PS3 Owner Refunded For Missing "Other OS"

Toxicgonzo writes "Amazon has given a European PS3 owner a 20% refund for removal of the PS3's OtherOS feature. (We recently discussed hacker Geohot's efforts to restore this feature.) The owner cited European law Directive 1999/44/EC — which states that goods must (1) comply with the description given by the seller and possess the same qualities and characteristics as other similar goods, and (2) be fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase. How many other European PS3 owners will follow suit? If Amazon forwards the bill to Sony, how will Sony respond?"

Comments

Justice

[headkase]

This is justice for anyone who was actually affected by the removal. And feedback for Sony for future decisions.

Re:Justice

[Coopjust]

Justice for anyone who lives and purchased their console from a European retailer.

In the US, the best I can probably hope for is a class action in which lawyers will make millions and I'll get a $10 coupon off of a PS3 game.

And Geohot's hack only works if you are on 3.15 or below, if you're on 3.20 (which has the other OS feature, last firmware to do so), you're out of luck.

Re:Justice

[Vanderhoth]

The issue is it was Amazon that had to pay out not Sony. That being said if Amazon had to pay out to a S*** load of people they'd probably take Sony on. One large corporation taking on another has a better chance then a bunch of Linux geeks, but at best Sony would just have to pay out. I bought my PS3 for the other OS feature and I want to keep it.

If I had kept the receipt for my PS3 I might go after EB games for a refund. After all Sony took my $800 PS3 "super computer" and turned it into a cheap $150 PS3 Slim. I wonder if Sony re-enables the feature if the guy would have to give the money back?

Re:Justice

[Vanderhoth]

Was the Other OS characteristics ever listed as a sales argument / product description by Sony?

It's on my box. It was one of two main reasons I paid an extra $500 instead of getting a Wii.

Re:Justice

[Blue Stone]

>If I had kept the receipt for my PS3 I might go after EB games for a refund.

In the UK, and I guess Europe, you don't need your receipt, just some proof somewhere and somehow that you bought from that company - credit card records, for instance.

Re:Justice

[ratboy666]

Sure they did

http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html

Note though, that the feature is gone (read the red part at the top).

And, let's look at the original version of the page

http://web.archive.org/web/20061118073923/http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html

Re:Justice

[theaveng]

Questions about the EU:

- How come the customer was not required to go to court *first* before getting his refund?

- What if the retailer had simply said, "No."
- What would have happened next?

Re:Justice

[Zerth]

Speaking of European sales, I wonder if any of the European countries will go after Sony for additional VAT and tariffs because the PS3 is now just a gameplaying machine instead of a "freely programmable general purpose computer".

Re:Justice

[VJ42]

How come the customer was not required to go to court *first* before getting his refund?

At least here in the UK, companies don't like ending up in court (even if they're in the right), so threatening them with legal action (just a letter\email citing the relevant legislation is fine; don't need a solicitor.)often gets you something (refund\replacement\money off vouchers etc.). Hell I've even got a replacement phone battery by complaining over the phone (citing the sale of goods act) at some bloke in a call centre half way round the world.

What if the retailer had simply said, "No." - What would have happened next?

He could then have taken them to the small claims court.

Re:Justice

[Vanderhoth]

I'd like to see that. I've read in several places they only allowed Linux for the EU tax break. I'd like to see Sony have to pay retroactively seeing as how they retroactively removed the feature.

Re:Justice

[VJ42]

>If I had kept the receipt for my PS3 I might go after EB games for a refund.

In the UK, and I guess Europe, you don't need your receipt, just some proof somewhere and somehow that you bought from that company - credit card records, for instance.

Not even that, just reasonable expectation that you bought it from the place you're trying to return it. Fox example, if a phone company has an exclusive phone, it's highly likely you bought it from them, so they have to refund\replace even though in theory you could have bought it from someone else who got it from them. The Sale of Goods act is great like that.

Re:Justice

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Those "change at any time" clauses are illegal in a lot of jurisdictions. Contracts require mutual informed consent on a fixed wording; otherwise your agreement to purchase a console could be rewritten into a marriage contract because you agreed that the agreement "could change at any time". Yes, it's an intentionally absurd example, but legally speaking, it's effectively equivalent (aside from those pesky activist judges who might make a decision based on the real world instead of a legal fiction).

Re:Justice

[theaveng]

Why does Sony keep frakking up? Did they lay-off the old management in 2005 and replace them with new guys who make dumb decisions?

- "Yes the PS2 only cost $300 at release, but we believe customers will want to throw-out the PS2 and pay $800 to get a new machine that has the same games but in HD! No we're not worried about the $250 Wii." [Wii is now the #1 seller.]
-
- "This firmware won't damage your console." "Ooops guess it did. No you won't get a refund for your broken PS3."
- "This firmware will turn off the Other OS function. Ooops guess we owe you a $20 refund under EU and US law for false advertising."
- "Ooops looks like we owe billions in EU taxes too since the PS3's Updated Firmware makes it a taxable game."
- "We have a new Bluray Disc that holds 150 gigabytes! Sorry you'll have to throw-out your old players to get the new 150 HD 3D movies."

Re:Justice

[The Moof]

I wonder if you could argue that this sets precedent for how much Sony has to shell out to each owner. $80 x 20-30 million owners and I think we'll suddenly get our feature back instead of Sony shelling out the roughly 2 billion dollars.

Re:Justice

[iapetus]

It wasn't a yes/no question. The question was "what is your position on the fact that Sony have removed functionality from the PS3 in a way that EU law appears to hold you liable for?"

If the retailer had simply said, "Our position is that we don't owe you shit" he would not have taken them to court, and would have reported that this was their position to anyone who was interested. He would then have contacted Trading Standards to ask them whether there was any case against Sony.

Re:Justice

[theaveng]

In the US, the best I can probably hope for is a class action in which lawyers will make millions and I'll get a $10 coupon off of a PS3 game

Not true.

A US citizen has the same legal protection as an EU citizen, either to demand a refund from sony, or else sue them in court for violating US law.

Re:Justice

[SlashBugs]

I can't speak for the rest of the EU, but in the UK the "fit for purpose" law is a surprisingly powerful bit of pro-consumer legislation. As well as requiring that a product actually does what the manufacturer claims that it does, the law also covers:

a) Functions that any reasonable person would expect the product to have, based on the advertising but also on similar products on the market. This doesn't obviate the customer's responsibility to do some research, just covers too-obvious-to-check things like if your brand new DVD recorder didn't include a DVD playback function

b) A robustness and lifespan that any reasonable person would expect the product to have. In the UK, all electrical goods worth more than a certain value (and some other classes of goods) are automatically garuanteed for one year, as part of the customer's statutory rights. But more interestingly, each type of product may also be garuanteed for a longer period based on what seems "reasonable". For example, a washing machine or cooker would be expected to last for several years under regular use before needing replacement or major repairs; if it fails within that timespan the customer can return it (Making those rip-off "extended garuantee" offers doubly useless). Better yet, the onus is on the shop to show that the failure to prove that it was due to your misuse, not you having to prove that it was a poor design or manufacturing defect.

Surprisingly few people know about these rights, and for good reason. If a product lacks features or develops a major fault too quickly, it's the shop's responsibility to replace the product or offer a refund to the customer; the shop owner is then left with the problem of getting that money back from the manufacturer. As you might imagine, they're not exactly keen to be in this position and so consumers are never told about it.

If the shop says "no" or tells you that you need to talk to the manufacturer yourself, they're either ignorant or lying. In which case, your next step is to get in touch with the Citizens' Advice Bereau and/or the Trading Standards Office, who are responsible for advising people about and enforcing the relevent laws, respectively.

Re:Justice

[iapetus]

You won't see that happen. That was back in the day of the PS2, and as far as I'm aware Sony never actually got away with that claim. Since then the tax rules have changed so that there isn't the same distinction between games consoles and computers, so there's no tax break involved in passing one off as the other.

Re:Justice

[Ipeunipig]

That was 84 GBP so it's a good bit higher that $2 billion.

84 GBP = 129 USD

Range of $2.6 to $3.8 billion

Re:Justice

[theaveng]

Or AMAZON is more customer friendly. If you tried this with the EU's version of Walmart, you might be told "no refund" even if the law says you're entitled to one.

Re:Justice

[Nick Ives]

In the UK, all electrical goods worth more than a certain value (and some other classes of goods) are automatically garuanteed for one year, as part of the customer's statutory rights

That should be two years now because of the EU Directive on Consumer Rights. The same directive gives a minimum warranty period of two years but UK law extends that to six, except for Scotland where it's five.

Better yet, the onus is on the shop to show that the failure to prove that it was due to your misuse, not you having to prove that it was a poor design or manufacturing defect.

Actually that's only true for the first six months in the UK or three months (as a minimum) for the rest of the EU. After that you have to show that the fault was present when you originally purchased the item. For most classes of "the damn thing just broke!" that's not too hard though.

Here's the full directive; the relevant chapter starts on page 30.

Re:Justice

[tlhIngan]

* Ability to sign in to PlayStation Network and use network features that require signing in to PlayStation Network, such as online features of PS3 games and chat

Actually no. And this is one of the two things I've learned about the PS3 because of this.

1) Apparently modified firmware is loadable by anyone, no special tools needed other than a storage medium.
2) Playstation Network does not perform checks.

That's right, if you've got 3.15, you can either use a proxy hack, use a public no-update server, or set up your own DNS+Web server. Your PS3 will check against your server, see that no update is necessary, and connect to PSN. It's unknown how old your PS3 can be before it can't connect to PSN due to protocol changes. The only thing keeping people honest is the PS3, which if it checks Sony's server, and sees that its version is lower than what the Sony server says is current, it won't connect.

Now, what this has on the potential for cheaters on PSN, I don't know. But until this OtherOS fiasco, I wouldn't have bothered knowing.

How to bypass PSN version check - http://www.mydigitallife.info/2010/04/05/how-to-access-psn-bypassing-ps3-firmware-3-21-upgrade-for-otheros/
How to set up your own bypass - http://rvlution.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=123 (requires DNS and HTTP servers).

Thanks Sony!

Re:Justice

[david_thornley]

The standard way of settling these charges in the US is Small Claims Court, which is reasonably fast and inexpensive. If you've got a $60,000 claim against a company, you might be facing five years and a hundred thousand dollars to collect it. If you've got a $600 claim, you're in much better shape.

Re:Justice

[stonewallred]

In my state you can only file a small claims case in the county which the principle you are suing resides. I was served papers (the sheriff dept called me and I stopped by to pick them up)for a dentist bill my insurance failed to pay, and they sued me in the county which I worked, not where I lived. The lawyer was a bitch, so after about 15 minutes of bantering back and forth, the judge asked if there was anything I wished to add. I asked that the case be dismissed since I lived in a different county, showed my DL and he dismissed it. Lawyer was not happy, as she filed in the wrong venue and would not get paid most likely.

Re:Justice

[SmallMonkeyPirate]

In the UK you possibly wouldn't even need to take them court yourself. Merely report the retailer to Trading Standards (the govt dept for these kind of things for you non-Brits) detailing the advertising for the product at the time of purchase and how you believe the law has been broken and they will do it for you if your claim is valid.

Not only that, if they are successful they can also order other companies to offer refunds/discounts/compensation should they also have sold the product without those consumers having to go through the same process.

Going down this route means the govt not the consumer funds the legal action should the claim be valid and the company concerned dispute their breach of the law. Additionally in the UK we also have the pleasing effect of BBC1's consumer program Watchdog, if they take up your case the company will find themselves having a 10 minute grilling of their services and how they have broken the law viewed by several million prime time viewers. Watchdog is such an institution here that a bad press from them can have very serious repercussions on your sales, and will probably make the daily newspapers the next day in some form (probably the Daily Mail with a headline like "Amazon product lies killed Diana!"). This is what Amazon really fears.

How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[JoeCommodore]

I'm sure a lot of folks would rather see their paid-for features returned than a few dollars back from a retailer.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[JoeCommodore]

>> If enough people do it, it will cost sony more than they thought it would, and be a warning to others. It's all too late anyway, if they haven't completely opened the door to piracy, they've certainly put down a welcome mat and turned on the porch lights.

Hardly. Would show to manufacturers that the feature was really valuable and maybe they can make more money by repackaging it at a higher cost. Also that removing features on the currently installed customer base is something they can get away with. (Of course many companies can claim prior art on that - i.e. Apple with Qucktime and iTunes and many others)

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[jimicus]

Unfortunately in the UK (and I think most of Europe), sales of goods law covers the contract between retailer and consumer. Not manufacturer.

Amazon can't (easily) update the firmware of his PS3 to put that feature back again, so their options are pretty limited. The consumer can't get an injunction against Sony to reinstate the feature (because they never had a contract with Sony) and they can't get an injunction against Amazon to reinstate the feature (because it's not physically possible for Amazon to do so).

Myself, I think this demonstrates a huge flaw in current legislation - business to business sales (which Amazon buying a bunch of PS3s from Sony would come under) have nothing like the same level of protection as business to consumer sales. So if a retailer sells a bunch of products which then have functionality removed remotely by the manufacturer - entirely outside of the retailers control - the retailer winds up being held responsible.

Note: IANAL.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[iapetus]

I've been doing a lot of reading up on these things recently (I'm the PS3 owner mentioned in the story, and quite embarassed to be front page news on Slashdot when all I actually did was send a mail to Amazon asking them to clarify where they stood on this whole affair) - the relevant EU directive (1999/44/EC) states that where the retailer pays out but the lack of conformity was caused by the producer (or someone else further up the supply chain) the retailer has the right to go after the person responsible for the lack of conformity to get their money back - in this case, Sony. I'm hoping Amazon will end up doing this, because they're not the ones to blame for this.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[sjames]

If retailers take a big enough hit over this, they'll go after Sony for it (they DO have a contract with Sony) and they'll tend to drive a much harder bargain with Sony when the next product comes around.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[mdm-adph]

With a 5-digit userid, you have to admit that if he's lying about who he is, then it's either an amazing coincidence, or he plans his jokes years in advance...

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[SEE]

Five-digit? n00b.

Re:Heh

[kramerd]

Actually, as a PS3 owner who chooses to use the included OS, I am still angry at functionality that was included with purchase being removed. This affects the potential resale value. Or perhaps I want to play my old PS2 games without buying a PS2, since I sold mine when I bought a PS3 to offset the then $600 price tag. I'm sure the majority of complaints stem from actual issues that vary based on how people use their respective consoles.

Car analogy.

[Anonymous Coward]

(since this is Slashdot and a story is never complete without a car analogy comment)
Imagine that you've bought a 4-door car and everything's working great... you take it in to get a winter tuneup or oil change or whatever and the dealer updates the under-the-hood computer so that the back door locks are always engaged and you can no longer open the back doors. You can still use the space, but anyone who wants to sit in the back has to go in through the front and via the inbetween space between the front seats.

Hows that?
OK, commentators...start you analogy engines! And respond to this comment with your better/updated car analogies!

-------------
TDz.

Re:Car analogy.

[EasyTarget]

Better analogy:
You are a nice happy nuclear family, mother, father, three kids.
You buy a 5 seat car for your family.
You get a Safety Recall notice, take the car in.
When it returns it only has 4 seats, the 5th has been removed 'For Safety!'

Re:Car analogy.

[JoeCommodore]

How about this, car co a made this nifty car that could take regular gasoline or diesel all you had to do was flip a switch.

One day you take it into the shop and the mechanic removes the switch, regular gas only, even though diesel had better than twice the mpg- "company told me to, sorry. Hey, here's a couple bucks for your troubles."

Re:It means that eventually you'll agree to a EULA

[TubeSteak]

No EULA will override basic legal principles.
Judges are rather consistent about the fact some rights just cannot be signed away.

Trying this in Norway

[juletre]

A friend of mine sent a letter to Sony Norway telling them how his PS3 stopped working as advertised. In Norway any consumer electronics should be expected to work in 5 years. As it stands his PS3 just stopped working well short of the five years.
No reply as of yet, but should be fun.

Re:Trying this in Norway

[jbssm]

I believe in this case it's not even a warranty problem. In Portugal, the warranty is 2 years. But they cannot remove functionality just because the warranty is over. Even if it had passed 4 years I would still be entitled to compensation in this case.

Bait and Switch Bastards

[WilyCoder]

This is a classic bait-and-switch that Sony did...

What is really interesting is

[Pvt_Ryan]

"Without limitation, services may include the provision of the latest update or download of new release that may include security patches, new technology or revised settings and features which may prevent access to unauthorized or pirated content, or use of unauthorized hardware or software in connection with the PS3 system."

It doesn't say anything about removal of features. just adding them or changing them..

Re:What is really interesting is

[jbssm]

In EU, even if it said it doesn't matter. An EULA (or any other agreement between parts), cannot override the transaction law (or any other law for that matter). So, imagine, even if you signed something saying that you have only 1 year warranty (like Apple once was trying to make us believe in EU), it doesn't matter, you can sign it, go on with your life and still have exactly the same rights as you had or any new purchase ... meaning 2 years warranty.

Re:Heh

[Pojut]

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are a LOT of people out there who were using this capability...I just mean the people who had no idea they could even do this suddenly demanding a refund.

Correction "offered", not "given"

[Rogerborg]

It's not entirely clear, but I hope that the owner tells them to suck on it, and insists on a full refund or repair.

Re:Amazons bad

[dk90406]

Amazon listed correctly. Sony just decided to change the product after the customer bought it. If Amazon has any brains they (and other resellers caught up in this) whould pass the bill on to Sony. Sony may even decide to revert the "update" and reenable the feature in order to save costs.

It is not as if newer firmware wont be hacked. Quite the contrary, now hackers who has left the platform alone, will attack it out of spite.

I can't understand why Sony keeps shooting themselves in the foot.

I need to try this for my defective items

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to give this a try for the many defective items I've purchased, including:

- The shirt that said "One size fits all" but ripped after only two people were stuffed in it
- The "all purpose" flashlight that refused to peel potatoes
- The hand towel dispenser whose instructions said "rip down, tear up" and after I ripped it down and tore it up my hands were still wet and there were reams of low grade paper and mangled machinery everywhere

Re:Heh

[Pvt_Ryan]

True but they actually help our cause even if it is out of their own greed. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

There's a word for that: lease

[tepples]

I don't license my hardware, I buy it.

Then consumer electronic entertainment products will become no longer available for sale. Instead, they are leased to you for 20 years in a contract among you, the retailer, and the manufacturer. Don't like it? Don't buy consumer electronic entertainment products.

Re:Heh

[Pojut]

Yeah, because Amazon (who provided the refund) benefited from the TARP funds. Geez dude, get a grip on reality and stop using talking points for every conversation. This has nothing at all to do with politics...take that malarky elsewhere.

Has anyone in the US tried this?

[Jck_Strw]

With Amazon, Sony, Target, whomever.