Sony Sued Over "Other OS" Option

flying_whimsy

New member
Dec 2, 2009
1,077
0
0
I think a lot of you folks are getting caught up in the technical aspects of this lawsuit; the bigger issue here is going to be the repercussions this will have on consumer rights. If Sony loses, yay, more power for the little guy that gets stomped on because most of us never used an advertised feature so we aren't sad when it gets taken away.

If Sony wins, it'll set a legal precedent that could let electronics manufacturers force any changes they want to any piece of hardware you buy for any reason at any time. It's bad enough we have to contend with DRM and video region restrictions, but this is about companies telling us what we can and cannot do with the hardware we purchase because they simply don't like what we are doing with it. This may seem like a small case, but if we aren't vigilant we'll lose all our freedom as consumers: our ability to buy is our only power in corporate run society.
 

Oskamunda

New member
Dec 26, 2008
144
0
0
Oskamunda said:
danpascooch said:
First off, I think the number of people who bought a PS3 over a 360 JUST BECAUSE they could install another OS is disproportionately low as to use it as an argument of false advertising.
It makes no difference to me who bought it just for the extra OS, or what that persons opinion is, since this is about a lawsuit, and I am viewing it from a purely legal standpoint, and from that standpoint, neither of those are relevant.

These people payed for a PS3 that supports Linux, and they don't have a PS3 that supports Linux, it's very simple.
It DOES make a difference and they ARE relevant from a legal standpoint, as that user's OPINION and their PURCHASE OF THE SYSTEM FOR ANOTHER OS is what the lawsuit is about. His/Her opinion is that it is false advertising, or that they have been deprived after the fact of functionality promised to them, and that they deserve renumeration from Sony. That User is not legally entitled to it, as they electronically signed the EULA EVERY time they got a firmware update.

When Windows NT came out, it offered full DOS compatibility through slight tweaking [or at least, the Brown Disc did, not sure about other releases]. At service pack 2, they removed that functionality, and there was no lawsuit; even though the removal of that functionality cause MY bank to have to rewrite tons of code, seeing as we used DOS-based programs for various functionality. The bottom line is that it IS a frivolous lawsuit that's just being aimed at Sony for some sophomoric BS. Linux supporters are usually elitists [sorry, 733T], ans they always get a bug up their urethra when something isn't supported on their chosen platform.

Just don't update or do.

THAT

is very simple.

But you are right about the car analogy...it was rather unfitting.
 

Oskamunda

New member
Dec 26, 2008
144
0
0
flying_whimsy said:
I think a lot of you folks are getting caught up in the technical aspects of this lawsuit; the bigger issue here is going to be the repercussions this will have on consumer rights. If Sony loses, yay, more power for the little guy that gets stomped on because most of us never used an advertised feature so we aren't sad when it gets taken away.

If Sony wins, it'll set a legal precedent that could let electronics manufacturers force any changes they want to any piece of hardware you buy for any reason at any time. It's bad enough we have to contend with DRM and video region restrictions, but this is about companies telling us what we can and cannot do with the hardware we purchase because they simply don't like what we are doing with it. This may seem like a small case, but if we aren't vigilant we'll lose all our freedom as consumers: our ability to buy is our only power in corporate run society.
I believe you are both correct and incorrect, sir [or madam]. Your first paragraph is genius and I laughed, but I think you are overstating the ramifications in your second. It's not about making changes at ANY time for ANY reason; it's about PIRACY reasons RIGHT NOW. The purpose of DRM and region restrictions is so the economic viability of a company can be maintained. How would you like it if Warner Bros. had to close their doors because you could buy and ship a retail Chinese copy of the Matrix Trilogy for less than $5? Luckily, the movie industry isn't that affected by piracy...but the video game industry is.

There have been people trying to hack the PS3 security since the day it came out, and Sony didn't remove the Other OS option; they waited UNTIL IT HAD BEEN DONE, until it posed a credible threat for the future security for the system. It's not about liking or not liking what you're doing with the system...if it were, they would put in some code that disabled the console if you didn't insert a new retail disc in it once every six months [seeing as they probably DON'T like it if you go six months without buying a console game].

The only people who complain about DRMs and Region Protection are pirates; piracy is ILLEGAL, not Sony's right to protect itself from it. That would be like saying the POTUS isn't allowed to have bodyguards because it would infringe on someone's right to take paprazzi shots of him. As I said, go pirate whatever ELSE you want; the movie and music industries are largely unaffected by it [Because musicians can give concerts and live performances; movies can go IMAX or 3D...these ameliorate the profit losses due to piracy by offering a different experience that cannot be had with a pirated copy. The only way to play a PS3 game is on the PS3...there is no other experience.]. DON'T pirate video games. Please?

The repercussions of piracy in the video game industry is more development houses closing down and shittier, more expensive releases becoming the norm.

Oh, did I mention that PS3 games are region-free? That kind of disarms your argument for Region Restriction, as the only thing you have to worry about is PAL or NTSC. Of course, the same is not true of DVDs, you dirty pirates.
 

flying_whimsy

New member
Dec 2, 2009
1,077
0
0
Oskamunda said:
lots of words and I think you called me a thief
I'd just like to go on the record and state that I have never pirated a game, movie, or music (you know that old saying about when you assume it makes an ass of you and me; I already knew I was an ass, but now I know you are probably one as well. I don't care if I do get banned for that remark I don't like being accused of theft). I object simply because of the principle involved. I own it, so I will do whatever I like with it. And that would be sir, if you please.

As far as piracy goes, as more and more people become computer savvy piracy will inevitably increase; we are at the edge of the age of pure digital distribution. You said "the movie industry isn't that affected by piracy" (good use of affect, btw), and I only disagree in that you need a "yet" at the end of that sentence. It's only natural that we see increases in piracy, especially in youth culture where tech is the new religion; there is little cash and companies make lots of high priced video games each quarter. As a kid, why spend sixty dollars for one game when you can have two over bit-torrent in a couple of days on a mediocre connection? I don't need to deal in $5 bootlegs when I can fire up my internet connection and have all of man's digitized works at my fingertips. The industry is simply having trouble adjusting to this new age and there's going to be lots of problems going forward as companies try to adapt an established model to a completely new and alien landscape.

As far as Sony disabling the feature after it was cracked, well, why didn't they just fix it? Even if they said they were just temporarily disabling it while they fixed the issue would have earned considerably less ire from the community as a whole, but no, they didn't like it so they just broke it so we couldn't play with it anymore. As far as needing a new disc to make the ps3 work, it's an extreme example of the kind of forced obsolescence we already see in computer hardware (iPods are the most guilty of this with parts not made to last); it's just that your example would be commercial suicide if a company were to try it. Although, I suspect it might actually work if they did.

Not everyone that complains about DRM and region encoding are pirates. I've imported movies and had to sacrifice dvd drives to hardwired commercial control. I've lost the use of games due to system upgrades, reformats, and moving. So don't tell me that I am the only person out here who would complain that isn't a pirate. Yes, there are lots of pirates out there and they are only hurting themselves in the long run, but there are legimate reasons to complain when people try to control what you do with the things you buy. Oddly enough, this is a huge issue I have with the cell phone industry right now, but that's a whole different discussion.

Piracy isn't the only thing making games mediocre and bland big business is the main reason for that. As game development costs more, companies are simply less willing to take risks on anything new, especially in this economy. The game industry is following the development cycle of the film industry now that it's gotten mainstream. They even had the same piracy issues with vcr's back in the 80's. Big studios push crap, indie ones produce the occasional gem but mostly crap, and we all suffer because the bar keeps getting lower as committees and research groups design what we buy. It's just that the internet makes piracy far more widespread and gamers just don't realize they are eating their own tails.

The PS3 may be region free, but how long do you think that will last? The Wii was region free, too. Even then, the games are the only thing that you could import for a PS3, you still have to deal with region encoding on movies.

Big picture here: we are moving towards an age where information will have no boundaries; the biggest goal of any corporate or government group will be to control that as early on, because at that point information will be the most valuable thing in the world. That's the view I take whenever I approach an issue such as this, so if I seem to be blowing this out of proportion it's because I don't want the world my children grow up in to be one full of artificial boundaries built on profit margins. I overstated the matter because if you give up the little freedoms the big ones fall soon after. People don't listen to slippery slope advisories, but they turn if you tell them there's a cliff.

So hey, there's a cliff.
 

Brain_Cleanser

New member
Dec 18, 2009
414
0
0
Monster_user said:
Yeah, but computers take up more space, and are just as expensive. Imagine spending $600 on a PS3, and having no money left over for a computer, and having no room at your college desk because the PS3 is on the computer shelf.
Ok, I just wanna take a quick point at this line.
What sane college bound student buys what is a gaming system to use solely as a computer? Most modern laptops which are more than good enough for school are smaller than a PS3 and portable, it only makes sense to get that and if you can't get the game system oh well, bring your old PS2 with you.

Anyway, I never cared abou tthe Other OS option, since I only really use my game systems as... game systems. But it is going to be interesting to see WHAT Comes of this, service wise. I system updated with out anyquestion (Always do unless I hear it's a system killer like the last Wii one). I mean, it sucks to everyone who was using it, to everyone else, eh.
 

VZLANemesis

New member
Jan 29, 2009
414
0
0
danpascooch said:
Pendragon9 said:
VZLANemesis said:
Pendragon9 said:
I still don't get why people would want to install another OS. Again, you can always just buy a computer for that stuff.

Oh well. People surprise me sometimes.
They don't, but they wanna be ABLE to do it...
It's the ability to sue for it thats important, thinking that SONY will settle with huge loads of money, just to avoid bad publicity... which they probably will.

Also, Sony won't probably allow that feature back into the PS3, because that would make it wide open for hackers to soft-mod it and play "copies".
Exactly. I don't know why people are complaining. It's either this or horrible DRM implemented in games.

What is Sony supposed to do? If someone really hacked the PS3, you guys wouldn't get online anyway as this hacker would likely DDOS the PSN store and PSN in general. Not to mention steal your accounts.

It's a sad lose/lose situation where someone will want to sue no matter what. To all you guys supporting the guys suing Sony, why don't you sue the hacker? They're responsible.
They can't sue the hacker, that wouldn't make any sense.

Sony is taking away the feature, so they are suing Sony, whether you personally thought the OS feature was useful is irrelevant, because the people suing obviously used it.

If it was a security hole, Sony never should have included it from the start, but they can't just take it away now.
The people suing didn't have to OBVIOUSLY have used it... they just wanted to sue because something was taken from them THE CHOICE to install another OS, I don't have to use the mp3 player in my gps, but if a firmware update takes it away... well...
 

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
This is a lawsuit where the plaintiff is just looking for a handout. Sony was quite in their rights to remove the Open OS option. Sony would simply argue that the PS3 still does what it was made to do, play PS3 games. Anything else wouldn't have necessarily been supported.
Much as I am one to stick it to the man, this person is doing it wrong.
Kudos for the other guy who got some money out of Amazon. That was clever. Most likely Amazon isn't going to repeat that for too much longer, though.
This case might be interesting to follow during commercial breaks of Activision v Infinity Ward: The Poo-Fling Continues.
 

Shannon Olivas

New member
Apr 25, 2010
3
0
0
One problem is that for import reasons it is cheaper for sony to classify the playstation 3 as a personal computer. So they did. This is in part what the whole other os, support of usb devices and websurfing functions were intended to enforce. The perception that this is, as they told the nice folks at the tax offices, a personal computer. That will refuse to go online with anyone else's operating system. You bet they've stepped on some legal toes there.
 

DemonCrim

New member
Feb 17, 2009
53
0
0
tk1989 said:
I'm sorry, but in the UK this move essentially makes the PS3 unfit for purpose. At the time of buying the PS3 it advertised the ability to have a second OS, if they remove that then they are breaking the buyers statutory rights, not taking into account European law which would also be broken.

You accept an EULA, yes, but when you buy a product you are making a contract there too, one which stipulates that the product will act as intended and as advertised. When they took away the other OS option the PS3 no longer worked as advertised and that contract is effectively being broken.
But by agreeing to EULA before you updated you agreed that you know that the function would be removed and to put it plainly that you didn't care and the second contract is just as binding as the first. Even if you say laws are being broken ( I live in the U.S so Euro law is still a little hazy to me.) you gave up your right in the matter. Personally I never used the Other OS option, didn't need too and as far as I could tell the OS that you could install sucked pretty badly.
 

DemonCrim

New member
Feb 17, 2009
53
0
0
Shannon Olivas said:
One problem is that for import reasons it is cheaper for sony to classify the playstation 3 as a personal computer. So they did. This is in part what the whole other os, support of usb devices and websurfing functions were intended to enforce. The perception that this is, as they told the nice folks at the tax offices, a personal computer. That will refuse to go online with anyone else's operating system. You bet they've stepped on some legal toes there.
Most of that functionality is still there just not in the way people want it to be.
 

mikerotch

New member
Dec 12, 2009
16
0
0
i dont think i understand this someone is sueing playstation because they are taking down a function that causes potential security risks?
 

Diddy_King

New member
Jul 9, 2009
132
0
0
While I never used the OS myself I kind of want this to succeed just for the hell of it. A lot of people have been pissed off by Sony and how they do things. Advertising backwards compatibility and then putting out a system that "has" it but runs it so poorly you are pretty much required to keep or purchase a PS2 if you want to play half of their games, etc. That's caused me more annoyance than anything Microsoft has done and I've had to send my 360 in to them for repair.

I've always held the opinion (and still do) that PS3 is the better system overall in terms of power, graphics, future potential. But you can only take so many "F*** You's" before you start to lose faith in a company.
 

Woe Is You

New member
Jul 5, 2008
1,444
0
0
Jumplion said:
1. Sony has every right to do whatever the hell they want with their console, it's in their EULA or whatever. If they decided to remove the function of playing the games themselves, fine. It'd be incredibly stupid, of course, but that's within their right.
2. I really can't see any real reason to use the "Other OS" option aside from minor internet porn surfing and/or pirating games.
3. It hardly affected anyone, and this lawsuit is just someone who doesn't like change.
Oh come on, I can't believe you're even defending a big company doing such actions.

As has been said many times: the EULA doesn't override the law of whatever country you're in. Also in general, your arguments seem to be hinging on the whole "didn't affect me so it shouldn't bother anyone else either" premise. For one, there hasn't been piracy on the PS3 so far and talking about OtherOS as if it's just for web surfing leads me to believe you have no idea what an operating system actually is.

Which leads me to...

Oskamunda said:
The only people who complain about DRMs and Region Protection are pirates;
Wait, what? The ones complaining about DRMs and region protection are the ones affected by them. Pirates do not belong there. Your average John Pirate gets an experience with all the hindrances, nag ads and protection removed, so they have no reason to complain about anything.
 

tk1989

New member
May 20, 2008
865
0
0
DemonCrim said:
tk1989 said:
I'm sorry, but in the UK this move essentially makes the PS3 unfit for purpose. At the time of buying the PS3 it advertised the ability to have a second OS, if they remove that then they are breaking the buyers statutory rights, not taking into account European law which would also be broken.

You accept an EULA, yes, but when you buy a product you are making a contract there too, one which stipulates that the product will act as intended and as advertised. When they took away the other OS option the PS3 no longer worked as advertised and that contract is effectively being broken.
But by agreeing to EULA before you updated you agreed that you know that the function would be removed and to put it plainly that you didn't care and the second contract is just as binding as the first. Even if you say laws are being broken ( I live in the U.S so Euro law is still a little hazy to me.) you gave up your right in the matter. Personally I never used the Other OS option, didn't need too and as far as I could tell the OS that you could install sucked pretty badly.
Yeah, but people are pissed off because if the new update isn't installed then another feature of the PS3 has become inaccessible, PSN. Either way Sony is making people choose between the two, when the system should allow both to be available at the same time. Therefore, there is a breach of contract as the PS3 is not working as advertised.
 

LTK_70

New member
Aug 28, 2009
598
0
0
Man, that really sucks for Sony. It's just a no-win scenario: Either keep the Other OS option and risk liability when someone's console gets hacked into, at which point they might get sued. Or remove the security risk by taking out the Other OS option, and instead get sued for fraudulent behaviour. Maybe it would have been a better option to inform the users of the security risk they had with this option, would that mean Sony can't be sued when someone does hack the console?
 

ClunkiestTurtle

New member
Feb 19, 2010
239
0
0
This is just pathetic....

This seek to sue culture is just disgusting and the fact that the legal system is actually starting to look like it supports it is even more concerning, what ever these people think they are going to get from sony from their greed will pale in comparison to what the lawyers on either side get from it so its clear who will have the last laugh what ever the outcome.

People who abuse the system to bring about suits as transparently greedy as this blemish it for people who really have been wronged and had their rights infringed by such big name companies.