Sony Hit With 4th "Other OS" Lawsuit

[LordZ]

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

It's legal when you do it without holding another feature of your product hostage. If they had flat out decided they weren't going to support the PS3 anymore, they could do that. However, forcing people to disable a feature on your own hardware to continue using their service is like Microsoft putting out a patch that disables support bluray drives in order to keep using Windows. Tell me you don't think Sony would light up Microsoft with lawsuits if they decided to patch out Bluray support on all Windows PCs.

 

[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?

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.

Well I've already made my mind up on the matter (specifically, that Sony should keep the Other OS option while still allowing access to the online services), I was simply a little confused as to why you seemed to think that I agreed with Sony. But that answer cleared it up for me, thanks!

 

[spartan231490]

[/quote]

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.

Once again, new movies that they don't have to buy.

 

[sunburst]

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

New games have firmware updates included on the disc and force you to install them in order to play.

 

[shadow skill]

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

Well the distinguishing factor is that PSN is a service. It does not confer perpetual right of ownership to it's users. The law is structured in such a way that it respects the common sense you bring up. These class action lawsuits with respect to "otheros" will logically hinge on whether customers had a real choice in the matter. If the court thinks that customers did, then Sony will win, if not, Sony will lose.

 

[LordZ]

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

Games that require a specific version of firmware to play include the firmware update on the disc. You are the forced to choose to return the game or install the firmware. However, I don't know if this is true for Bluray movies. I'm fairly certain you're just plain screwed if your Bluray movie doesn't work and you have no internet.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly Sony's motives were to remove the Linux OS capability. I thought it was an awesome thing and was very tempted to buy my first Sony console, but after this mess, I'm back to the other side of the fence.

 

[tiredinnuendo]

Well the distinguishing factor is that PSN is a service. It does not confer perpetual right of ownership to it's users. The law is structured in such a way that it respects the common sense you bring up. These class action lawsuits with respect to "otheros" will logically hinge on whether customers had a real choice in the matter. If the court thinks that customers did, then Sony will win, if not, Sony will lose.

That makes good sense, thanks.

New games have firmware updates included on the disc and force you to install them in order to play.

Hm... interesting.

I'm trying to think of a way that doing this isn't a dangerous precendent, but I'm having trouble.

- J

 

[shadow skill]

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.

That makes very little sense as it does not explain why Mcdonalds should serve the coffee at a temperature that would injure anyone who tried to drink the thing. If I ask for a hot bath I certainly do not expect to be scalded by the bath.

 

[LordZ]

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly Sony's motives were to remove the Linux OS capability. I thought it was an awesome thing and was very tempted to buy my first Sony console, but after this mess, I'm back to the other side of the fence.

They're afraid of custom firmware. The PSP got hacked pretty much at day 1 and Sony blames that for the failure of the PSP. Everyone with sense knows the PSP failed because of its poor selection of games and the fact it never lived up to its potential. They think that removing Other OS will stop custom firmware but it wont stop it anymore than any of the dozens of updates for the PSP stopped it.

The fact of the PSP is that it has better features when using hacked firmware than it does with standard firmware. You don't even have to have a desire to "pirate" to want the custom firmware. Sony just has its collective head up its ass.

 

[LordZ]

That makes very little sense as it does not explain why Mcdonalds should serve the coffee at a temperature that would injure anyone who tried to drink the thing. If I ask for a hot bath I certainly do not expect to be scalded by the bath.

I somehow missed the details that it was so hot they were getting regular complaints.

 

[shadow skill]

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly Sony's motives were to remove the Linux OS capability. I thought it was an awesome thing and was very tempted to buy my first Sony console, but after this mess, I'm back to the other side of the fence.

They're afraid of custom firmware. The PSP got hacked pretty much at day 1 and Sony blames that for the failure of the PSP. Everyone with sense knows the PSP failed because of its poor selection of games and the fact it never lived up to its potential. They think that removing Other OS will stop custom firmware but it wont stop it anymore than any of the dozens of updates for the PSP stopped it.

The fact of the PSP is that it has better features when using hacked firmware than it does with standard firmware. You don't even have to have a desire to "pirate" to want the custom firmware. Sony just has its collective head up its ass.

TRUTHS. The PSP really is better when you hack it, which is really sad, though it is not surprising. The PSP has largely rectified the game selection issue but it is never going to catch up to things like the DS which has the games.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly Sony's motives were to remove the Linux OS capability. I thought it was an awesome thing and was very tempted to buy my first Sony console, but after this mess, I'm back to the other side of the fence.

They're afraid of custom firmware. The PSP got hacked pretty much at day 1 and Sony blames that for the failure of the PSP. Everyone with sense knows the PSP failed because of its poor selection of games and the fact it never lived up to its potential. They think that removing Other OS will stop custom firmware but it wont stop it anymore than any of the dozens of updates for the PSP stopped it.

The fact of the PSP is that it has better features when using hacked firmware than it does with standard firmware. You don't even have to have a desire to "pirate" to want the custom firmware. Sony just has its collective head up its ass.

Ah, that does make some sense I guess. Not wanting to take fault for not supporting it well enough. It took forever for them to get a decent sized library of good games, but put any movie they could get onto it. Forever it seemed like it was more developed as a portable movie system than game device.

I hope that Sony, or whoever puts out the next cutting edge handheld, learns to either put 2 analog sticks, or none.

 

[asinann]

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?

At most I would want a refund, I wouldn't sue you for more than I paid.

You still have to pay the lawyers, who in a class action suit are the only real winners.

 

[LordZ]

Well the distinguishing factor is that PSN is a service. It does not confer perpetual right of ownership to it's users. The law is structured in such a way that it respects the common sense you bring up. These class action lawsuits with respect to "otheros" will logically hinge on whether customers had a real choice in the matter. If the court thinks that customers did, then Sony will win, if not, Sony will lose.

That makes good sense, thanks.

New games have firmware updates included on the disc and force you to install them in order to play.

Hm... interesting.

I'm trying to think of a way that doing this isn't a dangerous precendent, but I'm having trouble.

- J

If you want a good analogy for this situation, it'd be like if Microsoft suddenly released a Windows patch that removes Bluray support because they were afraid of Sony profits. You can bet your ass that Sony would light Microsoft up with lawsuits the moment they released such a patch, if it ever happened. Sony brought this on themselves but the lawsuits seemed to filed entirely by morons. None of these lawsuits seem to even come close to covering all of the problems with what they did and they really don't seem to care that much about Justice. They do seem thrilled at the idea of EZ Monies.

Edit: The main difference is in the fictional case, Sony would force Microsoft to re-enable Bluray support in addition to damages. In the real case, Sony will likely settle with one of the lawsuits and continue to remove Other OS from existing consoles.

The only real justice we can hope for is that custom firmware will be released that blows open the PS3 and gives us features we could only dream about previously.

 

[Kouen]

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.

could have something to do with that ps2 backwards compatibility never worked right from the get go

 

[USSR]

Here comes the shitstorm. Why doesnt sony just save face while it has the change and re-install the other OS option

They're stubborn and they think they can still get money off of this <.<

 

[CustomMagnum]

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.

could have something to do with that ps2 backwards compatibility never worked right from the get go

Well, my PS3's backwards compatibility is still working well, I've never had problems with it.

 

[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.

Well I've already made my mind up on the matter (specifically, that Sony should keep the Other OS option while still allowing access to the online services), I was simply a little confused as to why you seemed to think that I agreed with Sony. But that answer cleared it up for me, thanks!

No problem, I believe they should keep the other OS option too, there is no way they couldn't have patched the security hole without removing it completely.