Sony Hit With 4th "Other OS" Lawsuit

[LordZ]

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

It's not an ideal world because puppets like you are perfectly fine with it being that way.

Haven't you ever heard the saying, "the world is what you make it." As long as you support the world being a shit hole, how will it ever be more?

 

[Danpascooch]

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.

It's not at all about what I think is "right" it's about what I think is "legal" and I'll take the Jello analogy as a compliment, because it means you can't nail me down because I'm right.

Just like advanced notice, Sony making it "clear" that they are breaking the law doesn't make it legal, and their business plans (phasing it out) doesn't make it legal either. Company policies do not supersede the law, otherwise I would make a small company and "make it clear that we are holding up banks and that we have plans to "phase out" the money from said banks" and be the most successful and legally justified thief in history.

I don't understand you, you just admitted that what Sony is doing is not "right" and that they are basically using the power granted to them as a mega-corporation to subvert their consumers, and that it's "not ideal" so how could you possibly get enraged with people trying to stop them from doing that? Do you want to just roll over and let them get away with any illegal practice they want? It makes no sense for you to think what Sony is doing is wrong, and yet get mad at people for standing up for themselves.

And like I said before, if McDonalds (bigger than Sony) can lose a lawsuit over a cup of coffee, then it is in no way hopeless to try to hold Sony accountable for this false advertising.

 

[LordZ]

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.

Spoil sport. You know this thread can't continue if people actually read what is posted.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

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

It's not an ideal world because puppets like you are perfectly fine with it being that way.

Haven't you ever heard the saying, "the world is what you make it." As long as you support the world being a shit hole, how will it ever be more?

Because I'm a cynic and a realist.
People aren't nice, fair, or out to help each other. This is a cut-throat world we live in, and if you want to think it can get better fine by me.

Admit it, down deep you're out for yourself and your own preservation. Not others.

 

[Danpascooch]

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.

Funny thing about EULA's, it doesn't make it ok to break the law, or indulge in false advertising.

If it did, I would make an EULA for an online service that said: "We reserve the right to rob you at gunpoint and sell your wives into slavery"

 

[Danpascooch]

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

It's not an ideal world because puppets like you are perfectly fine with it being that way.

Haven't you ever heard the saying, "the world is what you make it." As long as you support the world being a shit hole, how will it ever be more?

Because I'm a cynic and a realist.
People aren't nice, fair, or out to help each other. This is a cut-throat world we live in, and if you want to think it can get better fine by me.

Admit it, down deep you're out for yourself and your own preservation. Not others.

Emo much?

I refuse to roll over and play fetch for companies that abuse their power, it's a better world when we stand up for ourselves, I am a cynic too, but that just motivates me to take action against those I know are doing things that are wrong.

If you have lost the will to stand up for yourself and call out injustices when you see them, you might as well be dead.

 

[Nevyrmoore]

Spoiler: Lickety-snip!

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.

Funny thing about EULA's, it doesn't make it ok to break the law, or indulge in false advertising.

If it did, I would make an EULA for an online service that said: "We reserve the right to rob you at gunpoint and sell your wives into slavery"

...uh, could you tell me what that has to do with the fact that I just pointed out that the part of the EULA that was brought up was addressing Sony Online Services, and not system features?

 

[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.

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"

Yes they already bought the ps3, do you whine that they have to pay for the online content? Maybe I'm wrong and you dont have to pay for online content, but xbox live requires constant payment. As for them already buying it, I was under the impression that they can still play games, just not go online, if so your wrong. If the ps3 can't still play games without the specific OS or if they don't have to pay continually for the internet then you are correct. Otherwise you are wrong, in my opinion. Not that any court will agree with me, people win lawsuits for spilling coffee on themselves for christ's sake. So the point is mute. They will win this bull$hit lawsuit like all the others won thiers, just continuing the degredation of the justice system and morality of our time.

 

[shadow skill]

Well is it any surprise? People actually believe that they don't own the games they purchase even though there is no recurring fee, nor is there a provision in the case of Sony in particular to receive the purchased games back. (Like there would be if you were indeed renting the items.) Just go take a look at the THQ thread in the news section for an example of this kind of idiocy. People think that just because Sony may require that you delete content if your account is suspended in relation to that content, that they require you to delete content if the PSN is discontinued....

 

[sunburst]

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.

A store can ask you to leave if they want and they can refuse you service for any reason, but they cannot sell you eggs for an advertised price then ask you to leave and take the eggs back without refunding your money. These people want their money refunded because Sony's Neighborhood Grocery took one of the eggs they had already purchased.

 

[LordZ]

Because I'm a cynic and a realist.
People aren't nice, fair, or out to help each other. This is a cut-throat world we live in, and if you want to think it can get better fine by me.

Admit it, down deep you're out for yourself and your own preservation. Not others.

I'm an idealist that is prepared for the worst and hopes for the best. I have no delusions about the way the world is but I don't bury my head in the sand and believe the world is the way it is and nothing will change it.

Nice try at believing everyone else is as fail as you.

 

[AngryMongoose]

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.

These eulas often don't hold up so well in court, especially considering how vauge this one is. The words "blah blah blah not responsible for any damage caused blah blah removing features at any time" wouldn't mean they could get away blowing up every console connected online at a specific time.

Because I'm a cynic and a realist.
People aren't nice, fair, or out to help each other. This is a cut-throat world we live in, and if you want to think it can get better fine by me.

Admit it, down deep you're out for yourself and your own preservation. Not others.

Okay, many people aren't nice and fair, which means that, even if you don't think they have the legal right, a bunch of them are about to get some money back from Sony.

Also, no, not entirely. Self preservation is a big part of me, but "preservation" certainly doesn't mean "screwing everyone around me for any slight personal benefit". Most people aren't as fucked up in their world view as you.

 

[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.

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"

Yes they already bought the ps3, do you whine that they have to pay for the online content? Maybe I'm wrong and you dont have to pay for online content, but xbox live requires constant payment. As for them already buying it, I was under the impression that they can still play games, just not go online, if so your wrong. If the ps3 can't still play games without the specific OS or if they don't have to pay continually for the internet then you are correct. Otherwise you are wrong, in my opinion. Not that any court will agree with me, people win lawsuits for spilling coffee on themselves for christ's sake. So the point is mute. They will win this bull$hit lawsuit like all the others won thiers, just continuing the degredation of the justice system and morality of our time.

Sunburst313, read this.

 

[spartan231490]

Stella awards anyone

 

[Buizel91]

I'm going to sound like a complete Muppet, but...

I've been reading the arguments, sniggering at a few comments and what not, but a bunch of letters keep appearing...EULA and USAF.

what do they stand for...and what are they =S

 

[LordZ]

I'm going to sound like a complete Muppet, but...

I've been reading the arguments, sniggering at a few comments and what not, but a bunch of letters keep appearing...EULA and USAF.

what do they stand for...and what are they =S

EULA= End User License Agreement
USAF= United States Air Force

Next time, I suggest google.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

I don't understand you, you just admitted that what Sony is doing is not "right" and that they are basically using the power granted to them as a mega-corporation to subvert their consumers, and that it's "not ideal" so how could you possibly get enraged with people trying to stop them from doing that? Do you want to just roll over and let them get away with any illegal practice they want? It makes no sense for you to think what Sony is doing is wrong, and yet get mad at people for standing up for themselves.

No I don't think you're right, and I never will. You can think that all you want, I really don't give a shit.

Do you know what this lawsuit represents? It represents the degradation of the legal justice system. This case wastes time and money that could be better spent some place else.

If the guy really wanted REAL results that would react into REAL change he'd be filing not just as himself against the corporation, but he'd be filing with the Federal Trade Commission.
The FTC would get him results, Sony would get into more trouble, and they'd probably do what they did before the change... Tell their consumers that the "other OS" isn't supported, and if you want online you must conform to Sony.

Emo much?

I refuse to roll over and play fetch for companies that abuse their power, it's a better world when we stand up for ourselves, I am a cynic too, but that just motivates me to take action against those I know are doing things that are wrong.

If you have lost the will to stand up for yourself and call out injustices when you see them, you might as well be dead.

Do you realize how big of a force you'd need to rally people against the corporations of the world?
How much money? Time?
With the way the world is, we'd be better off focusing on something else at the time.



Side note: Whatever happened to personal responsibility in the world?
That's why the coffee case won: She was personally irresponsible and the company paid for her stupidity.

Sony is now going to pay for a mans inability to be responsible for his system, or to research to product further for possible changes that have happened to it since the time of release.


You people arguing with me: Fine, I'm done with you. I'm just going to now sit back and watch as personal responsibility goes straight out the fucking window.

Self preservation is a big part of me, but "preservation" certainly doesn't mean "screwing everyone around me for any slight personal benefit"

Hi! I'm a diagnosed psychopath, this is how I live. I engage with other people for my own personal gain. PERIOD.

 

[MrGFunk]

Wright is seeking reparations equal to the cost of the console, injunction relief and other damages for him and anyone else in the class, which is anyone in the US who purchased any non-Slim model of the PlayStation 3 between November 17, 2006 through March 27, 2010 and who did not sell their console before March 27, 2010.

Sony have already lost money on the consoles sold during this period, isn't this putting the boot in a bit?

 

[mjc0961]

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

Damn dude, you win the thread. I can't believe people are still trying to argue with you about this.

Yes they already bought the ps3, do you whine that they have to pay for the online content? Maybe I'm wrong and you dont have to pay for online content, but xbox live requires constant payment. As for them already buying it, I was under the impression that they can still play games, just not go online, if so your wrong. If the ps3 can't still play games without the specific OS or if they don't have to pay continually for the internet then you are correct. Otherwise you are wrong, in my opinion. Not that any court will agree with me, people win lawsuits for spilling coffee on themselves for christ's sake. So the point is mute. They will win this bull$hit lawsuit like all the others won thiers, just continuing the degredation of the justice system and morality of our time.

You wouldn't be able to play the newest games without the latest firmware update. The update would be included on the game disc, and it would ask you to install that update before you can play. If you refuse, you cannot play the game.

So not updating allows you to play games that came out before the update that removes Other OS, but none of the games that came out after it. So they are still locking you out of playing the complete PS3 library if you want to keep Other OS.

 

[Buizel91]

I'm going to sound like a complete Muppet, but...

I've been reading the arguments, sniggering at a few comments and what not, but a bunch of letters keep appearing...EULA and USAF.

what do they stand for...and what are they =S

EULA= End User License Agreement
USAF= United States Air Force

Next time, I suggest google.

And get 500 different meanings?? no thanks.

but thank you for telling me =)