Sony Sued Over "Other OS" Option

[Danpascooch]

True.....But if some asshole tried to sue you because they thought they were done wrong by because you knocked a peanut butter sandwich out of there hand that had been rolled in glass would you not think this person is retarded? They can do what they want with their own console and network if someone doesn't like it they can let it be but no....we got people who are sue happy. Its like that lady who sued McDonalds over Hot Coffee.....

I like how that hot coffee thing is the poster boy for lawsuits, the funny thing is, in that case, suing over that coffee was 100% justified, I would have done the same thing.

If you would have researched the example you're using, you'd know that that coffee was outrageously and dangerously too high of a temperature, that 79 year old lady got horrifying third degree burns over 16% of her body (That's a lot more than it sounds when we are talking about the most severe burn classification there is on a frail elderly woman)

So actually, if I got a large portion of my skin absolutely destroyed by being served a cup of coffee hotter than the fucking sun, I would have sued too.

For what happened, Mcdonalds lost two days of coffee revenues, OH POOR MCDONALDS!

i think McDicks should be shut down and everyone who thinks other wise should be shot.....even my friend who is its highest paying customer probably.

I just use that as an example because Coffee is supposed to be hot. The hotter the better. But when someone sues for it being Too Hot. Thats just stupid to me. Thats like trying to sue because you ice is to cold.....

The hotter the better? Indefinitely?

God I hope you're not serious.

Around the point where it is absolutely dangerously hot, IT'S TOO HOT.

That's like saying "You like beer cold right? The colder the better?" then giving someone a beer half full of liquid nitrogen that freezes their windpipe and kills them.

 

[Danpascooch]

The hotter the better? Indefinitely?

God I hope you're not serious.

Around the point where it is absolutely dangerously hot, IT'S TOO HOT.

That's like saying "You like beer cold right? The colder the better?" then giving someone a beer half full of liquid nitrogen that freezes their windpipe and kills them.

K if the Coffee was Boiling i would understand. If its Just hot then its hot. But with the whole Cold Beer that as you said Half Full of Liquid Nitrogen will kill them then thats just stupidity. Anyone who drinks beer will say that The colder the beer after a hot day of work the better. But it doesn't matter we are getting away from the topic. The Fact of the matter is that sony has the right to remove certain features if they feel it will better their console or make it more stable or protect it from being hacked. If you don't like it then don't Download it. Suing over this is stupid and anyone who does it is just trying to get their 15 minutes of fame. I hope the Judge appoints the death penalty to the person suing because suing over something they have every right to do should be punishable by death LOL!

First of all, the coffee definitely was that hot, and it wasn't ok, third degree burns take a lot of heat to make. Of course the colder the beer the better, but DUH, they meant TO A POINT, then it becomes dangerous, either you're splitting hairs or you really do think people want their coffee so hot it hurts them and their beer so cold it kills them, neither option really bodes well for me debating with you.

Secondly, you're either really immature, or unstable, to act as though you are above the people who are suing Sony, yet think that everyone who buys from Mcdonalds should be shot in the head, and these people that sued Sony should be killed.

 

[Oskamunda]

For crying out loud, I'm going to have to quote MY OWN POST.

I know it's long, but it will put an end to the discussion. READ IT, PEOPLE, THE LETTER OF THE LAW IS IN IT.

Okay, in an effort to eliminate rampant stupidity, I just went and called my lawyer to discuss this issue. Here is what he has to say:

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 is the principal U.S. statute for identifying foreign trade barriers due to inadequate intellectual property protection. The 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act strengthened Section 301 by creating Special 301 provisions, which require the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to conduct an annual review of foreign countries? intellectual property policies and practices.

Why and how this is relevant:

Special 301 provisions are the only accepted INTERNATIONAL regulations governing how software is legally protected. What they currently assert is that the consumer DOES NOT OWN THE SOFTWARE THEY PURCHASE. What they own is the right to USE the software, and the distribution of that right is what they have purchased. This is why it is illegal to back up copies of your software and distribute them for free/profit, seeing as the developer of the software still owns said software and thus are the only ones who retain the right to do that. You ARE allowed to back up the software for your own personal use, as not being able to do so would restrict your right as a consumer to use what you have purchased. Some developers go further and state how many times you can back up your product, and some go even further and physically limit the number of times the data on an optical media can be altered or copied. For an ingenious example of this, Starbucks does this with their SBUX CDs that they play in their stores by putting a little line of code in the disc that is an expiration date; after the certain date, which is verified on the internal clock of the proprietary player, the disc will no longer play, even though the format of the disc cannot be played in consumer-level disc readers.

Therefore it is legal for any developer to change their software in any way at any time with or without notice as they still own the software, and the consumers continued use of it is an implied contract in perpetuity of that understanding. Further,

a software developer in no event shall be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of software, documents, provision of or failure to provide services or information, updates to any software or services, or information available from the services.

That's the straight legalese that most developers quote directly in their terms of use contracts. This is international law, not local or national. What all that means is that not only can Sony do exactly what they did, but they are specifically protected from any recourse because of it.

WHAT IS ILLEGAL ARE THE FOLLOWING:

As far as false advertising, the two branches that this issue may fall under are considered "Manipulation of Standards," [in defining what OS may be used for PS3 operation] or "Undefined Terms." [Regarding the longevity of availability of alternate OS] The Federal Trade Commission has two things to say:

The definition of false advertising is "means of advertisement other than labeling, which is misleading in a material respect; and in determining whether an advertisement is misleading, there shall be taken into account (among other things) not only representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to consequences which may result from the use of the commodity to which the advertisement relates under the conditions prescribed in said advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or usual."

And that advertising after the fact can only be considered false if "there is a change in a product or service and there is no corresponding change to any representation made by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any combination thereof, and there exists a current marketing device, whether statement, word, design, device, sound, or any combination thereof that attempts to sell aforementioned product or service under the negated terms due to said change in product or service."

So, unless Sony is actively advertising that the PS3 can still have another OS and is using it as a selling point, it is not false advertising. Furthermore, it is the sole responsibility of the retail outlet to make sure that their advertisement material is current, not the maker of the product or service, and the maker of said product or service are not liable in any way if they don't. [That's why AMAZON partially refunded that dude's money, and not Sony]

What is also illegal is the developer making changes to the HARDWARE under any circumstances other than permissory. This change that Sony has made makes no changes to HARDWARE, only SOFTWARE. If a firmware update caused a green light to turn blue, that would be a hardware change; of the PS3, the only part of it you actually own is the nuts and bolts itself, same with any PC or phone, or what have you...thus it is the only part of the product that you can claim any kind of legal protection for. If the PS3 overheated due to defect and set your house on fire, Sony could be liable for that...but not if the software made it happen, only if some part of the hardware itself was defunct.

There. Boom. Done.

Whether it is all MORAL is an entirely different question. If you don't like it, stop deceiving yourself into thinking the only power you have in corporate society is in your wallet, seeing as theirs are much bigger than yours. The only power you have is in the vote...of representatives who will adequately voice your concerns at assembly when legislation is made, and in first-person voting when the legislative opportunities come to your community. And guess what? If more people vote the other way than yours, the other way will be what is adopted; that's the point of a democratic government. You can't have sour grapes just because more people disagree than agree with your moral philosophy...just make it a point to educate them to make better decisions.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

Ventura, please go jump in front of a moving train. You'll be doing the world a huge favor.

While I can certainly understand your viewpoint, could we maybe rein in the vitriol a touch? Thanks.

 

[Caiti Voltaire]

Pretty sure it says in the legal bumf that they have the right to change the way the machine operates as they see fit, so as much as it sucks, can't really do jack s**t about it.

Sure you can. The governments of most countries have the ability to regulate the markets that operate within their respective countries and they have the option to say "Hey, that thing you're doing really is a dick move and you shouldn't do that."

Do I neccesarialy thing they should? That's another matter entirely, but they can.

 

[Danpascooch]

The hotter the better? Indefinitely?

God I hope you're not serious.

Around the point where it is absolutely dangerously hot, IT'S TOO HOT.

That's like saying "You like beer cold right? The colder the better?" then giving someone a beer half full of liquid nitrogen that freezes their windpipe and kills them.

K if the Coffee was Boiling i would understand. If its Just hot then its hot. But with the whole Cold Beer that as you said Half Full of Liquid Nitrogen will kill them then thats just stupidity. Anyone who drinks beer will say that The colder the beer after a hot day of work the better. But it doesn't matter we are getting away from the topic. The Fact of the matter is that sony has the right to remove certain features if they feel it will better their console or make it more stable or protect it from being hacked. If you don't like it then don't Download it. Suing over this is stupid and anyone who does it is just trying to get their 15 minutes of fame. I hope the Judge appoints the death penalty to the person suing because suing over something they have every right to do should be punishable by death LOL!

First of all, the coffee definitely was that hot, and it wasn't ok, third degree burns take a lot of heat to make. Of course the colder the beer the better, but DUH, they meant TO A POINT, then it becomes dangerous, either you're splitting hairs or you really do think people want their coffee so hot it hurts them and their beer so cold it kills them, neither option really bodes well for me debating with you.

Secondly, you're either really immature, or unstable, to act as though you are above the people who are suing Sony, yet think that everyone who buys from Mcdonalds should be shot in the head, and these people that sued Sony should be killed.

Coffees Hot. Thats my argument.
McDonalds is Filth thats ruining people by killing them so why not speed it up.
Suing a Company over something they have the full right to do is down right retarded. There are people with diminished capacity looking at this saying "Glad i'm not that retarded."

Would you sue Sony Or Microsoft if they said we are no longer going to make games? How about Ubisoft for making a Shitty DRM? I can go on like this all day but in the end they are doing something that is full within their rights of trying to protect their product. If you don't like it tough luck. Don't play online then.

First off, "Coffee's hot" is a dumb argument for the point that it's ok to make coffee so ridiculously and dangerously over the top searing that it causes incredibly serious burning.

Secondly, I don't even use the PS3, so I definitely don't use the Linux feature, and could care less from a personal standpoint about them removing it, so don't bother telling me to "suck it up" and no I wouldn't sue any of those other companies because what they are doing is legal, what Sony did is not, and it's not fully within their rights, as they forcibly removed a feature that was advertised when many people bought their PS3s.

 

[Jumplion]

Secondly, I don't even use the PS3, so I definitely don't use the Linux feature, and could care less from a personal standpoint about them removing it, so don't bother telling me to "suck it up" and no I wouldn't sue any of those other companies because what they are doing is legal, what Sony did is not, and it's not fully within their rights, as they forcibly removed a feature that was advertised when many people bought their PS3s.

Firstly, Read Oskamunda's post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.191686-Sony-Sued-Over-Other-OS-Option?page=4#6028330].
Secondly, what advertising? I have never, not once, seen a Sony add selling the "Install Other OS" feature in any add whatsoever, you cannot use the "Sony used false advertising!" as a retort.

 

[Woe Is You]

The EULA may not, but the users ability to read the EULA after purchase and understand it's scope. Do you know that the Slim PS3's never had the Other OS option? That this update merely affected the Fat PS3's?

I'm pretty sure everyone knows this much. With the Slim PS3s I only view the guys deciding things at Sony kinda sorta stupid but not intentionally malicious. And hey, they're never claimed that those were able to run another OS in the first place.

How many of those do you really think are still in circulation? The other thing I really have to point out, is the update process itself. During the FW update for the PS3, not sure if you're aware, but it prompts you again with a digital copy of the EULA prior to updating every time you download a new FW. For this specific update, there was an additional pop-up that specifically states this will remove the Other OS function and if you desire to install one, stop the update here and do so or wait to install the new FW until after you've gotten your OS squared away. The update doesn't stop you from using another OS, if it's already installed. The partition and functionality will remain.

Ah, but it's removing options either way. Either you choose to use another OS or you choose to game and watch movies on the thing. Neither case really lets the system function as it was originally advertised. When the fat PS3s were sold, the openness of the platform was an advertised selling point. How otherwise would you explain [http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps3/3_15/settings/osinstall.html] these official pages [http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html]?

And the EULA? Well, EULAs have rarely been challenged by the court anyway so this will be one of the first cases where we'll see how it'll hold up in court. What is certain, however, is that you can interpret the EU directive 1999/34/EY [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:EN:HTML] directly contradicting Sony's EULA.

As for the partition, sure, it'll remain but you can't really access it through the PS3. Doesn't that really defeat the point of having a Linux partition?

Seriously, though. Falling back on "it doesn't matter people were shafted because I didn't use that feature anyway" is a crap way of looking at it. I mean, hell, you guys seem to like the idea that companies shouldn't be responsible for what they promise for their hardware. Microsoft getting a class action lawsuit for the RROD would be good for the entire industry, same goes for this mockery of a show Sony's doing. That people accept, no, expect this behavior is kind of disconcerting.

 

[Jumplion]

Ah, but it's removing options either way. Either you choose to use another OS or you choose to game and watch movies on the thing. Neither case really lets the system function as it was originally advertised. When the fat PS3s were sold, the openness of the platform was an advertised selling point. How otherwise would you explain [http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps3/3_15/settings/osinstall.html] these official pages [http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html]?

You call that advertising? That's just instructions on how to use an option, I thought that was, you know, standard for most electronics. That's like if Apple took away the "configure time&date" feature on their iPods and you rebuttal by saying "They showed instructions on how to configure the settings on their website, therefore they advertised it!"

Seriously, though. Falling back on "it doesn't matter people were shafted because I didn't use that feature anyway" is a crap way of looking at it. I mean, hell, you guys seem to like the idea that companies shouldn't be responsible for what they promise for their hardware. Microsoft getting a class action lawsuit for the RROD would be good for the entire industry, same goes for this mockery of a show Sony's doing. That people accept, no, expect this behavior is kind of disconcerting.

Honestly, as I'm thinking about it, I really don't care that some people are complaining about the loss of this feature. I can understand it to a point. What bothers me, however, is the excuses that somehow this is all of a sudden illegal and how it revokes the rights of the consumer and it's false advertising and yadda yadda yadda. It's the mountain out of a regular smallish sized hill that annoys me.

And really, did you compare this to the RRoD? This is the removal of one feature that few people really bothered to use to begin with, hardly affected anyone, but granted it does affect some people. The RRoD affected anywhere from 10% to 50% of the 360's user-base leaving them unable to use their machine indefinitely for a period of time. Don't try to compare the two.

 

[Jumplion]

What part of my post does, 'no it doesen't' fit into, because I can't see the syntax working.

Eh, I was just sort of fumbling words together quickly as I had to leave. Overall the example really didn't make much sense to me.

Regardless I still think (surprise surprise) that Sony isn't really guilty of anything. If you really want to get angry at them for removing a more important feature, get angry at them for removing backwards compatibility, and they only did that to lower the price.

 

[Oskamunda]

Why don't they send out a firmware/security update that stops the exploit.

Because once the first exploit has been successful, it's an uphill battle to keep on top of firmware updates that will counter new exploits while also maintaining compatibility with older games [that is, if the developers aren't going to patch their own games, which they WON'T...at least not on a weekly/monthly basis]. That is, of course, assuming that exploitation of the system garnered through an alternate operating system could be translated to the proprietary operating system...

If you already run strictly off of another OS, then firmware won't do jack...firmware only update the proprietary OS.

Not to mention that system update are still voluntary, even if not installing them reduces functionality of your machine...there's no way to guarantee that those who would exploit security weaknesses would then go and willingly download the updates that patch the holes in the fence.

I didn't see an explanation as to what the exploit was in the OP. Could you enlighten me or should I defer to google?

George Hotz has, through an installation of Linux, bypassed the PS3 Hypervisor [which prevents low-level hardware access from "another OS"], allowing him to have complete control of the machine; read/write capabilities, full processor access, and firmware stalematability. The exploit is so direct and complete, that Sony wouldn't even really be able to release a patch that could directly counter it, just make it much more difficult to employ.

Here is his blogsite so you can FOLLOW THE DRAMA!

http://geohotps3.blogspot.com/

 

[Oskamunda]

What part of my post does, 'no it doesen't' fit into, because I can't see the syntax working.

They're legally within their rights as far as I'm concerned. Ethically, is a different problem.

I don't own a PS3, but I think its important to demonstrate to Devs that consumers have purchased a damn product here, it's theirs. They need to loosen up a little (their shareholders would disagree).[/quote]

They are within their rights, you are correct. Read the above post
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.191686-Sony-Sued-Over-Other-OS-Option?page=4#6031732
for all the legal details. It is very long and boring, but it's all there. The problem with the ethics are twofold:

1] Should software developers retain ownership of the software you have purchased from them after the fact? And, if they do not, how do you manage to maintain security and profitability for the devs?

2] The shareholders would disagree, because in the current business environment, it is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE for a quarter to go by without significant growth. Reasonably, shareholders should expect some quarters to be slower than others; morally, shareholders should put less emphasis on immediate profit growth and shift the focus more towards long-term sustainability.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that the only parts of the product you own are the hard drive, motherboard, processor chip, cables and soldering, and the plastic case on the outside...