Sony Hit With 4th "Other OS" Lawsuit

[sunburst]

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.

Even if your arguments were valid, and it's pointless to keep arguing about that, you'd still be wrong because refusing to install the firmware upgrade eliminates your ability to play new Blu-Ray discs, which is one of the most heavily advertised PS3 capabilities, and new games. So even if we're not entitled to the online play and can thus choose to play offline, we are most certainly entitled to both the Other OS option and the ability to play new Blu-Ray movies and games.

 

[LordZ]

-snip-

So, after all this time, your real problem has nothing to do with the legality but the ethics of it? You're mad because Sony is getting sued by a bunch of douches even though Sony brought it on themselves by acting like an even bigger douche?

Yeah, you might have something to argue, if you wanted to go the whole "two wrongs don't make a right" route but you're not going to get much sympathy from the crowd that got screwed.

I have no delusions that Justice isn't going to be served regardless of who wins these lawsuits. Justice would be Sony unfucking themselves by releasing an update that re-enables Other OS but we all know that isn't happening. So, we settle for what little "Justice" we can get.

 

[shadow skill]

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.

You should just admit that you have no idea what you are talking about. Instead of going on about personal responsibility in a case you obviously know nothing about! With respect to the coffee the coffee was actually kept at a temperature that would have burned her throat had she actually tried to drink it! The coffee wasn't just hot, it was unfit for human consumption! She won because Mcdonald's was responsible for the temperature, hot coffee shouldn't be so hot that it causes the kinds of burns that, that woman got.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

Games which you dont have to buy. There is this thing called a user agreement, which you have to agree to to use thier online stuff. Idk about ps3, but the xbox live user agreement has a clause that says they can refuse service to anyone for any reason, and that they can use whatever software they want, and you can either deal with it, or not play. so grow the hell up, adn get the supported OS. What about this is so hard to understand, but like i said, it doesnt matter, because they will win these stupid lawsuits, and the only way those of us who are actually rational will have left to complain is with the stella awards.

 

[Danpascooch]

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.

Thanks, I appreciate that, I try.

 

[Danpascooch]

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.

I have a lot of people screaming at me over this, and I simply can't keep up with it all, it's like trying to play chess against five people at once, so if you still want to debate this, please do it here:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.196734-Why-you-should-support-the-Other-OS-Lawsuits

I made this so everyone who wants to argue with me can read my organized opinion and do it in one thread.

 

[Buizel91]

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 I

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[/quote]

Seriously, i can't believe people are arguing against you! everything you just said should of killed this thread...but people are persistent i suppose, me thinks you deserve something ^_^

6 delicious cookie's ^_^

Edit: Oops Fucked it up

 

[tiredinnuendo]

For the record, I didn't personally use the feature, however I don't believe that they're in the right to remove an advertised feature of the console.

That said, something I've been wondering, because my law skills are far from stellar.

We're talking about two advertised features here: PSN and Other OS. We've established that taking away either of these constitutes false advertising. Anyway, my question:

When does removal of online stop being false advertising?

Like, when the PS4 has been out for a few years and such, if they decommission the now ancient servers that still maintain the PS3 section of the network, does that count as feature removal? Can the guys who bought Halo 2 sue because the "online play" promised on the box no longer works?

Obviously, I get that there's common sense around this. You can't maintain an infrastructure forever, but does selling something that says "online play" mean that, according to the letter of the law, you're contractually obligated to?

If so, man is EA ever screwed. If not, it would seem that there is a way to revoke an advertised feature. No?

- J

 

[spartan231490]

This is what im trying to say, and an message discussion I had with someone:
him
I fail to see how it's such a hard concept to grasp that if you don't follow Sonys rules you can't get on their brodband.

Apparently some people of the Escapist can't grasp that concept.
me
It's because the society of today tells you that it's never your fault. This makes people blame others every chance they get. THere an awards, kinda like the darwin awards, that gives prizes for stupid lawsuits. Stella awards, thats what it's called. THis just fallsd into that category. Personal responsibility has been completely destroyed by today's society, so it shouldnt come as a surprise.
him
Quite frankly I'm done arguing with them. They want a world where companies are accountable for consumer stupidity.
This is an insult to justice, and an insult to the brain.

Some comments want a world where everyone else looks out for everyone else... They've obviously never talked, or met a psychopath.
me
I agree

 

[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"

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.

I have a lot of people screaming at me over this, and I simply can't keep up with it all, it's like trying to play chess against five people at once, so if you still want to debate this, please do it here:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.196734-Why-you-should-support-the-Other-OS-Lawsuits

I made this so everyone who wants to argue with me can read my organized opinion and do it in one thread.

Maybe if you read it, you will finally realize this is NOT about whining OR maturity.

 

[shadow skill]

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.

Games which you dont have to buy. There is this thing called a user agreement, which you have to agree to to use thier online stuff. Idk about ps3, but the xbox live user agreement has a clause that says they can refuse service to anyone for any reason, and that they can use whatever software they want, and you can either deal with it, or not play. so grow the hell up, adn get the supported OS. What about this is so hard to understand, but like i said, it doesnt matter, because they will win these stupid lawsuits, and the only way those of us who are actually rational will have left to complain is with the stella awards.

You should learn to use your brain before telling other people to grow up. Some of us actually understand that the EULA contains things that are not necessarily legal.

 

[CustomMagnum]

... Honestly, I can't believe people are supporting SONY in this. SONY removed a advertised feature of the PS3 from consoles that were purchased when that feature was advertised.

It would be like say, your computer manufacturer updating your computers system to disable your DVD/CD burner years after you bought it. It would be one thing if this was just the Slim not having the Other OS feature, but now they took it from all the Fat PS3's as well.

Honestly, the only reason that I'm NOT trying to get in on one of these lawsuits because of this is because I never used the Other OS system when it was available, nor was it a reason I bought my PS3 anyway.

 

[Danpascooch]

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?

I have a lot of people screaming at me over this, and I simply can't keep up with it all, it's like trying to play chess against five people at once, so if you still want to debate this, please do it here:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.196734-Why-you-should-support-the-Other-OS-Lawsuits

I made this so everyone who wants to argue with me can read my organized opinion and do it in one thread.

BTW, if you just want an answer to this question and not debate it further, my answer is that holding online services as a ransom to get you to give up system functionality (the Linux feature) forces you to choose between the two, and makes sure you only get one of the two advertised features, when it was advertised to have BOTH, not either/or.

 

[spartan231490]

all you want, is someone to hold your hand through life, and everytime you make a mistake they can say: "it's ok, let mommy kiss it and make it better" Grow up, life isn't like that, and you have to live with the consequences of your own decisions/actions, and the way the world is. Scream that it's unfair if you want, but thats the way it is. Or at least, the way it should be.

 

[LordZ]

You should just admit that you have no idea what you are talking about. Instead of going on about personal responsibility in a case you obviously know nothing about! With respect to the coffee the coffee was actually kept at a temperature that would have burned her throat had she actually tried to drink it! The coffee wasn't just hot, it was unfit for human consumption! She won because Mcdonald's was responsible for the temperature, hot coffee shouldn't be so hot that it causes the kinds of burns that, that woman got.

It's called being patient. If she had waited for it to cool like any sane person, we wouldn't all have to be served lukewarm coffee now. Some people like their coffee that hot. I'm sure that if she had special requested them to cool it with ice or something, they would have. How she could hold that cup of hot coffee and not realize how hot it is without spilling it on herself is beyond me. If it's that hot, you can feel it through the cup. If it had been hot enough to melt the cup, that's when she has a reason to be upset.

 

[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 I

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

Seriously, i can't believe people are arguing against you! everything you just said should of killed this thread...but people are persistent i suppose, me thinks you deserve something ^_^

6 delicious cookie's ^_^

Edit: Oops Fucked it up [/quote]

Whew, thanks I could use these, I'm trying to argue with like ten people at once, it's not easy, so I made my own thread, if you want to weigh in there, I'd appreciate it: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.196734-Why-you-should-support-the-Other-OS-Lawsuits

It's nice to know I'm not alone out here, I was starting to think it was me against the rest of the Escapist community.

 

[xavierxenon]

So now thats everyone who used the other OS option sueing Sony?

 

[spartan231490]

Im done. You are all neither amenable to reason, nor using your head. You agreed to it! And they provide the service, there is nothing on gods green earth that gives them any responsibility to provide internet to everyone. To use thier software and internet, you have to obey thier rules, just like to live in your landlords house, you have to pay him rent and obey his rules. If you are all too immature, ignorant, or possibly just too damn stupid to understand that, then you are beyond my help. I'm done arguing with you, go whine to your mothers so they can kiss it and make it feel better!

 

[sunburst]

It's called being patient. If she had waited for it to cool like any sane person, we wouldn't all have to be served lukewarm coffee now. Some people like their coffee that hot. I'm sure that if she had special requested them to cool it with ice or something, they would have. How she could hold that cup of hot coffee and not realize how hot it is without spilling it on herself is beyond me. If it's that hot, you can feel it through the cup. If it had been hot enough to melt the cup, that's when she has a reason to be upset.

Now I'm just as annoyed with the precedents that case set as anyone, likely more so due to how hot I like my coffee, but that particular McDonald's had dozens of consumer complaints against them for how unreasonably hot they kept their coffee. The lady won her suit because the store had previously refused to respond to legitimate complaints after they were told the coffee was far too hot.

You agreed to it! And they provide the service, there is nothing on gods green earth that gives them any responsibility to provide internet to everyone. To use thier software and internet, you have to obey thier rules, just like to live in your landlords house, you have to pay him rent and obey his rules.

And no response to the fact that even if you do give up PSN, you lose the ability to play new movies and games? That's even more important.

 

[tiredinnuendo]

Even if your arguments were valid, and it's pointless to keep arguing about that, you'd still be wrong because refusing to install the firmware upgrade eliminates your ability to play new Blu-Ray discs, which is one of the most heavily advertised PS3 capabilities, and new games. So even if we're not entitled to the online play and can thus choose to play offline, we are most certainly entitled to both the Other OS option and the ability to play new Blu-Ray movies and games.

Wait.... what?

I don't remember when I saw it, but I could've sworn that last count I heard, only something like 70% of PS3's were currently online. Does that mean those people won't be able to play new titles either?

Don't get me wrong, I figure anyone who doesn't hook their system up to the web needs to stop roasting mastadon barehanded over an open flame and join us in the 21st century, but still, really?

- J