS3 plays games, blu-rays, AND runs Linux.

That was what it was advertised to do.

At the same, it was made clear to anyone who bothered to read the fine print that an advertised feature could be removed at Sony's discretion. Which is precisely what Sony did. No need to act surprised or cheated. Ya shoulda seen that possibility beforehand.

So?
That's irrelevant.

Let's say the PS4 comes out, and Sony suddenly decides that the PS3 no longer needs to be able to run games.

That kind of fine print is illegal in Europe

Can you point me to a European law or the decision of of a European court that says it is illegal for a seller of software to modify that software post-sale?

And it certainly isn't irrelevant in the United States. There's no law or court decision that I know of in the States that makes it illegal. And if there was, I would know about it. And it's a frequent occurrence. There are any number of software programs that updates themselves to add and remove features. Happens all the time.

Wait what ... I've already provided more information in this thread than anyone, the OP included.
I shouldn't have to dig up case law for your convenience since it's bleedin' obvious what flies and what doesn't if you just look up how the terms and conditions are actually worded differently in Europe.

What's more, if you think a PS3 is software, you're a moron.

The entire argument is over legality and/or the fairness of altering firmware.

Feel free to visit Sony's website where they provide the license agreements for different regions: http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/index.html . If you select the agreement for the Americas and the agreement for Europe and compare the two, you'll see where they are word-for-word identical (in fact, Sony uses the same http link (http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html) to direct users to the license agreements for the two different regions, thus making the license agreements literally "identical"). If you cannot provide support for your assertion that European law makes "X" illegal, then you leave me very little alternative but to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you mistakenly think that the PS3 license agreements for the Americas and Europe are worded differently suggest to me that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

What I think is that a PS3 contains software and it is this software which is licensed to those who purchase and use a PS3. Are you saying that a PS3 does not contain software? That's strange. The license agreement is actually entitled "SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (Version 1.4) FOR THE PlayStation®3 SYSTEM" (emphasis supplied).

The terms "firmware" and "software," when speaking of the programming code found in a piece of hardware, are of loose enough definition to be interchangeable. But if that causes you confusion, we can simple refer to the subject matter of this discussion as "programming code."

The law, I believe, that is being referred to is a part of contract law that means that a contract that is too one sided is considered void. And this is what many people are waiting for as we want a precedent to be set within the game industry to show exactly what kind of agreements are forced upon us. The tone set is "Agree to this long list of agreements that basically make you our *****, if we wish to add a feature that melts your PS3 disks when inserted, and sets fire to your house, that's allowed." Slightly exaggerated but I've had a drink, so can't think of a slightly less extreme one, and the point still stands. Ticking a box is not the same a signing a legal contract, and that is where the law is hazy.

The concept to which you refer is known in the law as an "unconscionable" contract. An unconscionable contract is one in which the terms are so one-sided or unfair so as to "shock the conscience." The concept of an unconscionable contract should not be confused with a so-called "click-through" contract (i.e., a "tick the box" contract). That is an entirely different but related area of contract law. Click-throughs implicate the legal principles of "offer and acceptance" and "contracts of adhesion" (and contracts of adhesion are related to unconscionable contracts because they are often closely scrutinized by courts to determine if they are in fact unconscionable). But, as a legal matter, the law on click-through contracts isn't all that "hazy." Click-throughs have been frequently recognized as a legitimate means of offering and accepting a contract.

And unconscionable contracts are not, contrary to your assertion, generally considered "void." They are considered "voidable." The two are not the same. A "void" contract is one that never existed. A "voidable" contract is one that did exist but can later be avoided. There's a subtle but important difference between the two.

True, I know they are two different issues, I merely brought them both up in the same comment, not meaning to imply they are both the same thing. Also, I was enjoying our conversation, and not having a flamewar, while learning some facts from you about things. But I have a dislike for your tone when talking to Dance of masks. To be frank, it makes you sound pretty pretentious after he simply asked you a question.

My bad, I was talking more in generalities with regards to that. But would you argue that these contracts are not one sided enough to be considered voidable or unconscionable? That to sign a contract with the intention of using that feature (perhaps only that feature) and then have it taken away with no repercussions makes it severely one sided? I am not an expert in law, though I am aware these click-throughs are legal, I merely question whether they SHOULD be so if we are all aware that the majority of people "signing" them do not read it at all, or that you agree to them AFTER buying the product.

If you, like Danceofmasks, start treating me like I'm a fucking idiot who doesn't know anything about the smartphone jailbreak case and inviting me to go find out about a matter of which I'm already fully aware, then I'll probably take the same tone with you, too. That I haven't is only because you've given me no reason to do so. Unlike Danceofmasks.

Most all EULAs are, obviously, one-sided. Whether they are one-sided enough to "shock the conscience" as required by the legal standard is a more difficult call. Reasonable minds can differ on that issue. But "shocks the conscience" is a pretty high standard to reach.

That those who agree to a contract don't bother to read it before agreeing ain't gettin' no one outta no contract. The terms were there to be read if they wanted to read them. That they didn't read them ain't nobody's fault but their own.

EULAs don't apply to the sale of the product. They apply to the use of the product. And you are presented with the terms of the EULA before you use the product, either by discovering them in the product's box (shrink wrap) or discovered as a step towards actual use of the product (click-through). If you don't want to agree to the terms, then take the product back to the seller (shrink wrap) or discontinue the steps towards use (click-through).

Wait, so I'm a fucking idiot as I don't know jack about the jailbreak case? To assume someone doesn't know about something isn't to assume they are an idiot. I accept you know more legal crap than I do, which I only learnt after speak to you for a while.

I would say that buying a box of parts that I can't change in any way, use software other than the pre-prescribed stuff, is allowed to change the functionality of the product at will, or cut your usage for... whatever reason they want? No reason at all?... Is pretty shocking of the conscience.

While not reading a contract doesn't get you out of it, the question is, can they be upheld if everyone knows that barely anyone reads them? Its effectively asking "Tick box to play game".

But that's exactly the problem. If the product has been opened and is not faulty, some shops will not take it back. And if I wish to use the product as anything more than a door-stop, surely is should be part of the buy process, as its integral to the product.

I'm partially aware on the law here, at least in the broadest sense of the word, I'm more questioning on whether the law is correct or not than if that is what the law states. This the point I am aiming at here.

That no one reads them wouldn't matter. The terms are there for the reading if someone chooses to read them. That's what matters. If you are presented with "tick the box or don't play," then those are your options. No one says you have to play. You can always not tick the box.

If the point of purchase won't accept return, then you have legal recourse against them. Sue them to force the return. But what you can't do is agree to the EULA and then not abide by it's terms and argue, "but they wouldn't let me return it."

The law is the law until the law isn't the law. If you want to argue for changing the law, that's one thing. But until you can successfully argue for that change in the law, the law as it is governs. If you wanna first break the law and then argue that the law is bogus, you can do that. But if you can't convince anyone that the law is in fact bogus, then, to paraphrase the famous lyrics, you fought the law and the law won.

 

[Jammy2003]

That's fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games. That's what the PlayStation has done since it started! It's MADE by the gaming division of Sony.

If anyone honestly bought a PS3 with no intention of playing games or Bluray movies on it, get the fuck out of the gaming community and terrorize some other bastards who want to deal with your shit.

Seriously.

THAT'S fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games.

Now, if Sony suddenly decides the PS3 no longer plays movies, DO YOU HAVE A FUCKING RIGHT TO BE UPSET?

"RUNS LINUX" is a feature of the PS3 when it was sold, exactly the same as being able to play blu-rays.

Read further down. I note Bluray movies as well. It plays Bluray movies and games. It's what it does. The PS2, etc didn't NEED Linux, why should any other video game console?

A very vocal minority used it for running Linux. The MAJORITY are actual gamers, who bought it because it's a PlayStation, which has played video games for MANY YEARS.

You're buying the console, yes. You OWN that console, yes. YOU DO NOT OWN SONY'S TECHNOLOGY. It is well within their right to remove/refuse access to anything on THEIR TECHNOLOGY that is causing issues. Do whatever the fuck you like to the CONSOLE. Tweak a setting, update fans, whatever. That's YOUR box. But the tech that runs it IS Sony's.

Fucking hell, extremist hackers/elitist wankers piss me off..

What, a feature only matters because most people use it?!
A PS3 plays games, blu-rays, AND runs Linux.

That was what it was advertised to do.

At the same, it was made clear to anyone who bothered to read the fine print that an advertised feature could be removed at Sony's discretion. Which is precisely what Sony did. No need to act surprised or cheated. Ya shoulda seen that possibility beforehand.

So?
That's irrelevant.

Let's say the PS4 comes out, and Sony suddenly decides that the PS3 no longer needs to be able to run games.

That kind of fine print is illegal in Europe

Can you point me to a European law or the decision of of a European court that says it is illegal for a seller of software to modify that software post-sale?

And it certainly isn't irrelevant in the United States. There's no law or court decision that I know of in the States that makes it illegal. And if there was, I would know about it. And it's a frequent occurrence. There are any number of software programs that updates themselves to add and remove features. Happens all the time.

Wait what ... I've already provided more information in this thread than anyone, the OP included.
I shouldn't have to dig up case law for your convenience since it's bleedin' obvious what flies and what doesn't if you just look up how the terms and conditions are actually worded differently in Europe.

What's more, if you think a PS3 is software, you're a moron.

The entire argument is over legality and/or the fairness of altering firmware.

Feel free to visit Sony's website where they provide the license agreements for different regions: http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/index.html . If you select the agreement for the Americas and the agreement for Europe and compare the two, you'll see where they are word-for-word identical (in fact, Sony uses the same http link (http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html) to direct users to the license agreements for the two different regions, thus making the license agreements literally "identical"). If you cannot provide support for your assertion that European law makes "X" illegal, then you leave me very little alternative but to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you mistakenly think that the PS3 license agreements for the Americas and Europe are worded differently suggest to me that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

What I think is that a PS3 contains software and it is this software which is licensed to those who purchase and use a PS3. Are you saying that a PS3 does not contain software? That's strange. The license agreement is actually entitled "SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (Version 1.4) FOR THE PlayStation®3 SYSTEM" (emphasis supplied).

The terms "firmware" and "software," when speaking of the programming code found in a piece of hardware, are of loose enough definition to be interchangeable. But if that causes you confusion, we can simple refer to the subject matter of this discussion as "programming code."

The law, I believe, that is being referred to is a part of contract law that means that a contract that is too one sided is considered void. And this is what many people are waiting for as we want a precedent to be set within the game industry to show exactly what kind of agreements are forced upon us. The tone set is "Agree to this long list of agreements that basically make you our *****, if we wish to add a feature that melts your PS3 disks when inserted, and sets fire to your house, that's allowed." Slightly exaggerated but I've had a drink, so can't think of a slightly less extreme one, and the point still stands. Ticking a box is not the same a signing a legal contract, and that is where the law is hazy.

The concept to which you refer is known in the law as an "unconscionable" contract. An unconscionable contract is one in which the terms are so one-sided or unfair so as to "shock the conscience." The concept of an unconscionable contract should not be confused with a so-called "click-through" contract (i.e., a "tick the box" contract). That is an entirely different but related area of contract law. Click-throughs implicate the legal principles of "offer and acceptance" and "contracts of adhesion" (and contracts of adhesion are related to unconscionable contracts because they are often closely scrutinized by courts to determine if they are in fact unconscionable). But, as a legal matter, the law on click-through contracts isn't all that "hazy." Click-throughs have been frequently recognized as a legitimate means of offering and accepting a contract.

And unconscionable contracts are not, contrary to your assertion, generally considered "void." They are considered "voidable." The two are not the same. A "void" contract is one that never existed. A "voidable" contract is one that did exist but can later be avoided. There's a subtle but important difference between the two.

True, I know they are two different issues, I merely brought them both up in the same comment, not meaning to imply they are both the same thing. Also, I was enjoying our conversation, and not having a flamewar, while learning some facts from you about things. But I have a dislike for your tone when talking to Dance of masks. To be frank, it makes you sound pretty pretentious after he simply asked you a question.

My bad, I was talking more in generalities with regards to that. But would you argue that these contracts are not one sided enough to be considered voidable or unconscionable? That to sign a contract with the intention of using that feature (perhaps only that feature) and then have it taken away with no repercussions makes it severely one sided? I am not an expert in law, though I am aware these click-throughs are legal, I merely question whether they SHOULD be so if we are all aware that the majority of people "signing" them do not read it at all, or that you agree to them AFTER buying the product.

If you, like Danceofmasks, start treating me like I'm a fucking idiot who doesn't know anything about the smartphone jailbreak case and inviting me to go find out about a matter of which I'm already fully aware, then I'll probably take the same tone with you, too. That I haven't is only because you've given me no reason to do so. Unlike Danceofmasks.

Most all EULAs are, obviously, one-sided. Whether they are one-sided enough to "shock the conscience" as required by the legal standard is a more difficult call. Reasonable minds can differ on that issue. But "shocks the conscience" is a pretty high standard to reach.

That those who agree to a contract don't bother to read it before agreeing ain't gettin' no one outta no contract. The terms were there to be read if they wanted to read them. That they didn't read them ain't nobody's fault but their own.

EULAs don't apply to the sale of the product. They apply to the use of the product. And you are presented with the terms of the EULA before you use the product, either by discovering them in the product's box (shrink wrap) or discovered as a step towards actual use of the product (click-through). If you don't want to agree to the terms, then take the product back to the seller (shrink wrap) or discontinue the steps towards use (click-through).

Wait, so I'm a fucking idiot as I don't know jack about the jailbreak case? To assume someone doesn't know about something isn't to assume they are an idiot. I accept you know more legal crap than I do, which I only learnt after speak to you for a while.

I would say that buying a box of parts that I can't change in any way, use software other than the pre-prescribed stuff, is allowed to change the functionality of the product at will, or cut your usage for... whatever reason they want? No reason at all?... Is pretty shocking of the conscience.

While not reading a contract doesn't get you out of it, the question is, can they be upheld if everyone knows that barely anyone reads them? Its effectively asking "Tick box to play game".

But that's exactly the problem. If the product has been opened and is not faulty, some shops will not take it back. And if I wish to use the product as anything more than a door-stop, surely is should be part of the buy process, as its integral to the product.

I'm partially aware on the law here, at least in the broadest sense of the word, I'm more questioning on whether the law is correct or not than if that is what the law states. This the point I am aiming at here.

That no one reads them wouldn't matter. The terms are there for the reading if someone chooses to read them. That's what matters. If you are presented with "tick the box or don't play," then those are your options. No one says you have to play. You can always not tick the box.

If the point of purchase won't accept return, then you have legal recourse against them. Sue them to force the return. But what you can't do is agree to the EULA and then not abide by it's terms and argue, "but they wouldn't let me return it."

The law is the law until the law isn't the law. If you want to argue for changing the law, that's one thing. But until you can successfully argue for that change in the law, the law as it is governs. If you wanna first break the law and then argue that the law is bogus, you can do that. But if you can't convince anyone that the law is in fact bogus, then, to paraphrase the famous lyrics, you fought the law and the law won.

Well I believe we have come to the end of this now. Some parts we agree, and others not so much, but its been nice discussing this with you and learning some new things. More on topic, as we seem to have drifted, this plea for sympathy is pathetic and contradicts some of their previous statement about how seriously they took security.

Also while I do believe in protecting a company's property and giving them rights over it, I do think that the law is too one sided for the big companies in this case. Particularly, as I pointed out before, because there is no course to change the law here. To show that the law is wrong, a precedent must first be set, and with the legal teams these companies can afford, there is no way someone can hope to set one without first going bankrupt and having to drop the lawsuit. So how can we change the law? While I like to believe in peaceful protest, it rarely works these days. (Ok, I'm expanding beyond just Sony now and into my government so I'll leave that at that)

I argue this is not fair, you argue that until it changes, the law is correct on this. I guess we must agree to disagree for I feel the law is there to protect the people, all of them, and not just those with a larger wallet and a big legal team.

 

[JDKJ]

That's fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games. That's what the PlayStation has done since it started! It's MADE by the gaming division of Sony.

If anyone honestly bought a PS3 with no intention of playing games or Bluray movies on it, get the fuck out of the gaming community and terrorize some other bastards who want to deal with your shit.

Seriously.

THAT'S fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games.

Now, if Sony suddenly decides the PS3 no longer plays movies, DO YOU HAVE A FUCKING RIGHT TO BE UPSET?

"RUNS LINUX" is a feature of the PS3 when it was sold, exactly the same as being able to play blu-rays.

Read further down. I note Bluray movies as well. It plays Bluray movies and games. It's what it does. The PS2, etc didn't NEED Linux, why should any other video game console?

A very vocal minority used it for running Linux. The MAJORITY are actual gamers, who bought it because it's a PlayStation, which has played video games for MANY YEARS.

You're buying the console, yes. You OWN that console, yes. YOU DO NOT OWN SONY'S TECHNOLOGY. It is well within their right to remove/refuse access to anything on THEIR TECHNOLOGY that is causing issues. Do whatever the fuck you like to the CONSOLE. Tweak a setting, update fans, whatever. That's YOUR box. But the tech that runs it IS Sony's.

Fucking hell, extremist hackers/elitist wankers piss me off..

What, a feature only matters because most people use it?!
A PS3 plays games, blu-rays, AND runs Linux.

That was what it was advertised to do.

At the same, it was made clear to anyone who bothered to read the fine print that an advertised feature could be removed at Sony's discretion. Which is precisely what Sony did. No need to act surprised or cheated. Ya shoulda seen that possibility beforehand.

So?
That's irrelevant.

Let's say the PS4 comes out, and Sony suddenly decides that the PS3 no longer needs to be able to run games.

That kind of fine print is illegal in Europe

Can you point me to a European law or the decision of of a European court that says it is illegal for a seller of software to modify that software post-sale?

And it certainly isn't irrelevant in the United States. There's no law or court decision that I know of in the States that makes it illegal. And if there was, I would know about it. And it's a frequent occurrence. There are any number of software programs that updates themselves to add and remove features. Happens all the time.

Wait what ... I've already provided more information in this thread than anyone, the OP included.
I shouldn't have to dig up case law for your convenience since it's bleedin' obvious what flies and what doesn't if you just look up how the terms and conditions are actually worded differently in Europe.

What's more, if you think a PS3 is software, you're a moron.

The entire argument is over legality and/or the fairness of altering firmware.

Feel free to visit Sony's website where they provide the license agreements for different regions: http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/index.html . If you select the agreement for the Americas and the agreement for Europe and compare the two, you'll see where they are word-for-word identical (in fact, Sony uses the same http link (http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html) to direct users to the license agreements for the two different regions, thus making the license agreements literally "identical"). If you cannot provide support for your assertion that European law makes "X" illegal, then you leave me very little alternative but to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you mistakenly think that the PS3 license agreements for the Americas and Europe are worded differently suggest to me that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

What I think is that a PS3 contains software and it is this software which is licensed to those who purchase and use a PS3. Are you saying that a PS3 does not contain software? That's strange. The license agreement is actually entitled "SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (Version 1.4) FOR THE PlayStation®3 SYSTEM" (emphasis supplied).

The terms "firmware" and "software," when speaking of the programming code found in a piece of hardware, are of loose enough definition to be interchangeable. But if that causes you confusion, we can simple refer to the subject matter of this discussion as "programming code."

The law, I believe, that is being referred to is a part of contract law that means that a contract that is too one sided is considered void. And this is what many people are waiting for as we want a precedent to be set within the game industry to show exactly what kind of agreements are forced upon us. The tone set is "Agree to this long list of agreements that basically make you our *****, if we wish to add a feature that melts your PS3 disks when inserted, and sets fire to your house, that's allowed." Slightly exaggerated but I've had a drink, so can't think of a slightly less extreme one, and the point still stands. Ticking a box is not the same a signing a legal contract, and that is where the law is hazy.

The concept to which you refer is known in the law as an "unconscionable" contract. An unconscionable contract is one in which the terms are so one-sided or unfair so as to "shock the conscience." The concept of an unconscionable contract should not be confused with a so-called "click-through" contract (i.e., a "tick the box" contract). That is an entirely different but related area of contract law. Click-throughs implicate the legal principles of "offer and acceptance" and "contracts of adhesion" (and contracts of adhesion are related to unconscionable contracts because they are often closely scrutinized by courts to determine if they are in fact unconscionable). But, as a legal matter, the law on click-through contracts isn't all that "hazy." Click-throughs have been frequently recognized as a legitimate means of offering and accepting a contract.

And unconscionable contracts are not, contrary to your assertion, generally considered "void." They are considered "voidable." The two are not the same. A "void" contract is one that never existed. A "voidable" contract is one that did exist but can later be avoided. There's a subtle but important difference between the two.

True, I know they are two different issues, I merely brought them both up in the same comment, not meaning to imply they are both the same thing. Also, I was enjoying our conversation, and not having a flamewar, while learning some facts from you about things. But I have a dislike for your tone when talking to Dance of masks. To be frank, it makes you sound pretty pretentious after he simply asked you a question.

My bad, I was talking more in generalities with regards to that. But would you argue that these contracts are not one sided enough to be considered voidable or unconscionable? That to sign a contract with the intention of using that feature (perhaps only that feature) and then have it taken away with no repercussions makes it severely one sided? I am not an expert in law, though I am aware these click-throughs are legal, I merely question whether they SHOULD be so if we are all aware that the majority of people "signing" them do not read it at all, or that you agree to them AFTER buying the product.

If you, like Danceofmasks, start treating me like I'm a fucking idiot who doesn't know anything about the smartphone jailbreak case and inviting me to go find out about a matter of which I'm already fully aware, then I'll probably take the same tone with you, too. That I haven't is only because you've given me no reason to do so. Unlike Danceofmasks.

Most all EULAs are, obviously, one-sided. Whether they are one-sided enough to "shock the conscience" as required by the legal standard is a more difficult call. Reasonable minds can differ on that issue. But "shocks the conscience" is a pretty high standard to reach.

That those who agree to a contract don't bother to read it before agreeing ain't gettin' no one outta no contract. The terms were there to be read if they wanted to read them. That they didn't read them ain't nobody's fault but their own.

EULAs don't apply to the sale of the product. They apply to the use of the product. And you are presented with the terms of the EULA before you use the product, either by discovering them in the product's box (shrink wrap) or discovered as a step towards actual use of the product (click-through). If you don't want to agree to the terms, then take the product back to the seller (shrink wrap) or discontinue the steps towards use (click-through).

Wait, so I'm a fucking idiot as I don't know jack about the jailbreak case? To assume someone doesn't know about something isn't to assume they are an idiot. I accept you know more legal crap than I do, which I only learnt after speak to you for a while.

I would say that buying a box of parts that I can't change in any way, use software other than the pre-prescribed stuff, is allowed to change the functionality of the product at will, or cut your usage for... whatever reason they want? No reason at all?... Is pretty shocking of the conscience.

While not reading a contract doesn't get you out of it, the question is, can they be upheld if everyone knows that barely anyone reads them? Its effectively asking "Tick box to play game".

But that's exactly the problem. If the product has been opened and is not faulty, some shops will not take it back. And if I wish to use the product as anything more than a door-stop, surely is should be part of the buy process, as its integral to the product.

I'm partially aware on the law here, at least in the broadest sense of the word, I'm more questioning on whether the law is correct or not than if that is what the law states. This the point I am aiming at here.

That no one reads them wouldn't matter. The terms are there for the reading if someone chooses to read them. That's what matters. If you are presented with "tick the box or don't play," then those are your options. No one says you have to play. You can always not tick the box.

If the point of purchase won't accept return, then you have legal recourse against them. Sue them to force the return. But what you can't do is agree to the EULA and then not abide by it's terms and argue, "but they wouldn't let me return it."

The law is the law until the law isn't the law. If you want to argue for changing the law, that's one thing. But until you can successfully argue for that change in the law, the law as it is governs. If you wanna first break the law and then argue that the law is bogus, you can do that. But if you can't convince anyone that the law is in fact bogus, then, to paraphrase the famous lyrics, you fought the law and the law won.

Well I believe we have come to the end of this now. Some parts we agree, and others not so much, but its been nice discussing this with you and learning some new things. More on topic, as we seem to have drifted, this plea for sympathy is pathetic and contradicts some of their previous statement about how seriously they took security.

Also while I do believe in protecting a company's property and giving them rights over it, I do think that the law is too one sided for the big companies in this case. Particularly, as I pointed out before, because there is no course to change the law here. To show that the law is wrong, a precedent must first be set, and with the legal teams these companies can afford, there is no way someone can hope to set one without first going bankrupt and having to drop the lawsuit. So how can we change the law? While I like to believe in peaceful protest, it rarely works these days. (Ok, I'm expanding beyond just Sony now and into my government so I'll leave that at that)

I argue this is not fair, you argue that until it changes, the law is correct on this. I guess we must agree to disagree for I feel the law is there to protect the people, all of them, and not just those with a larger wallet and a big legal team.

Your position would strike a more sympathetic chord with me if we were discussing an essential product or service like food, clothes, shelter, or even an automobile. But we're not. We're discussing video gaming. If the terms upon which that video gaming is offered to the public are unfair and one-sided, no one's gonna get sick and die if they simply refuse to agree to those terms and do without gaming. In the proposition "agree or don't play," is the option not to play. What confuses me is why so many agree and then wanna gripe about that to which they agreed. I would have thought that the more reasonable response is to not agree in the first place.

And you can fight the law and sometimes win. Apple's got more money than many third world nations. But their attempt to lock out unauthorized applications from their iPhones failed and a modification to their phones that circumvents that lock out was specifically allowed by a revision to the DMCA. The Big Bad Corporation doesn't always win.

 

[JimbobDa3rd]

That's fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games. That's what the PlayStation has done since it started! It's MADE by the gaming division of Sony.

If anyone honestly bought a PS3 with no intention of playing games or Bluray movies on it, get the fuck out of the gaming community and terrorize some other bastards who want to deal with your shit.

Seriously.

THAT'S fucking retarded. It's a VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It PLAYS video games.

Now, if Sony suddenly decides the PS3 no longer plays movies, DO YOU HAVE A FUCKING RIGHT TO BE UPSET?

"RUNS LINUX" is a feature of the PS3 when it was sold, exactly the same as being able to play blu-rays.

Read further down. I note Bluray movies as well. It plays Bluray movies and games. It's what it does. The PS2, etc didn't NEED Linux, why should any other video game console?

A very vocal minority used it for running Linux. The MAJORITY are actual gamers, who bought it because it's a PlayStation, which has played video games for MANY YEARS.

You're buying the console, yes. You OWN that console, yes. YOU DO NOT OWN SONY'S TECHNOLOGY. It is well within their right to remove/refuse access to anything on THEIR TECHNOLOGY that is causing issues. Do whatever the fuck you like to the CONSOLE. Tweak a setting, update fans, whatever. That's YOUR box. But the tech that runs it IS Sony's.

Fucking hell, extremist hackers/elitist wankers piss me off..

You must be a troll. It doesnt matter how small a minority is running linux on the console, they are still out there. And just because previous gens didnt need an otherOS feature doesnt make it something that this gen can take away after offering it. Your overall your argument just seems inflamitory and selfish taken out of hate against a small number of people with so many holes in it that the only conclusion I can take is that you are a troll (or just very stupid).