Sony Hit With 4th "Other OS" Lawsuit

[Danpascooch]

You do realize that the EULA does not actually superceede state or federal laws don't you? In fact the suit alleges that the section dealing with their ability to change the terms at any time violates civil code in that state at least.

And do you realize that an EULA is a binding contract?

Okay I read the first few lines so far, and this lawsuit is total BULLSHIT.
SCE gave out PLENTY of notice before they made the console change. They put warnings that they'd be removing the "Other OS" feature, and that you'd need to remove it to get onto PSN and other functions.

The fault is on the man for not changing when he was given time. He wants Linux? BUY A PC.

I can ONLY understand the USAF complaining about this change as they were using it for research, but when average citizens complain about this shit it makes me rage.

Sure it's a binding contract, but that STILL doesn't mean they can indulge in False Advertising, or commit other crimes. If the EULA said "We reserve the right to rob you at gunpoint" could they do it? Fuck no! Because even if it is a binding contract, they are still subject to State and Federal laws, and the law takes priority over the contract.

From a legal standpoint, any amount of notice they gave is irrelevant, no matter how much 'notice' you give someone, illegal is illegal.

Your opinion on whether they should own a PC, how many people use the feature, or whether you think it's worth it is also irrelevant legally.

Reading the "first few lines" doesn't make you an expert, and an EULA doesn't give you full immunity to commit crimes.

 

[shadow skill]

You do realize that the EULA does not actually superceede state or federal laws don't you? In fact the suit alleges that the section dealing with their ability to change the terms at any time violates civil code in that state at least.

And do you realize that an EULA is a binding contract?

Okay I read the first few lines so far, and this lawsuit is total BULLSHIT.
SCE gave out PLENTY of notice before they made the console change. They put warnings that they'd be removing the "Other OS" feature, and that you'd need to remove it to get onto PSN and other functions.

The fault is on the man for not changing when he was given time. He wants Linux? BUY A PC.

I can ONLY understand the USAF complaining about this change as they were using it for research, but when average citizens complain about this shit it makes me rage.

You just failed so hard it is not even funny.

 

[Danpascooch]

This is rediculous. Grow the hell up and use the supported OS.

That's not what this is about, it's not exclusively about the people who got screwed over in this specific case, it's about keeping companies in line, and making sure that they don't use EULA's to justify breaking the law, because whether or not it says you can do it in the EULA, it's still illegal to break the law.

You need to take a wider perspective on this, it's about setting a precedent for other companies, it's an important case.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

The EULA has limits, for example, if you bought the console, and the EULA said "oh by the way, this console cannot play games, all it does is show you this EULA" it wouldn't be legal!

I will only say this once: "A EULA DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO BREAK THE LAW BECAUSE IT STATES THAT YOU RESERVE THE RIGHT TO BREAK THE LAW"

False advertising is false advertising.

Sony gave enough fair warning BEFORE the change in system requirements for him to make the decision to either buy or not buy another PS3.
HE is at fault.
The fat PS3 and its features have been phazed out and there was warning given out.

I don't think you really understand how much power mega corporations have over government and laws now.
Is it fucked up? Yes.
Is it right? No.

This is the way things are now.

No it's not, because it's not THEIR machine, it's YOUR machine, you bought it for Christ's sake!

Why do people seem to think the company that made the product still owns it even after you paid for it? It seems to be a growing trend lately, especially with Apple.

These people BOUGHT the PS3, that means they own it, and are immune to having Sony do the equivalent of show up at their front door and repossess a piece of it because they feel like it!

It may not be THEIR machine, but it is THEIR internet service and you WILL abide by their rules or you won't get on.

He wants to keep his Lunix? FINE, he just can't use that specific PS3 online.
SONY IS IN THE RIGHT HERE.

 

[LordZ]

You do realize that the EULA does not actually superceede state or federal laws don't you? In fact the suit alleges that the section dealing with their ability to change the terms at any time violates civil code in that state at least.

And do you realize that an EULA is a binding contract?

Okay I read the first few lines so far, and this lawsuit is total BULLSHIT.
SCE gave out PLENTY of notice before they made the console change. They put warnings that they'd be removing the "Other OS" feature, and that you'd need to remove it to get onto PSN and other functions.

The fault is on the man for not changing when he was given time. He wants Linux? BUY A PC.

I can ONLY understand the USAF complaining about this change as they were using it for research, but when average citizens complain about this shit it makes me rage.

Funny you say this since that part of the EULA was added after the update the removes "other os" so, even if I could accept your BS line that EULA magically overrides law (which it doesn't), it's wasn't even part of the EULA that people suing Sony agreed to.

So, you fail on both accounts. EULA does no override law. That part of the EULA was not agreed upon by anyone who did not update their firmware. The only one pulling illegal bullshit here is Sony.

 

[Danpascooch]

The EULA has limits, for example, if you bought the console, and the EULA said "oh by the way, this console cannot play games, all it does is show you this EULA" it wouldn't be legal!

I will only say this once: "A EULA DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO BREAK THE LAW BECAUSE IT STATES THAT YOU RESERVE THE RIGHT TO BREAK THE LAW"

False advertising is false advertising.

Sony gave enough fair warning BEFORE the change in system requirements for him to make the decision to either buy or not buy another PS3.
HE is at fault.
The fat PS3 and its features have been phazed out and there was warning given out.

I don't think you really understand how much power mega corporations have over government and laws now.
Is it fucked up? Yes.
Is it right? No.

This is the way things are now.

No it's not, because it's not THEIR machine, it's YOUR machine, you bought it for Christ's sake!

Why do people seem to think the company that made the product still owns it even after you paid for it? It seems to be a growing trend lately, especially with Apple.

These people BOUGHT the PS3, that means they own it, and are immune to having Sony do the equivalent of show up at their front door and repossess a piece of it because they feel like it!

It may not be THEIR machine, but it is THEIR internet service and you WILL abide by their rules or you won't get on.

He wants to keep his Lunix? FINE, he just can't use that specific PS3 online.
SONY IS IN THE RIGHT HERE.

You think these corporations can break the law because of their "power" and then argue that they're "in the right"? Dude, did you hit your head?

I'll say it again, advance notice and warning is irrelevant, if it's a crime it's a crime, if it's not a crime it's not a crime, advance warning does not change its legality.

You have to be kidding me, you're saying they "gave him enough warning to decide whether to buy another PS3" you are completely missing the point, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BUY ANOTHER PS3!

One last time [HEADING=3] STOP ARGUING ABOUT ADVANCE NOTICE, IT DOESN'T MAKE A LEGAL ACT ILLEGAL, AND IT DOESN'T MAKE AN ILLEGAL ACT LEGAL, SO IT IS IRRELEVANT![/HEADING]

Also, just because they have "rules" for their online service, doesn't mean those rules can supersede the law any more than the EULA can, THE LAW TAKES PRIORITY OVER ANY EULA'S OR RULES SONY HAS

You're saying "well then he just has to choose between Linux or PSN" to which I reply EXACTLY if you had read the news story fully, you would know that's WHAT THIS CASE IS OVER! When a machine is advertised to have two functions, and you buy it, it either has those two functions, or it's false advertising, the PS3 doesn't have those two functions anymore, it has one OR the other, and so it is false advertising, regardless of any notice or private rules Sony has.

Don't pretend like Sony has enough "Power" to break the law and get away with it, if Mcdonald's can lose millions because a woman got horribly burned by a cup of their coffee, Sony can lose this lawsuit too.

EDIT: Anyone else think Sony is "right" and want to debate with me about it? I'm on a roll here

 

[spartan231490]

This is rediculous. Grow the hell up and use the supported OS.

That's not what this is about, it's not exclusively about the people who got screwed over in this specific case, it's about keeping companies in line, and making sure that they don't use EULA's to justify breaking the law, because whether or not it says you can do it in the EULA, it's still illegal to break the law.

You need to take a wider perspective on this, it's about setting a precedent for other companies, it's an important case.

They didn't break the law, it's thier internet, and they can have it supported with whatever OS they want. They can charge u for the privelige of being online which proves it is a privelige provided by them, which they can take for whatever reason they want. As I said, If you want to play online, Grow the hell up and use the supported OS. I admit, the PS3 should provide a free method of attaining the supported OS, but thats the only obligation they have, and that could be argued if they wanted to because they undoubtedly do the same thing that any store or online provider does. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason." If I'm not mistaken, xbox live has that disclaimer and this could easily fall under that category.

 

[Danpascooch]

This is rediculous. Grow the hell up and use the supported OS.

That's not what this is about, it's not exclusively about the people who got screwed over in this specific case, it's about keeping companies in line, and making sure that they don't use EULA's to justify breaking the law, because whether or not it says you can do it in the EULA, it's still illegal to break the law.

You need to take a wider perspective on this, it's about setting a precedent for other companies, it's an important case.

They didn't break the law, it's thier internet, and they can have it supported with whatever OS they want. They can charge u for the privelige of being online which proves it is a privelige provided by them, which they can take for whatever reason they want. As I said, If you want to play online, Grow the hell up and use the supported OS. I admit, the PS3 should provide a free method of attaining the supported OS, but thats the only obligation they have, and that could be argued if they wanted to because they undoubtedly do the same thing that any store or online provider does. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason." If I'm not mistaken, xbox live has that disclaimer and this could easily fall under that category.

The EULA does not supercede the law, false advertising is false advertising, and they cannot break the law just because it is "their internet"

It's not about "growing the hell up" it's about showing companies that they aren't allowed to do whatever they want.

If you bought the PS3 and the EULA said "this machine cannot play games" would that be legal? EULA's are not above the law.

Like I said before, this mentality that companies can do whatever they want to a machine that you BOUGHT is outrageous, you PAYED FOR IT therefore YOU OWN IT! and it seems to be a growing mentality that the company that made a machine still owns it even though you paid for it, especially with Apple. It's very concerning, and DEAD WRONG!

 

[LordZ]

-snip-

Don't you know, it's not rape if you yell "Surprise!"

I can't believe a 4chan quote applies so well to this conversation.

 

[Danpascooch]

The simple fact that people think the USAF is justified and these people aren't puts a full spotlight on their legal ignorance.

If it's illegal it's illegal, regardless of how awesome the victim is.

 

[Woe Is You]

One last time [HEADING=3] STOP ARGUING ABOUT ADVANCE NOTICE, IT DOESN'T MAKE A LEGAL ACT ILLEGAL, AND IT DOESN'T MAKE AN ILLEGAL ACT LEGAL, SO IT IS IRRELEVANT![/HEADING]

Just chiming in to mention his "advance notice" actually happened merely days before the actual update and just a month before the update we got to hear how Sony has no intention of removing the feature.

So not only is it irrelevant, there barely was no big advance notice to begin with.

I don't think you really understand how much power mega corporations have over government and laws now.
Is it fucked up? Yes.
Is it right? No.

This is the way things are now.

So you're basically raging over people giving a shit about companies screwing them over because you don't. Splendid.

 

[darkszero]

I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

By this standard, Sony could remove the ability to play games. Imagine the situation where the ps4 comes out, so Sony stops the ps3 from being able to play games to get more ps4 sales. Doesn't this sound ridiculous?

They did that with the PS3/PS2 backwards compatibility, there was a little angst, but nothing along the lines of a lawsuit.

Those who had a PS3 with backwards compatibility could still use it. They removed it from new PS3.
This one affects all PS3, both old and new.

 

[spartan231490]

This is rediculous. Grow the hell up and use the supported OS.

That's not what this is about, it's not exclusively about the people who got screwed over in this specific case, it's about keeping companies in line, and making sure that they don't use EULA's to justify breaking the law, because whether or not it says you can do it in the EULA, it's still illegal to break the law.

You need to take a wider perspective on this, it's about setting a precedent for other companies, it's an important case.

They didn't break the law, it's thier internet, and they can have it supported with whatever OS they want. They can charge u for the privelige of being online which proves it is a privelige provided by them, which they can take for whatever reason they want. As I said, If you want to play online, Grow the hell up and use the supported OS. I admit, the PS3 should provide a free method of attaining the supported OS, but thats the only obligation they have, and that could be argued if they wanted to because they undoubtedly do the same thing that any store or online provider does. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason." If I'm not mistaken, xbox live has that disclaimer and this could easily fall under that category.

The EULA does not supercede the law, false advertising is false advertising, and they cannot break the law just because it is "their internet"

I'm going to say this once, using an analogy. They DID NOT break the law. A store that advertises as selling you say, eggs for a certain price, still has the right to kick you out for pretty much any reason they want. In this situation, thier advertisement is "false" cuz you cant buy eggs for that price, but it is still thier right. This is basically the same thing. Grow the hell up, and get the supported OS.

 

[Danpascooch]

This is rediculous. Grow the hell up and use the supported OS.

That's not what this is about, it's not exclusively about the people who got screwed over in this specific case, it's about keeping companies in line, and making sure that they don't use EULA's to justify breaking the law, because whether or not it says you can do it in the EULA, it's still illegal to break the law.

You need to take a wider perspective on this, it's about setting a precedent for other companies, it's an important case.

They didn't break the law, it's thier internet, and they can have it supported with whatever OS they want. They can charge u for the privelige of being online which proves it is a privelige provided by them, which they can take for whatever reason they want. As I said, If you want to play online, Grow the hell up and use the supported OS. I admit, the PS3 should provide a free method of attaining the supported OS, but thats the only obligation they have, and that could be argued if they wanted to because they undoubtedly do the same thing that any store or online provider does. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason." If I'm not mistaken, xbox live has that disclaimer and this could easily fall under that category.

The EULA does not supercede the law, false advertising is false advertising, and they cannot break the law just because it is "their internet"

I'm going to say this once, using an analogy. They DID NOT break the law. A store that advertises as selling you say, eggs for a certain price, still has the right to kick you out for pretty much any reason they want. In this situation, thier advertisement is "false" cuz you cant buy eggs for that price, but it is still thier right. This is basically the same thing. Grow the hell up, and get the supported OS.

For the last time, it's not about "growing up" it's about setting a precedent, hell I don't even USE the PS3.

and that analogy doesn't hold, because these people already bought the PS3, a more fitting analogy would be if you bought the eggs, and two years later the guy showed up at your door and said "our advertised price for eggs has changed since you bought them, I need you to give me more money"

 

[LordZ]

I'm going to say this once, using an analogy. They DID NOT break the law. A store that advertises as selling you say, eggs for a certain price, still has the right to kick you out for pretty much any reason they want. In this situation, thier advertisement is "false" cuz you cant buy eggs for that price, but it is still thier right. This is basically the same thing. Grow the hell up, and get the supported OS.

Relying on a fail analogy doesn't make your fail argument not fail.

I'd like to see a bit more rage while you support Sony screwing its own customer base and saying how legal it is in spite of what the law says.

 

[Danpascooch]

One last time [HEADING=3] STOP ARGUING ABOUT ADVANCE NOTICE, IT DOESN'T MAKE A LEGAL ACT ILLEGAL, AND IT DOESN'T MAKE AN ILLEGAL ACT LEGAL, SO IT IS IRRELEVANT![/HEADING]

Just chiming in to mention his "advance notice" actually happened merely days before the actual update and just a month before the update we got to hear how Sony has no intention of removing the feature.

So not only is it irrelevant, there barely was no big advance notice to begin with.

I don't think you really understand how much power mega corporations have over government and laws now.
Is it fucked up? Yes.
Is it right? No.

This is the way things are now.

So you're basically raging over people giving a shit about companies screwing them over because you don't. Splendid.

Lol, That's exactly what he's doing, this is going to be difficult, because the hardest people to argue with are always the ones that are irrational and make arguments that make no sense.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

SNIP

Arguing with you is like trying to nail jello to a tree.

No matter what you think is "right" Sony will either win this, or settle this and still get away with it.
You may be on a roll with your logic, but this won't end in this mans favor.

The box for the fat PS3 may have said that it supported Linux, but Sony has made it very clear that they no longer support that, and the fats features have been phazed out.

So he's complaining he can't use PSN because he doesn't want to follow their rules. Tough it is their brodband, their rules.

It may not be right, but Sony is right here.

So you're basically raging over people giving a shit about companies screwing them over because you don't. Splendid.

It's not what I'd call an ideal world, but it's the best we got.

 

[Danpascooch]

I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

By this standard, Sony could remove the ability to play games. Imagine the situation where the ps4 comes out, so Sony stops the ps3 from being able to play games to get more ps4 sales. Doesn't this sound ridiculous?

They did that with the PS3/PS2 backwards compatibility, there was a little angst, but nothing along the lines of a lawsuit.

That's different, they did not forcibly remove a feature from something that somebody had ALREADY PURCHASED, they simply did not include a feature in a future product.

 

[Nevyrmoore]

I'm amazed that people are getting their panties in a knot over something like this. For the air force it was kind of understandable but people suing for this is just ridiculous.

If sold you a laptop that you ran linux and windows on, and then a few years later updated it to make linux impossible to use, would I have damaged you and in fact removed functionality of your product that you paid for? Should you not have some way to pursue me?

Maybe they don't like the fact that they were lied to, and are having an option them swung them into buying a console removed without prior warning?

This is a perfectly legitimate lawsuit, doubly so for the people using the other os feature.

This is taken directly from the PlayStation EULA (End User License Agreement)

SCEA reserves the right to remove any content and communication from Sony Online Services at SCEA's sole discretion without notice.

[HEADING=1]Thread OVER[/HEADING]
Sony had every legal right to do this, they just should have read the EULA.

You need to re-read that. It says they have the right to remove content from Sony Online Services.

The Other OS option is not online content.