Sony Refuses To Sanction PS3 "Other OS" Refunds

Stoobalou writes "Sony says that it has no intention of reimbursing retailers if they offer users partial refunds for fat PS3s. Last week, the first PS3 user successfully secured a partial refund from Amazon UK as compensation for the removal of the ability to run Linux on the console. The user quoted European law in order to persuade the online retailer that the goods he had bought in good faith were no longer fit for his purposes because of the enforcement of firmware update 3.21, which meant that users who chose to keep the Other OS functionality would lose the ability to play the latest games or connect to the PlayStation Network."

Comments

Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Usually I'd be out here saying let Sony do what they want with their own platform, but this is really kind of a dick move. They don't lose anything keeping the extra functionality, and they lose a ton of goodwill by blocking out some of their most ardent supporters.

Sucky
Onerous
Nasty
Ydiots.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[91degrees]

Their platform, but not their machine. People had bought those machines and Sony decides to break them.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[SharpFang]

OTOH these supporters cost them real money.

Sony adds some good money to each console, hoping to recuperate in games and movies.
Now imagine the Army buys 2000 PS3s for making a supercomputing cluster, because they are priced competetively. Because Sony is subsidizing them. Of course they will use the "Other OS" feature to run their supercomputer stuff and they won't buy a single game for the cluster.
Same about nerds who have 5-10 games and spend time running Linux on PS3.

I think the best course of action would be "You can have the feature... for $150 extra" from moment zero - consoles with "Other OS" enabled not subsidized and sold at a good profit margin.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Normally, I'd do the same, but this situation is not analogous to the usual problems that /.ers have with Sony. It's more than Sony trying to sell something sub-par at par price (like the rootkits, for example), this is Sony actually reducing functionality that people paid for. This can not possibly be legal, and I'm sure there's a class-action in this somewhere. They paid for the functionality, and now Sony is removing it without consent.

The only spanner in the works here is that the PS3 owners don't need to upgrade their PS3s. All their games that they've bought so far currently work, so long as they don't "upgrade" to the latest firmware, plus they keep their other OS functionality. Sure, they can't buy new games, but they don't necessarily have the right to buy new games. However, I would argue that customers bought their PS3s, in part, for the games. In buying a PS3, there's a clear expectation that you will have the ability (given the will and the money) to buy and play some of the many forthcoming PS3 games. Sony has artificially and abruptly shortened the life of the platform for those wishing to continue using their second OS.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[serviscope_minor]

OTOH these supporters cost them real money.

That's their problem. And it does not make it any less illegal in the EU.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[gzipped_tar]

Read the EULA here. ( http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html )

It is explicitly said in the EULA that the warranty of "fitness for a particular purpose" is totally disclaimed in any imaginable or non-imaginable way.

The EULA applies to firmware, too, according to the 3rd paragraph.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, the army could do that anyways. They just wouldn't update their PS3. The problem is really only for people who "need" both their own OtherOS, AND the ability to connect to the playstation network for regular ps3 gaming or media stuff.

The army wouldn't worry about loosing that second part by choosing to not upgrade.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[kiddygrinder]

Yeah, this kind of thinking is just plain dumb. If sony chooses to lose money on every console that's their bad luck. This is why we have to deal with printer cartridges that cost more than the printers they go in and if i could organise to go back in time to assassinate the guy who came up with "Give away the razors then sell the hell out of the blades" quote, i'd probably just get them to rough him up a bit since that's just a bit extremist.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

When an EULA contradicts the law, I do think the law wins, but I might be completely wrong...

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[beh]

From the article:

"which meant that users who chose to keep the Other OS functionality would lose the ability to play the latest games or connect to the PlayStation Network."

So, the people who chose to keep the Other OS functionality, can no longer buy any new games - so if people needed that functionality, but also play games, then Sony will make them choose:

a) buy another new console so you have one for your other OS; and one for games. This adds revenue for Sony, but causes them a loss as they subsidize the basic console (i.e. the will lose the subsidy twice on such a customer).

b) stay with one console with Other OS, but stop playing games on the PS3 - thereby ensuring the user will no longer add to Sony's revenue.

c) remove the Other OS, update and only use it for playing. Revenue stream continues for Sony (on new games) - but at the cost of goodwill to the company.

I don't see any decent outcome for Sony on either of the three options...

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[iapetus]

Read the relevant EU law here. ( http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:en:HTML )

It is explicitly stated in the law that "Any contractual terms or agreements concluded with the seller before the lack of conformity is brought to the seller's attention which directly or indirectly waive or restrict the rights resulting from this Directive shall, as provided for by national law, not be binding on the consumer."

Law trumps EULA.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a hint: the laws are made by the proxies in the government which represents the corporations that issue the EULAs. I don't think there's really a contradiction.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[mcvos]

OTOH these supporters cost them real money.

Sony adds some good money to each console, hoping to recuperate in games and movies.

That's Sony's own fault for having a sucky business model. It's their own decision to sell PS3s at a loss. They didn't have to do that.

However, if Sony has presented these consoles as being able to run Linux as well as play games, and they take away that ability, then by any decent standard, Sony owes customers who bought their PS3 for that ability a refund. They're changing the advertised abilities of their product after the sale has happened. That's not right, and deserves to be illegal in any jurisdiction.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Sleepy]

>OTOH these supporters cost them real money.

Sony ADVERTISES a feature. I buy a product BECAUSE of that feature. This is a transaction.
Then Sony time-bombs or removes that feature.
I have had something taken away from ME, and you have the balls to suggest this cost Sony?
On what planet sir do you spend most of your time?

Now, let's proceed with your outrageous suggestion that mega corporations have a right to shut down customers who are less profitable.
Suggesting that "OtherOS costs Sony real money" is no less applicable than saying "Blu-Ray users cost Sony real money".. should Sony disable PS3 users who play movies but DON'T play games?
Are you SERIOUS??

I use OtherOS. I have Linux on my laptop, but it's nice to demo things on the TV and not have to hook up the laptop.
Actually, why the hell should I have to justify using something I already paid for?

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[mcvos]

Read the EULA here. ( http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html )

It is explicitly said in the EULA that the warranty of "fitness for a particular purpose" is totally disclaimed in any imaginable or non-imaginable way.

The EULA applies to firmware, too, according to the 3rd paragraph.

I have serious doubts that the EULA can override law like that.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Rigrig]

Except people who only buy PS3s for supercomputing aren't affected, only the people that want to run another OS and also play the games they buy.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[matunos]

If only they knew how much their hardware cost to produce when they sold it with those features!

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony?
Goodwill?

If there's still anybody out there who expects a square deal from Sony, I've got some swampland in Wasilla I'm dying to unload, cheap.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[stevoo82]

What i am wondering is that why would SONY all of the sudden pop this up ? A cluster of PS3 is cheaper and more efficient from a high end server used for the same purpose. Could "other" high end companies pushed for this update in order for them to actually have there high end expensive server sales ? But the US military wont really care, as they will not update there cluster to the new version ... they most probably do not need Online game play. The problem are the 5 - 10 gamers out there !

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[gzipped_tar]

Nice to see the link, but I think the relevant quote here lies in Article 4 "Rights of redress".

However, because the firmware update is not distributed as a consumer good through the same chain of sellers that distributed the devices, they may as well argue that the law doesn't apply here (so no case for retailers), and they retain the right to fuck everyone else by the EULA (so no case for customers).

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[SharpFang]

Sony fucked up bad. They made a mistake to combine the feature and subsidizing the platform. They should have picked either-or, not both. Now they try to fix their mistake and do it with a grace of a rhino. Of course they are wrong now. Thing is they were wrong from moment zero. You have your right to be pissed, or to sue them, and they will have to suck it up and pay up for their mistakes.

No need to be indignant about it. They offered a deal that was bad to them, and now they are trying to back off from it. In this case, you are supposed to do what you do whatever is normally done with a party that tries to back off from a deal: sue the bastards till you get at least the worth of what you lose, and preferably several times that much.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Shadow of Eternity]

http://boingboing.net/2005/11/09/sonys-eula-is-worse-.html

Yeah because it's not like EULAs are habitually some of the most absurd overreaching screw-your-rights documents ever made...

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[bjoeg]

As said before in other threads, PS3 slim never had the Other OS function, so the argument of Sony adds money for every console does not stick.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[BikeHelmet]

OTOH these supporters cost them real money.

They don't cost them anything - unless you think 100% profit on the hardware should be part of the "cost" to manufacture.

Since Sony's production capacity outstrips demand, is it really killing them to give some away to crazy hobbyists and researchers at cost?

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Erhmmmmmm..... While that may be true. The move they just made won't change a thing. The problem is not for people who only uses the PS3 for the Other OS function, as they will just keep the old firmware. It's not like the military need a supercomputer cluster to play games online :D

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Custard Horse]

I agree. Sony could have offered the machine in locked down form then offered to unlock it for a fee but they didn't go about it like that. They traded on the fact that it could run other OS then removed the function.

It amounts to the same as selling something that is 'not as described' but on a retrospective basis.

Imagine if you purchased a car with a Bose sound system only for the vendor to pop around to your house a couple of months later to swap it out for a cheap standard system. Is this fair Sony? How about if the vendor said "okay, you can keep the sound system but I have to take the wheels". Is that fair?

I'm not saying that car dealers are not thieving rob-dog scumbags but they will at least give you the option of a Bose sound system or include it in the price, you know, *to keep*.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

I was refused refund in Ireland. I bought the old model when the slims were announced purely because I wanted to play with the cell in linux. It came with GTProlog which wont work without being connected and I bought the two wipeout fusion packs off their network which might play without a connection (not tried yet) but I've no disk if I ever have to reinstall.

Now I just want to crack the thing open (which I am trying but more out of curiosity than expectation of actually getting anywhere). The only Sony products that will reach me from here on will be cracked/pirated, they'll not get the chance to burn me again.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a godsend as I've wanted to get rid of the PS3 for some time now...

I've got a better quality bluray player on my, PC Games are generally a lot cheaper and don't need to be run from the disk (quieter and quicker to run).

Also the trend seems to be to let people access free stuff like level designers (if their PC is good enought to run it). So people can get free tools to learn to make your own levels and stuff which is nice!

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact they have not broken the hardware in any way, they have changed the software. It's your machine but it's not your software; sorry.

Still a dick move by Sony though.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[selven]

Normally, I'd say let them do what they want, but here the people who bought the PS3 for the Linux functionality had no idea that it would soon be taken away, so Sony made them throw away a few hundred dollars for nothing.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[iapetus]

Article 4 only handles the situation where the retailer has been forced to cough up to the consumer, and allows them to shift the blame to its rightful place by going after Sony in this case.

To my mind (and I'm no lawyer) the way the firmware update is irrelevant. Sony are disabling the ability of the PS3 to carry out one or more of its main capabilities, and the vector by which they're doing this is largely irrelevant.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[uglyduckling]

You're making a geek distinction that has no place in the world of law. Sony sold a device with certain features, one of those features no longer works following interference by the manufacturer. That's breach of contract.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[hattig]

Damn right. And European Law sides very closely with customers.

All it would require is a concerted combined effort by EU PS3 owners getting refunds for the retailers (who have to legally make the refund) to sue Sony, and force the Linux option back into the EU fat PS3 firmware.

Consumer Protection Laws FTW.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[delinear]

Indeed, regardless of whether Sony make a loss or not, they sold the product at a premium price because it could do X, Y, Z over and above the competition. If they then remove X after people have paid for it, they should compensate users.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter. The customer didn't sign a contract saying "Will be used only for playing games, blu-ray, etc., but not for general computing." And the product was extensively advertised as having general computing abilities via the "Other OS" option.

This is a deal that they have changed retroactively. It's retroactive "false advertising".

This is one of those situations where if Darth Sony says "I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further", you can sue him.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[zippthorne]

Yes, you've discovered the mid-cycle PC surge. Console makers foolishly release all within roughly a year of each other, then nothing. At some point *all* of the consoles are less capable than the bottom 30th percentile of PCs people are using for other stuff and there is a resurgence of games targeting the PC.

They're not even talking about the next-gen yet, although the MS platform is long overdue, and Nintendo doesn't even have an HD offering of any kind.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[kitgerrits]

I think the best course of action would be "You can have the feature... for $150 extra" from moment zero - consoles with "Other OS" enabled not subsidized and sold at a good profit margin.

I did exactly that by buying a "fat" PS3 for €600 ($800+, for a single controller, no games bundle and a 60GB harddisk)
I was just looking forward to installing Fedora Core 11 on it, too.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[digitig]

Yes, I think that's the interesting point here. Instead of pissing off a tiny minority of users, Sony is now pissing off all of its (European) distributors (all of whom will either have customers who care about other OSs or who will worry that they might). Those retailers can make life more uncomfortable for Sony than a few disgruntled users.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[kitgerrits]

I'm not sure about Gran Tourismo, but both Wip3Out games (even Pain) will run without a network connection.
However, you will not be able to play on-line against other players.

Having 3 colleagues with their own PS3 and Wip3Out suddenly became a lot less fun.
Re-installing will be a problem, but you can make a full back-up of your PS3, including games.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[westlake]

So, the people who chose to keep the Other OS functionality, can no longer buy any new games - so if people needed that functionality, but also play games, then Sony will make them choose:

a) buy another new console so you have one for your other OS; and one for games.

The OtherOS will run - and run very, very well - on dirt-cheap commodity PC hardware. You will have full access to the video sub-system and at least four times the RAM even on the netbook, and, at rock-bottom, a 160-250 GB hard drive.

The FAT PS3 remains a solid platform for home entertainment - PS2 and PS3 gaming. DVD. Blu-Ray, Netflix and PSN.

b) stay with one console with Other OS, but stop playing games on the PS3

Like hell you will.

Bestsellers in PS3 Games

God of War 3. Batman: Arkham Asylum. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Red Dead Redemption. Heavy Rain....

c) remove the Other OS, update and only use it for playing. Revenue stream continues for Sony (on new games) - but at the cost of goodwill to the company.

The PS3's installed base is around 24-25 million units. Slashdot front-paged a story about a partial refund to a lone disgruntled geek in the U.K. - and sixteen days out from the firmware upgrade, there is not much else to talk about.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

According to what I could find, it's not entirely clear that Sony is losing money per PS3 sale: http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/sony-making-smaller-loss-on-every-ps3--668861

And Sony now has another loss to cope with: People like me, that boycott Sony. I didn't have or use OtherOS functionality, but average over the last 10 years I've spent ~$1000/year with Sony. My TV, PS1, PS2, PS3, phone, stereo, and games all come from Sony. Or, to be more correct, came from Sony. Unless Sony choose to fix this completely, which means restoring OtherOS functionality and coming with an apology, I'm keeping with my boycott. I can't make a substantial difference, but I can at least stop giving them more money.

And yes, it's quite annoying that my just purchased PS3 Slim ends up with just the couple of games I bought with it and working as DVD/Blu Ray / DivX player, but I'm willing to suck up that cost to not support this kind of behavior.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Aladrin]

No he didn't.

The Linux hack only works because Sony's Hypervisor is fundamentally broken. Newsflash: That means that the rest of the system is vulnerable, too. The hackers will continue to chip at it now. They will eventually get it working fully with Linux on 3.15 (I think they are crazy close already) and then find a way to hack a gamesave to do the same thing. From there, Sony has no hope of fixing the hack. They will have destroyed customer good will and broken laws in multiple countries for only a short reprieve.

Sony's move makes no sense.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[delinear]

Well in this case the law would be at odds with the EULA, since it's one of those rare things, a law which enhances consumer rights, by enshrining a few hundred years of contract law. The only question is, will it cost Sony less to fight this in the courts and end up paying out anyway, or to buy enough politicians to revise the law.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[kitgerrits]

I guess Sony is hoping for option A, which became slightly less painful with the price of the PS3 Slim.
The only good news is that you can re-download all your games for free on another console, using your existing PSN account.
You can buy a fat 40GB PS3 for very little, if you know where to look.

I don't think Sony fears option B much, assuming those people will soon stop buying games once someone hacks the PS3 (using OtherOS).

Option C will assert Sony's status of being the sole un-hacked console.
After the impending hack has been released, the PS3 users will be split between light and dark sides and Sony will start using their PSP tactics on the PS3. (required firmwares in games, hardware revisions to plug holes, etc, etc)

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Now imagine the Army buys 2000 PS3s for making a supercomputing cluster, because they are priced competetively

Silly thinking that. The US Army or whoever buys a stack of PS3. It makes the news over and over. Say linux is costing $10/unit (BS obviously as the slim never supported it). That's a whopping $20,000 you think Sony are losing. Now much would it cost for world wide advertising just to have the console mentioned, let alone the suggesting it's a very powerful number cruncher?

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow you should have asked for a deal, I got my release 60GB "fat" PS3 for €600 and it came with three games and two movies.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[icebraining]

Not according to European law, thankfully. We still have the right to enjoy what we've paid for, or get our money back.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[icebraining]

I was refused refund in Ireland.

And you accepted it? I'm not from Ireland, but AFAIK they follow the EU consumer law. I'd get a copy of the appropriate law and if they still refused, I would do a fucking shitstorm, at least online.

Don't you have a consumer's protection organization/office?

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, these are affected too, because new PS3 comes without the Other OS feature.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[uglyduckling]

Sony sold the device to the retailer, so there is a contract between Sony and the retailer. Unless you think the retailers stole the PS3s?

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot option D - keep the "Other OS" function and just play cracked games. I'll go out on a limb and say those using the "Other OS" option and also gaming with the console are savvy enough to find & play cracked games.

Can upper management over 40 just be pushed out already? They are clueless and beyond hope.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

They offered a deal that was bad to them, and now they are trying to back off from it.

Here's the thing. Most of us PS3 + Linux users are early adopters. We purchased the expensive models when they first came out, not the cheap, or functionally stripped later models. I personally got mine at launch Nov 06, yes, almost 3.5 years ago! Am I a customer that's costing the money? Handly, we have over 50 disc titles, all bought at $60, not the budget versions that appear a year later. I've a stack of blu-ray movies and TV shows too. Plus the adhoc purchase of near crap from the PSN. Not bad going considering this house has all three consoles.

Now I can either keep my Linux system on the machine, and never buy from the PSN again, never play online gaming, and probably never get patches for games. Even if these weren't a concern, it won't be long before new titles of games and blu-ray will mysteriously require the FW to be at least 3.21.

So now what's happening? The 360 is getting almost all my gaming attention now. What does that translate to? Lost sales for Sony, because any multi-platform title will now be bought for the 360 and not the PS3 as we normally do. We certainly won't be buying another PS3 to get around the problem. Guess which console we'll be recommending and which one we'll be slagging off when people ask about them? Guess which consumer electronic device manufacturer just lost a sale for a 40" LED LCD for our bedroom?

And this is only after a couple of weeks! How much with this cost Sony over the next 10 years? PS4? Piss off Sony.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[flyneye]

Yup, Sony tripped and fell back in sh*t on this one. HA HA.
Don't buy hardware or anything else from losers and encourage others to do the same.
Remember they're part of the mafIAA anyway.
Just let them die.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Grimbleton]

I already paid $600 for my PS3 with the Other OS option. The current PS3 goes for what, $400?

Looks like I paid a $200 subsidy.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Tromad]

MS probably wouldn't have a problem moving on to another generation, assuming they can keep some backwards compatibility. A significant number of 360 users have probably already replaced their machine at least once. Sony doesn't have a choice, their platform practically seems like it is just getting started. Nintendo might be able to pull a "Wii isn't a Gamecube:DS isn't a gameboy" and release a controller-based HD gamecube.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

how about

d) purchase different gaming console

If Sony is going to act like an abusive spouse, there's no real reason why consumers have to stick with them. They can move in with the infantilizing Wii, or they can live with the just as aggressive, but slightly less abusive (and prone to "performance" issues) Xbox360.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have done that from the get go: suddenly charging for a free feature is a bullshit move and just another indicator of Sony's lack of connection with their customers.

My father-in-law bought a PSP Go for my daughter at Xmas (not sure why a PSP, but anyway) and it's an abomination: trying to download from the Sony on-line Store is ridiculous. I downloaded free demos some 400+MB. During the download, the connection to the server time's out, randomly, mid-transfer. Does the PSP Go have a "resume" feature to begin the transfer where it left off? No... you have to start over... again, and again, and again. Do I want to pay money for a game that, in theory, I can get "now" but have to retry a few dozen times or more? Not bloody likely!

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[tsm_sf]

My iPhone just had me agree to a new EULA for the app store.

92 iphone pages long. And they have the balls to ask me if I've read the agreement.

I think EULAs should be entirely enforceable, but I think companies should be legally bound to quiz you afterwards. No pass, no install.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony sold the device to the retailer, so there is a contract between Sony and the retailer. Unless you think the retailers stole the PS3s?

On /. we prefer the word pirated. Thanks for understanding.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[CowboyBob500]

I was refused refund in Ireland.

That will be illegal then. You obviously have the right to not exercise your statutory rights, but if it was me I'd be threatening them with small claims court.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[MemoryDragon]

Eulas are zero and void in Europe, they are more worthless than a piece of used toilet paper, because they are waived at the customer after the purchase and not before and are not even signed by the customer, so go figure. They are mostly worthless in the USA for the same reasons, I dont get it, why every time an Eula issue comes out on Slashdot one or two posters think an Eula replaces local law!
An Eula is a wannabe law by a producer which almost always goes contradictory to local contractual and consumer laws!
They can write everything into the EULA they want, to have the legal right to enforce it is another issue, which under normal circumstances they have not!

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[nosferatu1001]

Actually they dont need to - the Retailer MUST refund the consumer.

The retailer then has recourse under EU Law (the same law the guy quoted to get the refund) to pursue Sony.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[LordKronos]

Sony adds some good money to each console, hoping to recuperate in games and movies.
Now imagine the Army buys 2000 PS3s for making a supercomputing cluster, because they are priced competetively. Because Sony is subsidizing them. Of course they will use the "Other OS" feature to run their supercomputer stuff and they won't buy a single game for the cluster.
Same about nerds who have 5-10 games and spend time running Linux on PS3.

I think the best course of action would be "You can have the feature... for $150 extra" from moment zero - consoles with "Other OS" enabled not subsidized and sold at a good profit margin.

Sony didn't seem to mind using all these non-user in their numbers when they were trying to defeat HD-DVD. They were more than happy to brag about how many bluray players were out in the market. They were happy with it when they had a heated battle to fight, but now that they've won they'd like to undo all those sales they made that were instrumental to their victory.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[nosferatu1001]

Except the consumers dont need to go anywhere near sony (unless they bought directly) - their contract is with the Retailer.

If the Retailer refuses to refund you, you take the retailer to court and win.

They then take Sony to court, under the same legislation, and win.

Sonys EULA *cannot* abrograte this law, as the law *explicitly* states that it cannot be overridden pre or post facto.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Sique]

There is a contract of the consumer with the retailer about a good with specified properties.
This contract is not fulfilled, because the manufacturer (Sony) deliberately changed the good with an update.
So the consumer is right to sue the retailer, and the retailer can sue Sony for deliberate damage. I wonder how that will work out.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Lumpy]

Industry shills or simply horribly under-educated people.

I honestly believe it's really under-educated people.

Although, if you have enough money, you can win nearly any court case. Simply outspending your opponent is a popular tactic that is sadly legal here in the USA.

Mostly because Judges used to be lawyers and are therefore scumbags. talk about conflict of interests.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[shentino]

Better or worse than Microsoft brick-banning modded XBox 360's?

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Sique]

There is a way an EULA can be a binding contract for the consumer, if and only if the retailer puts into his terms and conditions a clause, that by buying a good the buyer agrees to whatever EULA comes with the good purchased. But in this case the retailer should be able to hand a copy of the EULA to the consumer whenever asked for it.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

That might fly in (some states of) the US, but without exception within the EU, there is no ability under law to disclaim the implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Vectormatic]

I think EULAs should be entirely enforceable, but I think companies should be legally bound to quiz you afterwards. No pass, no install.

That would rock, Microsoft windows sales would plummet , iphone app store usage would be decimated after the first update as only the most devoute turtle-neck worshippers suffer through 90 pages of legalese.

In the current form, i think EULAs should be made legally null and void, no-one reads them anyway, and most explicitly contradict common law

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[shentino]

You could argue that Sony's refusal to permit access to PSN unless you kill OtherOS by an update is a breach of contract.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[tepples]

the MS platform is long overdue [for a hardware upgrade], and Nintendo doesn't even have an HD offering of any kind.

But is there a major PC maker with a set-top offering of any kind? I have seen minitowers and laptops advertised on U.S. TV but not HTPCs.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[BAlGaInTl]

Clearly worse. Microsoft never sold a unit where modding the 360 was a feature, and even allowed/encouraged through the software of the system that was sold.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[KDR_11k]

Sony's legal counsel thought it was a great idea to stick rootkits on their music CDs. When it comes to technology the legal counsel often fails to see important facts.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Mad Leper]

I think saying that the Hypervisor is "fundamentally broken" is a gross exaggeration. Geohot's hack did little more than make a dent in the outer ring of security and was nothing more than a PR stunt to inflate his reputation.

People have been trying to hack the PS3 for years in an attempt to pirate games and failed miserably. Geohot claims to have "broken" the PS3 encryption, leading to a flood of interest in hacking the PS3 to enable pirating. Sony decides having the Linux OS option isn't worth risking the PS3 turning into another Dreamcast and removes the feature.

If you want to blame someone for losing the OS option, aim your attacks straight at Geohot. Thanks to him and him alone you've lost the OS functionality.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[sopssa]

Damn right. And European Law sides very closely with customers.

All it would require is a concerted combined effort by EU PS3 owners getting refunds for the retailers (who have to legally make the refund) to sue Sony, and force the Linux option back into the EU fat PS3 firmware.

Consumer Protection Laws FTW.

Just for anyone interested (I was), the law cited is:

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?

I'll be asking for a refund from GameStop as I also were required to remove the portion to be able to buy new games.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Yvanhoe]

Because every situation needs a car analogy :
Salesman : Hey everyone ! Free cars ! Runs on regular fuel, 30 MPG ! take one home !
Clients : Yay !
Salesman : Oh, btw, now it only runs on our own and overpriced fuel stations, or it won't be able to go on new roads just because we decided it, no real technological problem.

Isn't it a bit more obvious why it is illegal ?

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[KDR_11k]

Oh, so we can heap antitrust violations on the pile of wrongdoings?

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[KDR_11k]

Careful, the story that reported on the first refund also mentioned that not all EU member states implement that clause.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[tophermeyer]

and force the Linux option back into the EU fat PS3 firmware.

Except that the suit would likely not be intended to force Sony to re-enable Linux. Rather the suit (filed by the retailers) would be to shift the financial responsibility back to Sony for all the refunds the retailers have to issue.

The end result being, as always, the customers get shafted and the lawyers win.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Custard Horse]

Worse IMO. When MS detects a modded box it chooses to assume the mod is for nefarious purposes and imposes a ban. I think that's fair. The bricking less so. If you want to mod the box, buy a second one or don't connect to XBL.

In the PS3 case, the consumer has done nothing wrong but is sustaining a loss with no compensation. One would assume that trying to sign in to the PS network with a hacked box will result in a permanent ban unless you can have an undetectable firmware (such as version 3.21OO as touted by George Hotz - the author of the iPhone jailbreak).

You heard it here first, Sony advance to the head of the shitlist. Microsoft loses its crown after so many years at the top.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[ScaredOfTheMan]

Why have I not heard one person use the B word. Boycott, don't buy the PS3, don't buy their TVs, don't buy their camera, camcorders, over priced laptops or see their movies. Maybe then they will learn that their are financial consequences for their actions even if they seem to believe otherwise.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[KDR_11k]

Even then the EU has limitations on the terms a non-negotiated contract is allowed to contain.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[iapetus]

They're all obliged to.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[iapetus]

This really is a feeble argument. Sony removed the functionality - Geohot didn't. If you feel it's fair to pass the blame to him because of something that he may or may not have done, then by the same virtue it gets passed right back to Sony because they didn't get their security right first time.

Sony took this functionality away. It is likely that this was in violation of local law. This is their fault, and they should be made to pay appropriate compensation. It really is that simple.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[dhovis]

Frankly, it doesn't even matter if people care whether they've lost "Other OS". If they can get some money back from a PS3 they bought in the last few years, many will take it.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Leynos]

In the EU (as, I'm sure, in the US), when you buy a product, it should be suitable for the purpose for which it was sold. The PS3 was sold as a device capable of playing online games and running alternative operating systems. Following this change, it can now do one or the other, but not both.

Hence, it is no longer suitable for the purpose for which it was sold.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Gizzmonic]

. They were happy with it when they had a heated battle to fight, but now that they've won they'd like to undo all those sales they made that were instrumental to their victory.

Yeah, I'm sure those 10 guys who bought a PS3 to fuck around with a crippled version of Linux really made the difference in the format war! Also, any scientific researchers dumb enough to buy PS3s for supercomputing are SOL now anyway. The Slim, which has been out 8 months, doesn't support OtherOS. "Fat" PS3s will be increasingly difficult to find.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[eosp]

That only works if you can convince the stupid people too.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Registered Coward v2]

Damn right. And European Law sides very closely with customers.

All it would require is a concerted combined effort by EU PS3 owners getting refunds for the retailers (who have to legally make the refund) to sue Sony, and force the Linux option back into the EU fat PS3 firmware.

Consumer Protection Laws FTW.

While I don't like Sony's action and IANAL; I'm not sure it would violate consumer protection laws. I think it would depend on what Sony claimed when the first sold it. While I agree there is an implied ability to run all future PS3 releases they might be able to argue all the functionality as originally delivered is still there since it will run all the launch games; and re-enable Playstation Network for all PS3's regardless of OS version. It might also be possible to argue the fat PS3 represents an old model that is at EOL but are offering users the option to continue using; does EU law require indefinite retention of capabilities or only for a limited time? If it is indefinite, a company ending support for any product could wind up running afoul of the law; which I doubt is the EU's intent. Would you expect Apple to have to deliver current OS capabilities to to PowerPC based Macs; or should OS vendors be required to ensure each new OS release, that adds functionality or fixes bugs, is backwards compatible with all programs to not take away any originally provided functionality?

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[gid]

Right, which gives Sony a few options:
1) Paying refunds
2) Re-enabling Linux
3) Being a dick, paying out refunds even though it's more expensive. Shareholders be damned.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Chonnawonga]

The only spanner in the works here is that the PS3 owners don't need to upgrade their PS3s. All their games that they've bought so far currently work, so long as they don't "upgrade" to the latest firmware, plus they keep their other OS functionality.

Alas, Sony has no out there either. Users can no longer play their current games online, which is definitely an advertised feature. The user loses functionality no matter what they do.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Leynos]

It's an unenforceable EULA in that case, as a warranty agreement cannot void your statutory rights.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

there is no breach of contract for multiple reasons, not that you would understand. However, there is an implied "fitness for use" that cannot be disclaimed. Personally, I bought my PS3 to play around with a cell-based linux OS and play online games. Sony advertised and promoted it as being capable of doing both. Currently, I can't play online games because they're requiring a firmware update. But if I update the firmware, I can't run linux.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Sony adds some good money to each console, hoping to recuperate in games and movies

Irrelevant. They sold the console as providing features X and Y. Then, after the sale and without consent they remove feature "Y". They failed to predict the financial results of feature "Y", but that's their own fault. I can't see any way in which this is either justifiable or legal.

Plus, they're just bone-headed. Clearly there not only a hobby, but also a serious tech market for these devices. They're missing a great opportunity by not simply selling a fully unlocked version (that doesn't support games) at four times the production cost. That would still be cheap for the processing power, yet it would turn a nice profit for them.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[HungryHobo]

Short version:

Situation: "Sony is breaking the law."

Fanboys: Bwaaaaa! people should be happy about this!!!

Linux nuts: This sucks I want my money back

Everyone else: "huh?"

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[VGPowerlord]

As a side note, it doesn't apply if you bought the PS3 Slim, as it never had that feature, nor was that an advertised feature on the Slim model.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[VGPowerlord]

While I don't like Sony's action and IANAL; I'm not sure it would violate consumer protection laws. I think it would depend on what Sony claimed when the first sold it. While I agree there is an implied ability to run all future PS3 releases they might be able to argue all the functionality as originally delivered is still there since it will run all the launch games; and re-enable Playstation Network for all PS3's regardless of OS version. It might also be possible to argue the fat PS3 represents an old model that is at EOL but are offering users the option to continue using; does EU law require indefinite retention of capabilities or only for a limited time? If it is indefinite, a company ending support for any product could wind up running afoul of the law; which I doubt is the EU's intent. Would you expect Apple to have to deliver current OS capabilities to to PowerPC based Macs; or should OS vendors be required to ensure each new OS release, that adds functionality or fixes bugs, is backwards compatible with all programs to not take away any originally provided functionality?

In this case, the functionality was already there, and the update that removed Other OS was a required update if you wanted to continue using any Internet features on the device.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, this is more than just another feature on the box.

Sony promoted the PS3/Cell *as* a development platform for supercomputing. Sony/Toshiba/IBM set up Georgia Tech as a "Center of Competence" for programming the Cell. They sponsored workshops and promoted the PS3 as a scientific computer within academia.

Sony isn't just screwing over their customers, Sony is letting down all the people who invested in the PS3/Cell as a Linux supercomputing platform.

I bought a PS3 specifically to develop a physics simulator (among other things). Now I think I should not have invested the time in learning to program for the Cell because I can't afford a $8,000 Cell card. I should have just gotten an NVIDIA CUDA card.

Thanks a lot, Sony.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[SharpFang]

Oh, but totally relevant, just not a good excuse.

Causation is not justification.

People seem to misinterpret my previous post: I didn't write "It's perfectly fine that Sony does it, because...". I meant "The scoundrels try to backpedal from the deal because..."

1. They wanted to gather nerd community following, to gain good PR by leaving a loophole, being open in some way. That's fine, and they succeeded.
2. But also they wanted to gain a major sector of the market by selling below costs. This is a shady practice that tends to backfire often and hurt bad, and requires draconian control over the product distribution and usage to ever work out.

These two clashed in expectable manner. And now, with the grace of elephant, they try to backpedal out of (1) to salvage (2).

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Just Some Guy]

Read the EULA here.

As soon as Sony can present a list of people who've signed and notarized the EULA, I might be persuaded to care what their ridiculous wish-list says.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Blakey Rat]

Usually I'd be out here saying let Sony do what they want with their own platform, but this is really kind of a dick move. They don't lose anything keeping the extra functionality,

Well, they have to be losing *something* by supporting Linux, otherwise they wouldn't remove it-- Sony's not *that* stupid. At the very least, there's the additional support costs related to it.

My guess, though, is what they're really trying to prevent is somebody using the Linux layer to create a disk copier or game downloader or some other kind of piracy tool. Or maybe that's already happened, and they're trying to minimize the damage from it.

Since their ploy to minimize duties by calling the PS3 a general-purpose computer instead of a game console failed, they really have no financial reason left to keep it. (Other than "good PR with a few nerds", but that's not worth much.)

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[cynyr]

Would you expect Apple to have to deliver current OS capabilities to to PowerPC based Macs; or should OS vendors be required to ensure each new OS release, that adds functionality or fixes bugs, is backwards compatible with all programs to not take away any originally provided functionality?

No but if they ad an update to the older version of the software that disables dualboot on the mac, or stops Adobe CSX from working they would be facing similar/more wrath. It would be one thing if sony stopped updating the software, and a third party started requiring a higher version of software to play a game, but this is removing a core feature PSN, and a feature advertised. yes i'm using advertised a bit loosely, they had instruction on their site for getting it set up.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Blakey Rat]

Look, you seem really angry about this. But think about it: did you really expect Sony to *not* screw you over? That's all Sony does anymore-- produce crummy products and screw their own customers.

I mean, yes, be angry, but you should have been expecting this from day one. Stop buying Sony's shit and you won't get screwed over. (As much.)

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Hatta]

Sony advertised their console as being able to play games AND run Linux. Not "or".

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not even talking about the next-gen yet,

They don't need to. Both the PS3 and 360 are selling consistently well. Both companies are obviously working on the next incarnations and the chances are they'll be nothing like we have now, maybe going back towards a PC style system, as that is what developers prefer. The speculation isn't about what they'll be able to do, it'll be are they going to be tied into online DRM schemes just to be able to play, or will that be the consoles after the next generation? It's clear both companies desperately want you to lease software and not be able to trade in your unused titles. Whether we like it or not, our media is going to end up that way and any reduction in sales will be attributed to "piracy".

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[SScorpio]

If you are having problems downloading directly to a PSP you can also do the download to a PS3 and transfer over to the PSP, or you can get the free Media Go software which runs on a PC and then transfer the download to the PSP. http://us.playstation.com/psn/mediago/index.htm

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Goaway]

They don't lose anything keeping the extra functionality,

No, there is a very real reason they are doing this: Somebody just recently cracked the hypervisor that they use to run Linux without exposing the entire hardware. This leads to a very real risk of cracking their copy protection system.

Now, you might argue that that's not actually a loss since it would make more people interested in the platform, or whatever, but clearly Sony don't see it that way. To them, losing the DRM is a real loss, and this is what they did to prevent this.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Theaetetus]

Eulas are zero and void in Europe, they are more worthless than a piece of used toilet paper, because they are waived at the customer after the purchase and not before and are not even signed by the customer, so go figure. They are mostly worthless in the USA for the same reasons,

1) EULAs have been held binding in the US in at least two federal circuits (ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996); Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d. Cir. 2004)).
2) The fact that they are waved at the customer after the purchase is irrelevant, as a "money now, terms later" formation is a valid contract (I. Lan Sys., Inc. v. Netscout Serv. Level Corp., 183 F. Supp. 2d 328, 336 (D. Mass. 2002)).
3) The fact that they aren't signed by the customer is irrelevant. Signatures on a contract are only needed to satisfy the statute of frauds or when a specific law requires them. You don't sign a contract when you exchange a dollar for your morning newspaper, do you? But you've just made a contractual purchase. Plus, since use of the software requires the customer to click through the license agreement, their use is evidence that they did click.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

They will have destroyed customer good will [...]

Read: They will have destroyed customer good will for a staggeringly insignificant minority of geeks who, as history has shown, aren't giving them nearly as much money as their other customers.

[...] and broken laws in multiple countries for only a short reprieve.

Read: ...and broken laws only if that same staggeringly insignificant minority of geeks can make lawmakers and law enforcers care that this law was broken, which, to be honest, is a crap shoot given how much explaining it'll take to get any non-geek to even care that this feature was there in the first place.

So in short, Sony's jettisoning support for the neediest and whiniest of the people with PS3s, focusing more on the customers who will dutifully give them money, and Sony will get away with it because nobody cares about what we want from a console. I'd say that makes perfect sense to me.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Theaetetus]

It's an unenforceable EULA in that case, as a warranty agreement cannot void your statutory rights.

... except that the statute explicitly allows a warranty agreement to void your statutory rights: UCC Article 2-315:

Implied Warranty: Fitness for Particular Purpose. Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[HalfOfOne]

Important caveat to your argument: if you cannot connect to the Playstation network, many of your current games may not work. This was the case for me during the PS Network outage recently. It opened my eyes to the harsh reality that even though I have no interest in multiplayer functionality or advertizing my trophies, I still am required to connect to the mothership. That sucked, and it's something I should have realized sooner before buying into the PS3 and 10 or so games. Every purchasing decision after that point has been "hmm, do I want to sink more money into this very DRM'd and dysfunctional platform?"

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[MightyYar]

Thanks to him and him alone you've lost the OS functionality.

Yeah, how DARE he screw around with hardware that he owns.

What the hell happened to the hacker mentality in geek-land?

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[TheRaven64]

A lot more than 10 guys bought it to run Linux. The Linux install was the cheapest Cell development platform you could buy. A lot of university research labs bought them for exactly that reason - it was a lot cheaper than a $5000 IBM Cell blade. And, of course, when you leave a PS3 in a lab with a load of postgrads, someone is going to buy games and movies to play on it...

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Shity
Obnoxious
Nincompoops
Yellow
 
ftfy

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[bberens]

It's just a hunch, but I don't think the imaginary military that has their classified simulation on a 2000 PS3 supercomputing cluster is going to be plugging their PS3s into the PlayStation Network.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

That is of course using the Slashdot definition of stupid, which is "doesn't agree with Slashdot groupthink."

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not their software. They sold me the machine with the software on it. Both are mine.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[tlhIngan]

In this case, the functionality was already there, and the update that removed Other OS was a required update if you wanted to continue using any Internet features on the device.

This should worry players on PSN then.

Playstation Network relies on the client PS3 to do version checking.

Why is that worrying? Because my PS3, which I have NOT updated (it's at 3.15 so I could play FF XIII and God of War 3), gets on PSN just fine. What I did was set up a DNS and web server at home, made it authoritative for a particular zone (the one Sony uses to check for updates), and serve up a update file that says "no, there are no updates". PS3 powers on, checks the update, sees none, and connects. And yes, I've tested this by downloading videos and stuff off PSN.

It is unknown how old your PS3 version can be before PSN won't work anymore.

Next, if geohot's hack really works, and all you have to do to re-enable OtherOS is to install a PS3 update, it means that modified firmware is possible without modding the machine. Such customizations may include an ISO loader (despite Blu-Ray, most games don't use all 50GB, and terabyte laptop hard disks are on their way, or simple SATA extension cables let you use those 2TB hard disks externally), or other interesting mods, like say wallhacks or aimbots, or allowing a PC to proxy in for PSN unencrypted (PSN communications are encrypted, but if they aren't, imagine gaming with someone who uses their PC to "assist" them).

A mythical "hack" that required lots of luck, specialized hardware has possible revealed bigger cracks in the PS3 ecosystem, not only allowing possible piracy, but also cheaters.

BTW, if you want to do the PSN hack so you can still get online:
If you trust someone on the 'net - set your DNS setting as described on the following page (easy, just requires updating PS3 DNS server setting) - http://www.mydigitallife.info/2010/04/05/how-to-access-psn-bypassing-ps3-firmware-3-21-upgrade-for-otheros/

If you want to do it yourself - this forum thread has BIND and IIS details - http://rvlution.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=123

DIY has a slight advantage - the method is transferable to the PSP as well, so it can offer a way for CFW users to get on PSN (LittleBigPlanet and such).

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[El Lobo]

Oh, shit, I was going to buy a Sony Cybershot tomorrow... What a pity.. Eh, wait a minute, I WILL buy it tomorrow.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[iainl]

Of course there's a contract between Sony and the retailer. The point of the refund demand, and so why Sony's refusal to get involved, is that the relevant contract is between the customer and the retailer. Amazon are the people who have had to cough up for breach of contract, not Sony.

Now we've found out that Sony have no intention of reimbursing Amazon for it. So either the retailers are going to have to hope that nobody copies the idea in search of £50 for an hour's worth of complaining, or Amazon are going Legal on Sony's arse.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[T Murphy]

The contradiction from common law isn't necessarily hoped to be enforceable- terms in a contract can be used to establish a negotiation point before you get to a courtroom. For example, consulting engineers often have a clause about limiting their monetary liability and settling disputes with arbitration. Although unenforceable in a court of law, these terms can help you reach an agreement if things haven't gone bad enough to file a suit.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Registered Coward v2]

Would you expect Apple to have to deliver current OS capabilities to to PowerPC based Macs; or should OS vendors be required to ensure each new OS release, that adds functionality or fixes bugs, is backwards compatible with all programs to not take away any originally provided functionality?

No but if they ad an update to the older version of the software that disables dualboot on the mac, or stops Adobe CSX from working they would be facing similar/more wrath. It would be one thing if sony stopped updating the software, and a third party started requiring a higher version of software to play a game, but this is removing a core feature PSN, and a feature advertised. yes i'm using advertised a bit loosely, they had instruction on their site for getting it set up.

Upsetting users and violating consumer protection laws are two different issues. Companies piss off users all the time but that doesn't mean their actions violate laws.

The other way to do this would have been for Sony to charge for the update - in essence selling you a new set of features that changes the basic functionality. Of course, many more users would be upset over that than the loss of the other OS feature.

As for PSN, they could change how access is done to restore older firmware access. At that point, they have not undone any original functionality for non-upgraders and the issue is moot.

Of course, this then open s the whole issue of "do games produced after the original release of the machine have to able to be run on the original hardware?" I would think the answer to that is no; and if Sony decides to make an update available then a user deciding to upgrade is making the decision to forgo previous capabilities in order to gain new ones; and Sony is not violating EU law, IMHO.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[PalmKiller]

Lawyers will buy some nice new rides.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[h4rr4r]

So you tend to place blame on the abused spouse not the abuser right?
If only she had washed the dishes right he would not have had to beat the shit out of her.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[dimeglio]

I don't understand Sony's intentions behind the removal of that feature. It's crazy. Even for security concerns, following the hack by George Hotz, they should have simply found another, less disruptive way to block the access. I say thank-you George Hotz for sharing your brilliance and damn you Sony for overreacting. Now, I know George can probably find a workaround to his exploit even with the "other os" option gone, so what's next? No more wifi, no more blu-ray?

Can you say class action lawsuit?

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[mpe]

Read the EULA here. ( http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html )
It is explicitly said in the EULA that the warranty of "fitness for a particular purpose" is totally disclaimed in any imaginable or non-imaginable way.
The EULA applies to firmware, too, according to the 3rd paragraph.

In order for an EULA to mean anything at all it must be consistent with the "law of the land". That is all relevant statute, case and common laws where you are (or possibly where you bought the whatever).

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[jvkjvk]

Everyone else: "huh?"

I hope this is more like: "Really, how much...?"

"Free" money (as in beer) which is not free (as in freedom), but which may make Sony capitulate on this, freeing the console once again.

Of course, as I said, what may capture the interest of the rest of the world is indeed - "How much money was that, again?" followed by a quick heuristic check to see if it's worth it to them to persue that "free money".

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[mpe]

There is a way an EULA can be a binding contract for the consumer, if and only if the retailer puts into his terms and conditions a clause, that by buying a good the buyer agrees to whatever EULA comes with the good purchased. But in this case the retailer should be able to hand a copy of the EULA to the consumer whenever asked for it.

Or even a copy before they become a customer. Which a potential customer can examine elsewhere with the help of whatever lawyers they might choose.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Lulfas]

Scientific researchers don't update their software to play games on it. Also, Sony has said they will be selling a version without the ability to play games for users such as this. Please think before you post.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Lulfas]

Sony has also repeatedly said they are working for a 10 year console life. They don't need to replace it yet.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[DavidTC]

I'm not saying that car dealers are not thieving rob-dog scumbags but they will at least give you the option of a Bose sound system or include it in the price, you know, *to keep*.

Indeed. The internet and computers have managed to invent a whole new level of scumbagness.

Before that, if you were stupid, they might sell you a pig in a bag that was actually a cat (Giving rise to both the expression 'buying a pig in a poke' and 'letting the cat out of the bag'.) or a disease ridden horse they tarted up for an horse, or a poorly constructed car, or whatever.

Throughout history there's been plenty of ways to rip people off, but, like you said, all of them stopped at the sale. Intelligent people would inspect very closely what they were buying, and make their choice, and that was that.

No one in the entire history of 'selling stuff' would ever suggest that the seller could, in three months, come about and swap out the horse you purchased for a different, crappier horse. Or remove the headlights of your car.

Until software.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

> On /. we prefer the word pirated. Thanks for understanding.

^^ Ha ha I stole your text, now you can't use it!!

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Old games will stop working at least partially as well, since the multiplayer/online features requires that you have the latest firmware installed.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[tlhIngan]

ATTENTION - the DNS hack does NOT WORK ANYMORE

Looks like Sony's closed that loophole for now - it was a good two weeks while it lasted, but now SOny's enforcing a check. (Wonder if you can proxy-fake it?)

Guess we'll just wait for geohot to release his update.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[arekusu_ou]

Not that I condone what Sony did, it is a dick move.

But I don't recall Sony ever advertising that the PS3 has the feature of Linux install. I might have missed it, it's possible, I don't care for the PS3. People saw the possibility, modded it, spread the news. But as far as I know, it wasn't advertised and sold as a Linux machine.

It's like saying, a semi-automatic gun could be modded to full automatic. People spread the news and bought it as such. And then the gun manufacturing, for whatever reason, decide to fix future bullets not to work in the modded machines, and only work in the original guns, because they had no intention of making fully automatic guns. It's a stretch, in reality the gun manufacturing fixed the semi-gun itself not to be modded again.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

OMFG! An actual sensible argument from one of the most notorious MS shill and anti-Linux trolls ever to grace Slashdot. Geez, 50 more of those and I might take you off of my foe list.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[DavidTC]

While a bunch of other people have pointed out that doesn't really fly, I have to point out it doesn't matter.

Warranty of "fitness for a particular purpose" is talking about the implied warranty of fitness. When I go into a car lot, and purchase a car, it is implied that said car can, for example, lock the doors. When I purchase something sold as a microwave oven, it is implied that it can heat food via microwaves. If I purchase a chest of drawers, it is implied that said drawers can open and close and I can put things in them. Something sold as a 'telephone' better be able to 'ring' and 'dial'.

This is just a sort of 'general expectations' of society. If you're selling stuff under a certain name, it has to be able to what people, in general, expect 'that thing' to be able to do, or you have explicitly label it as unable to do that, or sell it 'as is'. That's the implied warranty of fitness. You call it X, it looks like X, it better be able to, generally, 'do all X-ish things'.

This is only true for things that people would expect all items of that sort to have. For example, things sold as 'cars' do not need air conditioning. Some cars do not have that. If you buy a 'car' without checking, and it doesn't have that, tough. Likewise, it is not 'implied' that consoles can run other OSes.

It is, incidentally, probably not reasonably to assert your product doesn't met the implied warranty of fitness in an EULA. You almost certainly have to tell people before they buy it. That's not an ''agreement' between buyer and seller, it's a notification to the buyer. As at that point, they're supposed to inspect it to see if this 'broken' things meets their specific needs and if they still want to buy it. Hence, having it in the EULA entirely defeats the purpose. But that's neither here nor there, because we're not talking about 'implied' anything:

Sony actually stated a purpose, repeatedly. It stopped being implied. (In fact, that purpose wouldn't be implied anyway.) They said you could run other OSes on it.

You cannot disclaim a stated purpose. If I say ' You can do X with this', and sell it to you, even if I disclaim 'fitness for purpose', and you cannot do X with it, and I know that, I just committed fraud.

Anything seller specifically say you can do with something, you have to be able to do with it. Period. It doesn't matter if they sell it 'as is' or disclaim anything...if they do that and also claim 'You can do X with it', the 'You can do X with it' is what matters.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[uglyduckling]

"..not that you would understand"

Wow, that's the best non-argument I've heard in a long time, AC. Like - I know all about this and have lots of detail, but you wouldn't understand so let's just take it that I'm right. Awesome.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

You have a funny definition of less abusive.

I do not want to spend $50 a year to have some 14 year old punk call me a "fag" because I suck at Modern Warfare over a headset. I do not want to buy new hardware because Microsoft is deciding that standard HID devices aren't good enough for console games. I do want to spend $100 on a feature that should be built in, like WiFi. etc. etc.

If you want open gaming, get a PC. If you're willing to take some abuse, despite the loss of Other OS, Sony's the way to go.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Suggesting that "OtherOS costs Sony real money" is no less applicable than saying "Blu-Ray users cost Sony real money".. should Sony disable PS3 users who play movies but DON'T play games?

OtherOS costs money for Sony to maintain.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[acohen1]

If you are referring to the recent date error, you are incorrect. This was not a PSN outage, and some of the games refused to start because the internal clock of the OS and the power management subsystem did not match because of a 2010 leap year error in the power management chip.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Plekto]

You heard it here first, Sony advance to the head of the shitlist. Microsoft loses its crown after so many years at the top.

****
It seems as if people are finally realizing what many of us have known for almost a decade. Now we just need to wean them of their unhealthy Apple obsession. Sony, Microsoft, Apple, and Disney - probably the most anti-consumer giants out there that try to put on a polished and friendly image despite being about as cooperative and nice behind the scenes as a mafia thug.(and Toyota seems to be gunning for spot #5 - sigh...)

Now, to be honest, they're no worse than Pfiser or GE or ADM or many of the others out there. But the "We're your friend - we care" BS is, well, I personally find it to be extremely grating and almost verging on patronizing as if we're idiots. At leas the other corporations they are up-front and honest about making money and not caring. I can at least respect them in a way for that. But if I hear another happy PS3 or IPhone ad, I think I'll puke.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[DavidTC]

Indeed.

I stay about two years behind on PC hardware, and it seems like, 75% of the time, I'm way way ahead of consoles. And spending about 25% of the cost. (At this point, you can actually buy a laptop more powerful than a PS3 for PS3 prices. Crazy.)

Every couple of years new consoles come out that mostly match PC levels, and I, might, gasp, be temporarily behind until I upgrade in a year. As I tend to buy games a year behind anyway, whatever.

I honestly don't understand why people buy consoles.

Yes, I've heard nonsense about 'playing on TV screens'...but, newsflash, you can do that with a PC too. And buy wireless joysticks and whatnot. Even assuming you don't want to hook up your existing PC (And with wireless controls and some long HDMI cable, you can do it even in another room.), it's often cheaper to build an entire new PC than buy a console. (And, while you're at it, stick XBMC on there on there, buy a $35 MS remote, and watch videos too.)

I guess an argument can be made for multiple players, as many console games have better 'multiple people playing off the same screen' setup, but it seems a sorta weak argument, and if people would start playing PC games that way, we'd quickly have split-screen PC games.

The only console I understand buying is the Wii, because it actually is pretty cheap, and you can't really get those sort of casual active games on the PC. But that only makes sense because Nintendo intelligently dropped out of the 'more power!' race to stupidity that consoles were using as a selling point but, by any objective measure, were constantly losing to PCs. (Simply because consoles took years to come out.)

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, Sony was supposed to make profits from selling PS3 hardware by the second year according to Ken Kutaragi. Howard Stringer and co put a stop to this by not including Cell on other consumer products. Ken Kutaragi knew that the only way PS3 was to make profits was by applying the economy of scale.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Bert64]

Much worse...

MS have never condoned modding the xbox, their stance on the matter has remained consistent right from the start. You knew before you bought the xbox that modding it is an unsupported action that carries a risk of bricking your console and getting you banned from xbox live.

Sony on the other hand intentionally provided the ability to run linux (and theoretically other operating systems too), and advertised this as a feature of the console. They have now taken away this feature from users who paid for it, and any user who wishes to retain the otheros feature gets the playstation network and the ability to play newer games taken away from them instead.

Sony are taking away advertised features of the console, features which were the deciding factor for some people when buying the console. MS are fixing bugs in the design which enabled users to make the console do things it was never designed to do.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Bert64]

The retailed might have contracted somalian pirates to hijack a ship load of ps3 consoles...

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[mimiru]

Speaking of selling the consoles at a loss, is this really true? I can understand this at the beginning of the console's life cycle, but now the hardware is not as expensive as it was when it was first introduced. In addition, the R&D must have also been covered by now. Anybody with real numbers?

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Rasperin]

It's called Bait and Switch and is illegal in the good ol' US of A. Smells like class action suit.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[nedlohs]

The don't sell consoles with that feature anymore, so it has nothing to do with subsidies and so on - removing said feature on old already bought machines doesn't change that.

Maybe it costs money to support the Other OS feature and not break it with future updates, but that also has nothing to do with subsidizing the price.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Rasperin]

Your car analogy isn't quite right. Instead of replacing them for lower quality speakers it's like them coming to your house and removing the complete stereo system and leaving.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[SimonTheSoundMan]

The only decent Sony products these days are their professional equipment. Their consumer products, such as TV's and small hi-fi are woeful.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony's legal counsel thought it was a great idea to stick rootkits on their music CDs.

[citation needed]

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[SimonTheSoundMan]

I used this analogy the other day:

You buy a car which has a fixed tow bar so you can haul your trailer or caravan. You bought it with the tow bar because it is something you specified at sale. The manufacturer one day remotely disables your car ignition until you get your tow bar cut off. They will then re-enable your ignition.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Richy_T]

And $5 vouchers off of future Sony products (full MSRP only)

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Gizzmonic]

Yeah, you're right, Bluray would have never beaten HD-DVD without OtherOS. What the fuck was I thinking?

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[GNious]

I love EULAs that are presented after a purchase is complete - what with them being legally void in the countries I live my life.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[shutdown -p now]

Now, let's proceed with your outrageous suggestion that mega corporations have a right to shut down customers who are less profitable.

Isn't that precisely what American ISPs are doing with advertising "unlimited" broadband plans, oversubscribing that, and then disconnecting people when they try to actually use them as such?

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[anethema]

Funny, Sony fucks their customers so often they could almost argue it in court.

"Your honor, they bought a product from US and did not expect to be ripped off? We can't possibly expect the court to believe that."

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[shutdown -p now]

Eulas are zero and void in Europe

EULAs have been held binding in the US

Vive la différence!

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[bigngamer92]

How is this funny? This is the perfect solution to the problem. Software guys would have to make it simple or just release it without licence, although I don't think most people would read through the GNU license either.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Rootkits that don't work if you play CDaudio into a classic table CD PLAYER (or different O.S. ). moron!

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of clueless, maybe you should have at least done a quick google before posting. As of right now, the PS3 has not been fully cracked, pirating games is not an option.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait since when does a legal counsel ever see even basic facts?

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's my beef though: Are you asking for a partial refund for breach of warranty or a full repudiation of the contract for sale for breach of condition? IANAL, but I've taken a few university law courses specifically relating to contract law and sale-of-goods practices here in Canada (5-6 years ago..).

I see the actions taken by Sony as a breach of condition: I purchased a black box with some wires and shiny bits which did two things: play games, movies & other media, and run Linux. Removing Linux makes the PS3 a fundamentally different piece of equipment - it is now *just* a game console and not a computing device (or, if you choose not to update, it is a computing device with a crippled game console).

(Obligatory car analogy: Like Ford eliminating 4 wheel drive from your Explorer - sure, virtually no-one uses it and those who do likely only do so once in a blue moon, but not having it makes the vehicle fundamentally different in what it *is* and what it is capable of.)

I think the $50 or whatever refund is a joke and an insult. I see two solutions (under Canadian law) to this problem if a court gets ahold of it and actually understands what happened here (I'm not holding my breath, but hypothetically): One, specific performance: Sony restores functionality and turns tail & runs. And two, repudiation: Anyone who so chooses may consider their original purchase agreement, along with all games and any platform-specific accessories, null and void.

There is no middle ground - for a judge to allow Sony to, say, give everyone who fills out a form $100 for their trouble would be to give Sony control of the situation - Section 15 of the Sale of Goods Act here clearly states that this is the Buyer's option, not the seller's.

As for Sony not being the actual retailer, I think it's a valid point but I can't see it being any more difficult to address than suing both companies jointly and severally - I doubt there has ever been a situation where it's more appropriate to tie a retailer and manufacturer's fates together.

I've emailed a few consumer organizations - the Competition Bureau is the only one I've formally heard back from and they just said they're reviewing the complaint, though two others said that the CB is the right place to start. I hope I don't have to sue, but really I can't imagine Sony caving unless they are publicly shamed or legally forced to.

I hope Sony gets tossed under a bus for this and I think our laws, watchdogs and generally whiny population here in Canada might have just what it takes to do just that. Maybe a few consumers will even learn a thing or two along the way.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Svartalf]

Uh... You DO realize that you are now using a console that's only marginally better in the regard you mention- and that has made remarks along the lines of FOSS being "unconstitutional" and "a cancer" and has threatened patent litigation against Linux companies for years now?

It still amazes me to no end whatsoever that people will have problems with the stuff Sony's doing, be all big and fine about Linux- and then go and willingly use a Microsoft product like the 360 without any qualms whatsoever, thinking it's fine or at least better than this stuff with the PS3. It all verges on cognitive dissonance, it does...

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Svartalf]

No... It doesn't. It's an option piece in a bootloader, much more like the XP/Visa or LILO/GRUB loaders than anything else.

If you think maintaining the ability to add line-items really costs them all that much, I've got a bridge to sell you.

OtherOS revealed a gaping hole in their DRM that they can't really fix all that easily or well- such that they're pulling the plug on it to buy themselves at least a little bit of time before the torrent of cracks on their titles really begins.

Now, one could make a case that this cost them money... No...their DRM being flawed (as has been shown with ALL DRM...) is what cost them money- and it remains to be seen if it actually will cost them money overall or just that they'll gain slightly less profits than before.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

You are mistaken.

Distributions for OtherOS are made by other companies, like Ubuntu or Yellow Dog.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[91degrees]

Trouble is anyone who cares has already boycotted them over the rootkit fiasco. (And personally this is causing me a nuisance - all the phones I like seem to be from Sony)

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Their DRM isn't flawed, where's the CFW? Where's the downloadable games?

Granted, their DRM is going to be broken, I'm willing to bet, but it's year 4 of the PS3's existence and no long term DRM breaking scheme has been devised. No game console has gone this long between launch and breaking. Flawed? No. Unbreakable? Don't be so thick.

As far as it costing them to maintain, they've got to fix the holes in the hypervisor, and that takes money they're not willing to spend.

If I were at sony I'd argue to fix the hypervisor in the next firmware, not disable OtherOS completely, given that people are going to try to reenable the feature anyway. However, I don't work at Sony, I just shill for them for free on the Internet.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Yes but the Hypervisor is their code and they need to fix the Hypervisor.

(Yes, yes, there's the WHY BOTHER JUST GIVE US FULL ACCESS LOL argument but fuck that.)

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

The Wii is cheap? It hasn't dropped much in price since it was released and the basic version of the Xbox360 is cheaper.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[speculatrix]

the dns hack at least stops the PS3 from trying to update its firmware, which is good for me as it means family members won't try and update it to get on PSN... but I can no longer login to PSN so my ~~$10 of credit is now in limbo.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[DavidTC]

The crippled hard-drive less X-Box 260 can be found for the same price as a Wii, but that's a pretty dumb thing to buy.

And, um, yes, something that is tied for the lowest price is, in fact, 'pretty cheap' by any sane person's conception of 'pretty cheap'.

And you will notice I pointed out two reasons to get a a Wii. They are priced 'pretty cheap' and they have the kind of games that you can't get on a PC or other consoles, casual multi-player games. (Whereas you can get the same kind of games on the PS3, Xbox, and the PC, although not always the exact same game. The exception might be Guitar Hero style games, which are only on consoles, but, hey, only need one of those.)

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[DavidTC]

Why would Nintendo do that? Wouldn't it be more logical to simply come up with a new controller for a Wii and have games developed that require that?

Nintendo is doing amazingly well in sales with the Wii. I can see them looking around and attempting to recapture some of the gamer crowd (although they hardly need to), but the simplest way to do that is to just keep making Wiis, but come out with some new controller as a 'gamer' addon, and some new name like 'Wii+' or something to stick on games that require it.

Alternately, if they need more power, I can see this being a quasi-separate product, but still with the Wii name and all the stuff, but some added CPU and a new controller on top of that. But that takes a lot more development then bringing Gamecube controllers back to the Wii.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[mmj638]

I have serious doubts that the EULA can override law like that.

Your doubts are warranted. It can't.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[deek]

Good PR with nerds is more important than you think.

Nerds are often consulted when their family members are purchasing consumer electronics. If you piss off that small segment, there is a large follow on to the general market. Nerds are also quite active in tech related forums and groups. They can also be very vocal when they're annoyed.

The only cost to Sony with the Other OS feature, was in maintaining their hypervisor code for it. They didn't support the feature over the phone, so there was no technical support cost for them.

Linux was never going to be a tool for pirating games directly. It's just a stepping stone to developing a hack for the PS3 Game OS. Once that hack has been developed, then technically speaking, the hackers won't need Linux any more. They'll be able to load their own homebrew through the PS3 Game OS directly.

The strange thing is, this update will not affect the people developing the hack. The hackers just won't update. So, in this case, Sony are actually being *that* stupid.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[Bakkster]

Bear in mind that Sony includes OS updates on disks, for those without internet connectivity. Pretty soon, if you want to keep OtherOS you will have to skip certain games as well.

Re:Normally, I'd say let them do what they want

[{e}N0S]

All their games that they've bought so far currently work, so long as they don't "upgrade" to the latest firmware, plus they keep their other OS functionality.

Except my copy of Warhawk is online only. Without updating, this game is now useless to me as there is no single player option.

I guess...

[SharpFang]

...a class action lawsuit may convince them otherwise.

Re:I guess...

[ashkar]

I'd get in on that. There is no fucking way a company should be able to disable a feature years after the purchase.

Re:I guess...

[Ant P.]

A class action lawsuit... and the sudden plummet in software sales once the general public forcibly take back the feature they paid for.

Re:I guess...

[SharpFang]

totally. I guess it will be even more successful than the total boycott of Modern Warfare 2 for lack of dedicated servers. That certainly showed them!

Re:I guess...

[twoshortplanks]

In the UK at least the consumers have no redress against Sony unless Sony sold them the console, which in most cases it didn't - Amazon (or a high street retailer) did. You'd need to sue the retailer (who then, in turn, could sue sony.) Is this different in the states?

Re:I guess...

[Monkey-Man2000]

me too

Re:I guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, as a point of law, that depends.

See, the retailer sold you the device. So from the point of view of warranties and fit-for-a-particular-purpose and all of that, they're the one responsible.

On the other hand, there are different bodies of law upon which you can act; things like false advertising, fraudulent dealings, denial of service, etc., that are distinct from the actual purchase transaction and for which Sony is fully responsible, since they advertised the feature, and they removed the feature.

For example, Sony advertised something that they did not provide - you don't have to have purchased something to have standing under that.

Heck, competing device manufacturers could even sue them for anti-competitive behavior, although to be honest the bar is likely too high for them to make it worth proving anything, especially since they benefit at least as much by leaving Sony to keep aiming squarely at it's feet and pulling the trigger.

Re:I guess...

[ShakaUVM]

>>totally. I guess it will be even more successful than the total boycott of Modern Warfare 2 for lack of dedicated servers. That certainly showed them!

Well... I didn't buy MW2, for that reason. Maybe if they'd have made an extra billion dollars or so Activision wouldn't have fired Zampanella and Lombardi, or whatever their names are. Or... nah. They'd have just screwed them out of more money.

Re:I guess...

[xtracto]

Well... tell that to all the "online playing" enabled games. It was not too long ago that EA informed they will shut down several of their online game servers...

Re:I guess...

[Civil_Disobedient]

In the UK at least the consumers have no redress against Sony unless Sony sold them the console, which in most cases it didn't

But, it was Sony that initiated the actions that broke the contract.

(car analogy...)

I buy a Toyota from Bill's Discount Cars. Toyota then issues a recall saying I have to bring the vehicle in to a Toyota dealership to fix a dodgy accelerator pedal. While fixing the accelerator, they disable my radio because they would rather I bought CDs instead of listening to "free" music.

Re:I guess...

[KDR_11k]

Those explicitly state that the online functionality may be ended and since it's a service that's understandable. The Other OS feature is not a service and did not come with a warning that it can be revoked later on.

Re:I guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, thankfully the success of this lawsuit wouldn't be predicated upon the support of the 'SAE bros.'

Re:I guess...

[twoshortplanks]

But, it was Sony that initiated the actions that broke the contract.

It's my understanding that in English and Welsh law in this hypothetical situation I don't have a contract with Sony; They haven't received any consideration from me, and I haven't received anything from them. I do have a hypothetical contact with Amazon however.

To explain this in terms of your car analogy, the accelerator is broken and I have two choices: Go to Bill's Discount Cars and demand compensation from them that the car doesn't work properly on the basis of my contract of sale with them (i.e. go to amazon and complain that my PS3 doesn't play the latest games) or I can get Toyota to fix it and accept that they'll break my radio (install the update from Sony and lose the Linux support.) I can't complain to Toyota about the way they'd fix the car because I've got no contract with them and they're under no obligation to do so (they're doing it to stop Bill getting annoyed with them in turn and to protect their image, but not because they legally have to).

This said the above Anonymous Coward has some very good points about advertising which may give me additional redress and totally debunk my main points. Yey for anonymous cowards!

Re:I guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

"totally. I guess it will be even more successful than the total boycott of Modern Warfare 2 for lack of dedicated servers. That certainly showed them!"

It's hard to show loss of sales, since no one calculates potential losses. It's something geeks are familiar with; no one cares that no one buys a Windows license when they build their own machine and installs Linux or BSD on it, but after awhile, MS did start to care, didn't they? Companies rarely do this assessment; it's similar to the ipad phenomenon--people look at how many sales there are, but they don't look at how many customers would _and_ would not have had feature X been implemented.

Sony lost about $3,500 in money from me this past month, not only in several PS3 games, but an HDTV and a laptop. This June, when the sales hit, there will be a 2nd HDTV that I'll be getting that won't be a Sony either. I went and will go elsewhere for my electronics. I was *really* happy with the 2 fat PS3s I own, a 60gb and an 80gb. This change of theirs with firmware 3.21 really ticks me off.

btw, I didn't buy Modern Warfare 2 because of the online gameplay server issues. But I knew about the restriction beforehand, and that led to my decision. The PS3 issue is removing a feature after the product was purchased. That's at minimum going to annoy and be bad PR; for a console in 3rd, who advertises like hell, it just means Sony won't profit as much.

Re:I guess...

[spyder913]

I didn't buy Modern Warfare either, and I just bought BF:BC2 because it's got actual PC features.

Re:I guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

...a class action lawsuit may convince them otherwise.

There is a class action on the way, from the same people as the Ewert v eBay class action. http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case_no-5:2007cv02198/case_id-191451/ case
Patricia A. Carlson, The Carlson Law Office & John Fabry of Bailey&Gaylen.

And I'd say, even if you don't use the other OS functionality, join the suit, you might get a few free bucks out of the deal...

Posting AC because I'm also part of the class.

I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia too

[Anonymous Coward]

Naturally I'm only a deskjockey but in Australia you can get refunds if the item you bought doesn't do what was claimed. To use a car analogy: Like buying a car only to have GM come around and remove the fuel tank at some future date. GM would claim in their terms and conditions it clearly said they could alter the purchased item at any time. Somehow I don't think that would fly.

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/8818#h3_125

Why did SONY even bother making this a feature...

[hguiney]

...if they didn't actually give a shit about it? What were they expecting people to do with it, if not make homebrew games and rip Blu-rays? Seems like really poor product design on their part.

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[Techman83]

Maybe, but it depends whether the feature was actually advertised, or just happened to be there.

You are not liable if the fault resulted from incorrect advice provided to the consumer by the retailer.

This might give some hope though

You cannot impose misleading conditions into your contract with retailers to limit your responsibility for the goods you have supplied. For example, stating that the retailer must pay freight for returning faulty goods, or that faulty goods must be returned in the original packaging, is likely to mislead the retailer about their rights and your obligations.

Glad I never bought one, I just don't trust Sony enough.

Re:Why did SONY even bother making this a feature.

[Anonymous Coward]

To prop up and advertise cell as a high performance super computing platform.

Irrelevant to consumers

[Namarrgon]

Your own country's consumer law will tell you if you (as a PS3 owner) are entitled to any form of compensation for this, regardless of Sony's opinion, or the retailer's. But you can't sue Sony over it AFAIK, since you have no contract with them directly.

However, retailers do have a contract with Sony - and many countries also have some statutory laws regarding contracts between corporations. Thus there may be grounds for retailers to claim compensation, or even sue for breach.

Of course, this might be a great way to piss off a major supplier, so I'm betting most retailers won't go after Sony, and will either write off a few customer claims or do their best to deny them.

Re:Irrelevant to consumers

[Sleepy]

>But you can't sue Sony over it AFAIK, since you have no contract with them directly.

yes you do: the update server which removed the OtherOS feature.

It's no different than buying a car from a "dealer".. it's still the manufacturer's problem.

Re:Irrelevant to consumers

[StormReaver]

#include // Yes, we've upgraded from Disclaimer to Disclaimer++

Connecting to Sony's servers for the upgrade establishes a direct connection to the company performing the vandalism on the consoles. That seems to me to establish a direct business relationship between the console owner and Sony, just as someone smashing a car with a sledge-hammer would establish a direct link between the car owner and the car vandal.

Not particularly surprising

[jimicus]

Note that in the EU, your contract is with (and therefore the organisation you have to sue if it all goes pear-shaped) the retailer, not the manufacturer. But now that Sony has made an official announcement, there is no way most retailers will even contemplate offering a partial refund until they receive court papers - and possibly not until it's heard and an order is handed down.

Even if ordered to by a court, a retailer isn't going to bother trying to sue Sony unless and until they have had to refund a sufficiently large number of customers as to make it worthwhile. They're certainly not going to take Sony on over a single £70 refund (which I believe is what Amazon refunded), and they probably won't until they have dealt with hundreds, if not thousands of similar refunds.

I'm not convinced there are enough people who are sufficiently bothered by it as to make that happen.

Re:Not particularly surprising

[Nuitari The Wiz]

In Quebec while the contract is with the retailer, you can sue the both the retailer and the manufacturer for problems and liabilities.

In fact, stopping games from working with an older version of the firmware could also be used in court, as these are all conditions that are added after the initial contract (the sale). Furthermore, the consumer rights law in Quebec are very clear on the point that no contract can revoke any rights granted by the law.

Re:Not particularly surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony doesn't play nice, no one should play nice. Let's copy and share Sony's music and movies as much as we can.

Re:Not particularly surprising

[AHuxley]

Sony would have to fight 'you' or a small class action on precedent alone. :)
They learned that from the DVD region code loopholes in consumer laws in some parts of the world.
When you enter a new market with new 'upgrades' never have parts of the world out of step.

Re:Not particularly surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's copy and share Sony's music and movies as much as we can.

You mean they already do something worth pirating?

Bandwidth is cheap.

HDD space is cheap.

But lots of stuff on my BitTorrent queue competes for my precious time.

Re:Not particularly surprising

[koreaman]

God, every time I hear about Quebec my desire to move there grows.

Re:Not particularly surprising

[westlake]

I'm not convinced there are enough people who are sufficiently bothered by it as to make that happen.

and that is, I think, is what cuts the geek to the bone. The bugle sounds. But no one answers the call.

Re:Not particularly surprising

[paradigm82]

I agree that general consumer law in the EU dictates that the contract is with the retailer, not with the manufacturer (Sony in this case). Having said that, I think it might be possible to argue the case on other grounds than consumer laws. How about just general liability? After all, Sony is putting out an update that is ruining the devices. Shouldn't they be liable for that (compare to the case where the update totally wrecks the system). Additionally, they are putting other measures in place that ruin the device even if you don't install the update. Not just for their own Playstation Network but also with respect to your ability to play new games and Bluray movies. From this point of view, I don't see how anyone could have a case against the retailer, since the product was fine as sold. It was an external factor - Sony - that through its actions, deliberately ruined the product. It would be comparable to Sony breaking in and hitting your PS3 with a baseball bat. That is the legal argument I plan to use in my lawsuit against Sony. I don't want to sue the retailer since they did nothing wrong.

Re:Not particularly surprising

[paradigm82]

I plan to file my own lawsuit after pursuing some less drastic steps first. These things take time - I think there's a lot of action going on from consumers around the world, but every step can take several weeks and this update has been out for just two weeks. There are benefits to individuals pursuing the case themselves since different legal arguments can be tried. I would be surprised if all those legal arguments are going to fail in all of the numerous juristictions where the system has been sold :) BTW, I didn't install the update. I hope the case can be resolved before new movies/games that can't be played start coming out :)

Re:Not particularly surprising

[jimicus]

That's an extremely good question, and one I'd dearly love to see an answer to.

AFAIK, current legislation doesn't really account for products which by design can gain and lose functionality long after purchase. A product losing functionality because it broke earlier than you'd expect it to, fine. That is covered. But a product which can have features remotely removed and the manufacturer actively choosing to remotely, indiscriminately remove it for everyone?

Re:Not particularly surprising

[kramerd]

Meanwhile, in the US, you would ordinarily sue the manufacturer, retailer, and wholesaler for any legal complaint against manufactured items.

The question of who is ultimately liable is left up to court system (generally a judge or judge panel, not a jury, unless your damages go beyond the scope of the written or implied contract).

Re:Not particularly surprising

[arkhan_jg]

The UK Sale of Goods Act means the retailer is still on the hook. The goods should be fit for purpose, which means they should work for a period of time suitable for the product. For home electricals, this is generally around 6 years, with a sliding scale of refund for the length of time you've had it for, unless they repair it at their expense (which obviously doesn't apply in this case)

Given it's been intentionally broken after possibly only what, 8 months (when they started selling the slim, without the other os function) that's well within the period in which the customer can expect it to still function as sold. It doesn't matter if Sony says they're not paying the retailer for the refund, the retailer is still responsible for the quality of the product they sold - and being intentionally broken by an update is no different than if a part fails due to shoddy workmanship, it's still not fit for the purpose for which it was sold. Retailers *like* to pretend that your warranty is solely with the manufacturer, but as UK law stands it's crystal clear that the seller is on the hook for it for way longer than the 12 months weakass call-the-makers-indian-helpline warranty they try to fob you off with.

Re:Not particularly surprising

[jimicus]

Sorry, I should have made that clear in my earlier post.

I know the retailer is still on the hook but I also know from bitter experience that unless something is abundantly clear cut (think: something simple like a television no longer works after three weeks) they have a tendency to do everything in their power to avoid being held liable right up until the letters threatening court action show up.

I would describe this as not absolutely clear cut. The reason I would describe it as "not absolutely clear cut" is the console continues to work as it did before for most (not all) practical purposes, it's a little known feature among the general public which I wouldn't expect your average minimum wage sales clerk to know or care much about - and in most nationwide bricks & mortar stores, the store manager may be as high as you can get without writing rude letters but s/he usually has his hands tied by store policy (for which read: is threatened with losing his job for insisting on following the law. I doubt this would stand up in an employment tribunal but that's a separate kettle of fish altogether).

If the store head office sends out a memo to all stores saying "customers with fat PS3s complaining about this are SOL", most people are simply not getting any sort of refund without sitting down in front of the word processor.

Re:Not particularly surprising

[paradigm82]

As you say no one really knows since the ability of features to come and go were not anticipated by the law. Yet, BTW, it might also be possible to argue the case on standard consumer law if one considers the "right to receive updates" (since they are important to the continued operation of the device) as part of the whole product, like a subscription. I'm not sure if that would fly, but if it did you might have a case asince the "product" was defective. I guess the situation is somewhat similar to if one purchased a subscription for a newspaper on, say, Amazon, and then then the news outlet stopped sending you newspapers. Who do you have a case against - Amazon or the outlet?

Re:Not particularly surprising

[didroe84]

That sounds expensive.

This is going to end well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony: "Any refunds you offer are between you and your customers, and we're not obligated to reimburse you."

Amazon: "Thanks for the clarification. Also, we're not obligated to carry any Sony products. Just letting you know."

Hey, a guy can dream...

Re:This is going to end well...

[iapetus]

The same law that dictates whether consumers get refunds dictate whether the retailer can have their money back from Sony. In short, while Sony are refusing to be part of any good will refunds (because they've already given up on maintaining good will with their customers, apparently) they're still on the legal hook for any enforced refunds.

Re:This is going to end well...

[TedRiot]

Not everywhere. At least in Finland, B2C (reseller selling to the consumer) commerce is much more regulated than B2B (Sony selling to the reseller). The reseller is responsible to the consumer by law, but Sony is responsible to the reseller (through importers and such) by contract between them.

For example in B2C commerce the seller is responsible that the product works as intended for as long as is reasonable expected, which means that no matter what the manufacturer warranty says, a TV set for example is effectively expected to work for 5 years (which is short, but longer than the manufacturer warranty). In B2B the warranty is a contract. If an ad says that there is a two year warranty, that usually means that within that time in B2C it's easier to get the reseller to take responsibility. After the two years you end up having to cite the law and some national consumer agancy decisions to get them to fix things.

Re:This is going to end well...

[iapetus]

It's not the same law applied in the same way - it's an explicit inclusion in the B2C law. Article 4 of EU directive 1999/44/EC states:

Where the final seller is liable to the consumer because of a lack of conformity resulting from an act or omission by the producer, a previous seller in the same chain of contracts or any other intermediary, the final seller shall be entitled to pursue remedies against the person or persons liable in the contractual chain.

Re:This is going to end well...

[colonelquesadilla]

I can understand why they've given up on maintaining good will, not much point in maintaining something that doesn't exist anymore.

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[Namarrgon]

it depends whether the feature was actually advertised, or just happened to be there.

I believe it was written on the box.

Sony has dealed with this before

[SmallFurryCreature]

The PSP was infamous for having bad pixel problems. More so then any other device including the cheaper DS. So naturally Sony dug in and claimed that bad pixels were normal and it wouldn't repair or replace.

Dutch consumer watchdog program Kassa took up the story and voila, Holland become the only country were Sony replaced the PSP with ANY dead pixel or subpixel.

It is amazing how much consumer rights are being eroded by big companies who hope that the enough consumers just won't push the issue far enough for them to be forced to regonize the law.

OF course Sony has NO such problem prosecuting the consumer if they happen to violate the law (copyright infringement).

It seems that to big companies the law is a buffet. You take what you need and ignore the rest. And we are letting them get away with it.

And no, it ain't just Sony fanboys either. Apple lovers and MS apologists are just as bad.

We the consumer need to grow some balls.

Re:Sony has dealed with this before

[antifoidulus]

Yeah, but the protections are not totally without cost. Europeans always complain about the price differential between the American and European markets, but a big reason for this differential is that its just plain more expensive to do business in Europe. So you either get more protections or cheaper products, you cannot have both.

Re:Sony has dealed with this before

[Tromad]

When I bought the 1st generation PSP I returned it to walmart 5 times before I got one without dead pixels. Same for my Viewsonic monitor I got 4 years ago. I'm sure the employees hated me but I'm hypersensitive regarding product defects; if I'm paying more than $100 for something I expect it work 100%.

Re:Sony has dealed with this before

[SuperDre]

Only this time Kassa doesn't seem to be interested in coming up for the customers...

Re:Sony has dealed with this before

[NuShrike]

Still cheaper than extended warranties, or having the trader rip you off.

It's absolutely great in fact. My example: I bought a mobile from Clove Technology (based in UK). I'm in the USA. Mobile's mini-usb failed in 4 months. Under USA law, it's beyond any return period, so I need to deal with manufacturer for warranty repair. Well, under UK Sale of Goods Act, I get coverage from Clove for at least 6 months for ANY problems. And, if I think the mobile is no good for failing in that amount of time, I can demand either exchange or almost full-refund. This without costing me an extra cent beyond the mobile's purchase price.

Of course, actioning that policy is a different ball since Clove has taken 4 months in attempting to repair the mobile without actually just exchanging or refunding me, also in violation of the aforementioned Act. Well, it's in the courts now.

Re:Sony has dealed with this before

[XDirtypunkX]

What about health care, where Europeans generally have both more protection and cheaper products?

Re:Sony has dealed with this before

[zippthorne]

Where did you find a piece of electronics for sale in the US with a claimed manufacturer warranty of less than one year?

That is sufficient. There is no need for concurrently doubling the warranty with the retailer, too. That's just wasted resources.

Re:Sony has dealed with this before

[zippthorne]

I'd say they don't get NEW products, but that isn't true. They do get new products in the health industry, as they are the experimental subjects upon which our FDA eventually evaluates those products....

Re:Sony has dealed with this before

[jimicus]

We in Europe normally have to pay much higher sales tax (though we call it VAT, it's essentially the same thing).

The UK rate is 17.5% and that's one of the lower ones. Ireland, I believe, is 21%.

Once you've taken that off the price difference is usually far lower.

Re:Sony has dealed with this before

[antifoidulus]

Thats due to the fact that unlike video game consoles, health insurance is not a free-market product, as much as the health insurance industry and republicans would like people to believe. If Sony screws me over, I can buy Nintendo or Microsoft or stick with good old fashioned PC gaming. If my health insurance provider screws me over, there is almost nothing I can do.

Re:Sony has dealed with this before

[dkf]

Once you've taken [VAT] off the price difference is usually far lower.

Also, prices in the US are usually exclusive of sales taxes so the price you were quoted isn't the amount that you are actually supposed to pay in total. (I can see why you might do this for remote shopping, e.g., over the internet, but why is this policy applied at a small coffee shop where the prices are written on a blackboard? You can't buy there from out of state and they can change the advertised price faster even than a speeding local legislature...)

Re:Sony has dealed with this before

[windex82]

>Holland become the only country were Sony replaced the PSP with ANY dead pixel or subpixel.

Wonder how I got mine replaced when I got one with dead pixels here in the US... I don't think I'd go around saying they were the ONLY country...

Re:Sony has dealed with this before

[jbssm]

Actually if you had some knowledge of the law, you could get a new PSP because of bad pixels in all the countries of the EU (like I did in Portugal).

The strategy is simple. According to EU laws, a non perishable product bought on-line has a 15 days return police. That is, if you don't like the product for some reason and you buy it on-line you can just return it, no questions asked and they even have to refund you everything you paid plus the shipping back costs. So that's the strategy I used. I bought a first PSP and it had 2 bad pixels right in the centre of the screen (they were together), so I returned it and then bought another one on-line (and that one was ok).

I did the same to my MacBook Pro, since at that time (I don't know if they changed the policy now), Apple had the bad habit of treating EU costumers like USA ones (once they even tried to convince me the warranty was only 1 year, not the 2 years we are entitled in EU) and there was this 5 or 6 acceptable dead pixels policy. So, it happened the same, 1st one had bad pixels and nothing could be done about it, so I returned it. 2nd one came with 2 stuck pixels, but I massaged them and they went away.

Re:Sony has dealed with this before

[ZildjianKX]

This brings back some bad memories. My PSP had 18 (yes 18) dead pixels and Sony refused to warranty it and ebgames refused to exchange it without buying a protection plan (Sony explicitly told them they wouldn't take back PSPs with dead pixels). $25 later (from buying the protection plan), I swapped it out after a year when the systems had better build qualities. The new unit had a perfect screen. I bought a slimmer model later and the screen was fine. Maybe the launch units were the only bad ones, but still... Sony handled it horribly. I guess I forgot about that when I bought my PS3...

Re:Sony has dealed with this before

[Creepy Crawler]

Dell : 90 days.

Re:Sony has dealed with this before

[517714]

It seems that to big companies the law is a buffet. You take what you need and ignore the rest. And we are letting them get away with it.

And how it this behavior different than that of the average citizen who speeds, fails to come to a complete stop at a controlled intersection, and avoids paying state sales tax by buying mailorder?

Don't for a moment think that I am defending Sony or any other corporation. I simply believe that holding corporations to a different standard, whether higher or lower, than individuals is wrong.

Re:Sony has dealed with this before

[feepness]

I bought a slimmer model later and the screen was fine. Maybe the launch units were the only bad ones...

Anyone who buys a consumer electronics device at launch deserves what they get... higher prices and lamer hardware.

I'd laugh at the iPhone 2G purchasers, but they funded development of my iPhone 3GS so I really have to give them credit...

Re:Sony has dealed with this before

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a viewsonic with no dead pixels, of course it's a CRT, and it was free since I found it by the dumpster.

Re:Sony has dealed with this before

[bingoUV]

I simply believe that holding corporations to a different standard, whether higher or lower, than individuals is wrong.

Why? For 2 reasons, corporations (above a certain size, of course) should be held to a different standard:

1. The excuse of ignorance of law can never apply to a corporation above a certain size. A vast majority of crimes that normal citizens do as part of leading their simple lives are due to ignorance of law - not only that doing so and so is illegal but all the nitty-gritty of it.

Ignorance of law in common people makes it practical to not enforce all laws always on all normal citizens. This never applies to corporations.

2. Corporations cannot be jailed / given death penalty. Until you figure out a way of doing such a thing, corporations will always inherently be held to a different standard.

I sold that DRM son of a bitch

[jprupp]

I bought a PS3 because it could run Linux. It was interesting for me to see what Linux could do in that machine. After some time, I became bored by it, I couldn't turn it into a decent Linux media center, many video formats didn't play properly, and I wasn't really playing much with it. DVDs or Blu-Ray discs from other zones wouldn't work in it, and I think the device was too locked for my open sourcer taste. I felt like when I had an iPhone. Then I get the news on the firmare update that would disable Linux compatibility, and that was the end for me. I sold that motherfucker through online auctions along with all games. So much for proprietary platforms and me.

Re:I sold that DRM son of a bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

I sold that DRM son of a bitch

Yeah, my PS3's mother was quite the wild one, too.

Re:I sold that DRM son of a bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool story, bro.

Re:I sold that DRM son of a bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

>I sold that motherfucker through online auctions along with all games

Caught you in a lie -- the PS3 doesn't have any games!!

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[stoneform]

i don't fully agree with the fuel tank analogy. i'd say it'd be more like removing the A/C, but then again it said somewhere the feature isn't used by the majority of people. a better analogy would be like removing a seat warming feature, or disabling gps navigation. enough impact to make a fuss and ruin PR but not enough to trash all your Sony goods over.

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[xtracto]

Glad I never bought one, I just don't trust Sony enough.

Funny, since the Sony ROOTKIT fiasco I have felt the same way about Sony.

Nevertheless, I almost caved to buy a Sony ebook reader (they were the best ones at the time, even better than Kindle IMHO) and a PS3 (after I got so bored with the Nintendo Wii). Given that the time that passed since the Rootkit fiasco and that it seemed sony ebook Reader was an OK DRM compromise I *almost* got it.

Fortunately I have waited. Frankly, this Sony PS3 move shows that they can screw their *current* paying customers in retrospective and not give a darn about it.

Sincerely I really believe this is class lawsuit stuff... unfortunately from a quick look at boxes pictures I cannot any mention of the "supports OtherOS" in PS3 box

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[xtracto]

it depends whether the feature was actually advertised, or just happened to be there.

I believe it was written on the box.

I am not so sure about that after looking at some PS3 boxes pictures

Re:Why did SONY even bother making this a feature.

[xtracto]

I read someone here on slashdot who claimed it was done so that they could avoid certain taxes (putting the PS3 as a general computation machine) but do not quote me on that... in fact I would be happy if someone shed more light to that claim.

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[AHuxley]

Ring the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and see what they say.
If the person on the phone does not seem to get it, you can escalate your enquiry.
Make an appointment. Have the box and any Sony Australia PR/press material that mentions "Other OS functionality" with you.
Keep on pressing as the GP noted, this is really interesting wrt Australia law and the new direction consumer protection laws should be taking.
Also remember you local member of parliament, local press, radio and other PS3 users for viral video "flash mobs".
Request an interview with Sony Australia as a citizen journalist for your blog ... ;)

Of course Sony say this. But...

[iapetus]

The same law that dictates whether the customer should receive a refund from the retailer determines whether that retailer has recourse against Sony for their costs incurred. So if this ever ends up in court (and I know of at least one case where it looks likely that it will) then if a precedent is set that the consumer deserves a refund it's going to be hard for Sony to fight. They can refuse all they like to sanction it, but if national law says they have to pay up, then they have to pay up.

Re:Of course Sony say this. But...

[xelah]

The same law that dictates whether the customer should receive a refund from the retailer determines whether that retailer has recourse against Sony for their costs incurred.

Not necessarily...there are laws like the UK's Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations which apply to consumers and not businesses. Besides, the update came from Sony, not the retailer...so who knows?

Re:Of course Sony say this. But...

[iapetus]

I don't mean that they apply in the same way; the European regulation on this (which member states such as the UK are obliged to incorporate into their own laws) explicitly says that where the consumer gets their money from the retailer, the retailer has the right to go after whoever it was further up the supply chain that was to blame for the lack of conformity - in this case Sony.

Re:Why did SONY even bother making this a feature.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently to get out of import taxes as well.

Objective done, Sony sales decreasing

[dr_Neurowork]

I think this is going to decrease the Ps3 Sales more than losing another exclusivity.

Re:Objective done, Sony sales decreasing

[TheCowSaysMooNotBoo]

because the people waiting for linux support on PS3 vastly outnumber those waiting for the exclusive games, right?

Re:Objective done, Sony sales decreasing

[jimicus]

How? The slim version of the PS3 (the only model available new) has never supported Linux.

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[somersault]

Except I paid good money to have the seat warmer option installed in my last, I really would not be happy if they removed that feature.

I tried to claim my refund from Amazon, but they said to go direct to Sony if I wanted that. Probably because of Sony saying they refuse to offer compensation, and it not being worth it for Amazon to damage their relationship with Sony.

Oh don't count on it

[Sycraft-fu]

The retailers have more power than the suppliers in most cases. Unless the supplier is one of those things that makers or breaks a business, and that is very rare these days, the retailers are the ones who have the big stick. Reason is that a retailer sells many things. There are some things or brands they won't carry simply because of space reasons, at least in the case of physical retailers and even online retailers to an extent (warehouses are finite storage). There are always tradeoffs, and they can't carry everything. For any sufficiently large one, one item more or less won't hurt them much.

This is not true of a supplier. You live and die by your goods getting in to the hands of consumers. For that to happen for most of them, you need retail availability. You need to be in Walmart and Target, you need to be on Amazon, etc. If consumers can't find you easily, they'll pass you over. That is less true of special items like the PS3, but still the case. A parent goes to buy a game console and the PS3 simply isn't in the stores they shop at, they go and get a 360 instead.

This is precisely the reason why so many people put up with Walmart's shit. They are assholes to suppliers, but you really need to be in their store since so many people shop there. Not every supplier will (Rainbird is a big one that doesn't) but most do. Walmart is why you don't see many AO games, because they refuse to stock them.

Also, in the case of something like this, there is the simple issue of possession of money. In the business world you ship out your products, and the store pays you once they get them. There's various reasons why it works that way, and some of it is due to problems. Say the items are defective or what not. If something is broken and the consumer brings it back, the supplier doesn't get paid for that one. So, the store doesn't always (or even usually) pay you the full amount. They write off things. You then have to negotiate with them over that. There are whole departments that work on that, accounts receivable departments.

So consumer returns PS3. Store refunds money. New shipment comes in, store pays Sony, less the return unit (and other stuff). Sony says "No you have to pay," the store says "Sorry but no, the unit was returned in accordance with European law and store policy, you have to take the writeoff." At this point Sony can more or less live with it, or stop selling to the store. Not very likely to stop selling to the store, unless this was a major problem.

Sony can bluster all they like, but when it comes down to it if Amazon tells them they are taking a writeoff for a PS3, they'll damn well do it. Blacklisting Amazon would hurt their bottom line in a major way.

Re:Oh don't count on it

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

Walmart is why you don't see many AO games, because they refuse to stock them.

While it's true that they won't carry the games, I'm pretty sure that would only affect PCs, because last I heard none of the console manufacturers would license AO games in the first place/allow them to be released on their platforms.

Re:Oh don't count on it

[517714]

Companies spend a lot money to avoid being on the wrong end of the gun - it is called advertising. (Virtually) No one goes to buy an iPod and comes out with a Sangong MP3 player. Sony is one of the companies that pays to put its name in front of the consumer, and has not fallen completely into Walmart's trap. You may recall that Sony used to prevent retailers from selling their products below the MSRP, and they still prevent Amazon and others from advertising prices that are significantly below the MSRP. Becoming beholden to your supply chain is a sure way to lose control of your destiny as was proved when Walmart put Rubbermaid out of business.

I suspect that there are way too few people who care about this issue for it to force the issue, and the small stores who must give refunds will take the losses without much recourse. Amazon and Walmart will absorb the small percentage of refunds because they sold the units close the the MSRP which is at a higher margin than most of their products, and they won't go after Sony.

Re:Why did SONY even bother making this a feature.

[rastoboy29]

It just means that the Light Side of the Force triumphed briefly within their company long enough for them to actually make the claim.

But it's okay, the Dark Side is ascendent once again. 

Re:Why did SONY even bother making this a feature.

[AHuxley]

The hint of a ps2 style tax break in some part of the world.
Brain wash a generation to mount and enjoy the K9 delights via their first Sony.
Game, blu ray and look up to see the creative friendly glow of Sony?.
A more open feel to the wider Linux community and positive trade mag press spin.
As MS build a Berlin Wall, Sony played the Tito card.
Long term its still 'game over' for wanting the freedom on a device you own.

Re:Why did SONY even bother making this a feature.

[Sleepy]

Sony was OK wirh homebrew... but only when the PS3 platform was young and vulnerable. Remember how the platform launched for $600-$700 and a lot of people thought it would fail, possibly bankrupting Sony in the process?

This is how they thank us.

This was my only console purchase since the Super Nintendo. I've always been a PC gamer, going way back to 64K Atari XL computers. I know others will say it and not mean it, but if Sony does not fix this I will *never* buy any Sony product (of any kind) again. It's been 2 decades anyways since Sony home theater products were associated with the word "quality".

I never expected this

[djh2400]

Are there any among us who can honesty say they did not see this coming?

On an unrelated note, I found the image on the article's page with a PS3 and poor little Tux on his side to be somewhat amusing.

Class action

[SgtChaireBourne]

A lot of countries consumer protection laws provide for protection that devices should operate as advertised. Sony advertised the "Other OS" option and many purchased PS3's instead of Wii because it could run Linux. Sony pulling that feature retroactively after the purchase is worse than a bait-and-switch, which is also illegal.

Sony has always had a slightly dodgy rep, but given the popularity of the "Run Other [Linux] OS" feature, it is possible that they have rats or cockroaches in their larder: "Find and Lean on your insider friend, 'the fox' Having a trusted MS friend in the account is critical. Some people (unix Bigots) can think of lots of reasons not to have a MS solution. MS folks may not be the strongest voice but they are true believers (Protect them, make them look good)". Sony can gain a lot of goodwill, and thus cash, by cleaning house if these are present. Yahoo's is not the only company Microsofters have worked at destroying through entryism.

Quotes of Sony promoting the OtherOS feature

[Sleepy]

Taken from the Playstation.com forums (nice work!):
----------------

CREDIT goes to Xrobx who posted these in another thread and i wanted to make sure that everyone sees them...

Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.:
"In addition to playing games, watching movies, listening to music, and viewing photos, you can use the PS3 system to run the Linux operating system. By installing the Linux operating system, you can use the PS3 system not only as an entry-level personal computer with hundreds of familiar applications for home and office use, but also as a complete development environment for the Cell Broadband Engine (Cell/B.E.)."
http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html

(http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:byasL-PxEiMJ:www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html+http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=cln
k&gl=us&client=safari) - google's cached page of the above hyperlink from March 30th 2010 which does not say anything about FW 3.21 removing Other OS. I've saved the page in case it goes offline, copy http address into browser as link probably won't work. Or, just search google and get the cached page. - kiyyto.

Phil Harrison, February 2007,
President of Sony Computer Entertainment Worldwide Studios 2005-2008:
"One of the most powerful things about the PS3 is the 'Install Other OS' option."
http://kotaku.com/235049/20-questions-with-phil-harrison-at-dice

Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., 2006-2009:
"The Linux Distributor's Starter Kit provides information, binary and source codes to Linux Distribution developers who wants to make their distro support PS3."
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux

Izumi Kawanishi, Sony, May 2006:
"Because we have plans for having Linux on board [the PS3], we also recognize Linux programming activities... Other than game studios tied to official developer licenses, we'd like to see various individuals participate in content creation for the PS3."
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9290

Geoffrey Levand, August 2009,
Principal Software Engineer at Sony Corporation:
"Please be assured that SCE is committed to continue the support for previously sold models that have the "Install Other OS" feature and that this feature will not be disabled in future firmware releases."
mailing list to PS3 customers using Linux

Phil Harrison, May 2006,
President of Sony Computer Entertainment Worldwide Studios 2005-2008:
"The Playstation 3 is a computer. We do not need the PC."
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,418642,00.html
SONY
Make.Believe... you didn't see that

Re:Quotes of Sony promoting the OtherOS feature

[Jaysyn]

And this right here is going to be the rope that hangs Sony when the inevitable class-action rolls around. I'm surprised we don't have lawyers jumping on this already.

Re:Quotes of Sony promoting the OtherOS feature

[snkiz]

You know really pisses me off, is I didn't even buy my ps3 until after the august 2009 announcement. For those of you paying attention When the slim ps3 came out there was a price drop, that price drop was not retroactive to the older fat ps3's. So ya I paied close to 100$ extra for a feature they took away in less than a year. And yes I am one of those who plays games and uses "Other OS" I never had any intention of pirating games... til now

Re:Quotes of Sony promoting the OtherOS feature

[Anonymous Coward]

And yes I am one of those who plays games and uses "Other OS" I never had any intention of pirating games... til now

I agree. On a similar note, I am pissed off because my bank suddenly decided to remove online-banking! the nerve of them I said!.

I' have never had any intention of committing online fraud ... til now.

Re:Quotes of Sony promoting the OtherOS feature

[snkiz]

If you paid for online banking, and the the bank has chosen not to adhere to the laws or their own published commitments then sure stick it to 'em. But its nice how you cut/paste half a thought to mold it to fit your world view. R-tard

Re:Quotes of Sony promoting the OtherOS feature

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess..

Sony issues coupon to consumers for free Playstation Linux live CD that does _exactly_ as stated "Runs Linux", no updates, no support, end of story.

You guys are trying waaaaaay to hard to make this sound like a problem for Sony. The number of people who _own_ a PS3 and care about the ability to run Linux on it are fewer than the posts to this forum I bet.

Re:LOL, what's with the Sony Hate Crusade?

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot.

There is not a single EULA in the World that is capable of removing rights granted to you by law. It is impossible (in the West at least, probably elsewhere too) for any contract to remove any right that has been granted in law.

That's why in every single EULA you read (you do read the agreements you accept, don't you?) there will be a clause that says something similar to "If any part of this agreement is found to be unenforceable by law, then that part is void and the remaining agreement is still held to be valid."

Your claim is so provable false that it is just sad.

Re:LOL, what's with the Sony Hate Crusade?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not legal advice. Go look it up yourself if you're curious.

As I understand it, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) is national law granting statutory rights, which overrides even outright contracts, let alone questionably-signed copyright licences attached to end-user licence agreements. That's also what they mean when they give a guarantee that says it does not affect your statutory rights.

I have no idea how that affects this particular case, however. It's rather complex and it may be years after sale.

Technically speaking, although OtherOS's hypervisor had been smashed with a fault-injection attack, that hypervisor is now no longer in the current OS release at all. The PS3 is in no way more secure against chipping today than it was before 3.21 - that hack really was in no way useful for modifying the Sony OS, as it didn't affect the secure SPU functionality, which is isolated from the CPU by design, and handles secure signatures over the OS image. Something rather more exotic is needed to adapt the Sony OS to allow for fun things; either some very advanced software exploits or, most likely, a hardware 'modchip' device (which quite likely only just now got some serious funding behind it).

Of course, due to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, I can't really tell you how you might go about doing that.

could be related to VAT or something tax related

[OlivierB]

I know that there are countries in Europe that have lower VAT rates for computers, as opposed to game consoles.
I suspect that by adding the Linux option to their PS3s, Sony was able to switch to the reduced VAT level, as hence bag more profits for the same retail price.

This may have been revoked/no longer valid/overturned/whatever recently and hence Sony has no further incentive to offer this feature.
Could also be that being classified as a computer made the console eligible for government subsidies to buy "computers" (such as in the UK the Home Access Program - http://www.becta.org.uk/homeaccess)

Re:Why did SONY even bother making this a feature.

[Stuarticus]

Agreed, Sony used to make great HiFi, when I see their name on something now I just expect it to be overpriced (Vaio anyone?).

I thought for a long time about buying a PS3 but went for an Xbox in the end because of the price, and MS being MS I expected their security to fall before too long, in the end no access to the graphics hardware via Linux on PS3 and Sony's outright cheek here has meant I am very glad I didn't spend the extra money.

Re:LOL, what's with the Sony Hate Crusade?

[SharpFang]

No EULA ever overrides a national law (unless the law in question has special provisions that specifically allow to override/waive it). If the EULA has provisions that are contradicting local law, local law takes priority.

That's one of fine points of labor laws in EU. The employer can give the employee a draconian contract to sign, with many nasty points that, say, raise the number of hours, reduce the number of days off, cut into the salary and so on. The employee can then just smirk, sign, and then sue if the employer tries to assert any of the points that are against labor laws.

Most of "protection laws" are written specifically in a way that makes it impossible for the protected to give up the protection, even willingly - they override any contracts that might contradict them.

Making the case for open firmware

[SgtChaireBourne]

a) buy another new console so you have one for your other OS; and one for games. This adds revenue for Sony, but causes them a loss as they subsidize the basic console (i.e. the will lose the subsidy twice on such a customer).

Except that they probably would by not just another console but another brand of console. Wii is much more popular if games are the deciding factor. Plus, I can't see anyone buying an additional console from Sony if they got burned by Sony's microsoft-style dicking. Sony can still fix this and come out looking relatively ok by releasing a fixed version of the firmware update. I wonder what kind of pressure cause the change and how it was applied, it seems it might be similar as to what Tivo went through though it was a much smaller company.

If nothing else, this incident shows the importance of eradicating closed firmware.

Re:LOL, what's with the Sony Hate Crusade?

[xelah]

As I understand it, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) is national law granting statutory rights, which overrides even outright contracts, let alone questionably-signed copyright licences attached to end-user licence agreements. That's also what they mean when they give a guarantee that says it does not affect your statutory rights.

The Sale of Goods Act (and now the Sale and Supply of Goods Act) doesn't cover licences. Licences are not goods. It'll cover PS3s, though, because PS3s obviously ARE goods...but it's not immediately obvious that the PS3 itself is defective/not durable enough, given that people applying the patch are agreeing to it and that the patch isn't coming from the person from whom they bought the PS3 (and who would be liable). I don't know nearly enough law to know whether it's legal or not, but it's a bit more complex than you suggest.

Re:Why did SONY even bother making this a feature.

[TheThiefMaster]

IIRC they did the same thing with the PS2 via a disk with a version of "BASIC" on it.

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[stonewallred]

Eh, I play games on the computer or the Dreamcast or if I am really bored, the $10.00 PS1 I bought several years ago with a big box of games included. I looked at the fact games for consoles and the PC cost roughly the same in stores. I can play the computer games on any of my computers. The PC games are usually ported to or from consoles, and if it is not done as soon as the game is released, so what? I am not a cutting edge gamer, so waiting an extra month or so is no big deal. Lol, been playing WoW for almost two years and dinged 76th on my main yesterday. I do have an army of alts and more gold than I really have any use for though.

Re:Why did SONY even bother making this a feature.

[iapetus]

There used to be a differential tax rate between computers and games consoles. During the PS2 days, Sony tried to circumvent this by shipping BASIC with PS2 in Europe, claiming this made it a general purpose computer. This didn't work.

Since then the tax differential has vanished, so general computing capabilities have no bearing on PS3's tax status.

This is my understanding of things, anyway.

ACCC to look into this...

[PhunkySchtuff]

The ACCC responded to my complaint regarding this latest move of Sony's and they are looking into the matter. Whether or not anything will come of it is anyone's guess, but the ACCC do have a history of standing up for the consumer and not being afraid of multinational corporations.

Specifically, they're looking into the sale of a PS3 with OtherOS support being removed after the sale. The issues raised are being considered in the context of the Trade Practices Act 1974 .

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT 70
Supply by description
                          (1) Where there is a contract for the supply (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) by a corporation in the course of a business of goods to a consumer by description, there is an implied condition that the goods will correspond with the description, and, if the supply is by reference to a sample as well as by description, it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods corresponds with the sample if the goods do not also correspond with the description.

                          (2) A supply of goods is not prevented from being a supply by description for the purposes of subsection (1) by reason only that, being exposed for sale or hire, they are selected by the consumer.

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT 71

Implied undertakings as to quality or fitness
                          (1) Where a corporation supplies (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) goods to a consumer in the course of a business, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract for the supply of the goods are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition by virtue only of this section:

                                          (a) as regards defects specifically drawn to the consumer's attention before the contract is made; or

                                          (b) if the consumer examines the goods before the contract is made, as regards defects which that examination ought to reveal.

                          (2) Where a corporation supplies (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) goods to a consumer in the course of a business and the consumer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the corporation or to the person by whom any antecedent negotiations are conducted any particular purpose for which the goods are being acquired, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract for the supply of the goods are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the consumer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him or her to rely, on the skill or judgment of the corporation or of that person.

Re:LOL, what's with the Sony Hate Crusade?

[jimicus]

It's even more complicated than that - you have to apply the patch otherwise another bit of functionality (online gaming) stops working.

Put it this way, if a retailer was particularly bloody-minded they could probably drag it through the court system for a few years easily. The only reason they wouldn't is because it'd probably work out cheaper to just partially refund you.

Re:Why did SONY even bother making this a feature.

[Anonymous Coward]

Historically, they did attempt to have their consoles sold as "computers" rather than game consoles in Europe.

They actually tried that for the PS2. They fought with the EU over their import taxes for nearly 10 years. It was the entire reason that the hard-drive add-on existed for the PS2; to make their argument more plausible.

It didn't do them any good; the EU came to a final decision that said that the PS2 was not a computer. One of the main reasons was because it couldn't have any other kind of OS. Hence, Sony's idea for the PS3.

However, by the time the PS3 was out, the EU had revised their policy on what would be required for something to be a computer, and so the PS3 wouldn't qualify even with an "install other OS" feature.

So, retroactively speaking, Sony was never able to avoid the import taxes for the PS2 or PS3. But good lord, they sure tried.

So, the "install other OS" was always a Trojan Horse; but there were other reasons for leaving it in by the time it had been developed, though there's nothing to suggest that they would have bothered developing it in the first place if they knew that they'd never get their tax break in Europe.

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[Jaysyn]

Maybe it's not on the box, but it was on the website, is probably somewhere in the user manual & was lauded as a feature of the PS3 at launch. I'm going to go ahead right now & predict that this will either end up costing Sony a good bit of money or they will realize how badly they've exposed themselves & re-enable the feature.

For all you people with a hard time wrapping your head around the whys, just replace "ability to run Linux" with "ability to play Blu-Ray DVDs."

Technically : Not exactly

[DrYak]

It's your machine but it's not your software; sorry.

Not exactly.
You don't have *authorship* (or other form of *intellectual property* rights) of this software.
*BUT* this specific *copy* of the software *IS* yours.

You can pretty much do anything you want with it, as long as it stays in your hands (or completely shifts hands as in second hand sale).
According to the copyright law, you just can't make a copy of it and give it to someone else - for that you would need an authorisation from the copyright holder (Sony) - usually in the form of a license
(see GPL / BSD license which *do* give you right to make and give away copies of a software whose copyright you don't hold). + / - a couple of "fair use" exceptions. Depending on your jurisdiction (CH for example): personal copies/backup, format shifting, citation, research/educational use, etc. ( Unless the software is protected and your jurisdiction doesn't have provision for fair use in your local DMCA-clone - US and DE indeed don't)

But Sony can't invoke any copyright law to control what you've done with a piece of software you've bought/acquired. Once again COPYright law, is only about COPYing (and distributing said copies). It has nothing to do with usage. That's what EULA are, and they are a form of contracts, something completely different and often not enforceable in the majority of jurisdiction.

The only thing that Sony can argue is that the *service* you consume is theirs. And they choose not to allow other OSes anymore. Now it's up to you to choose keeping using their service (and do the upgrade which removes your ability) or to choose keeping your ability and forfeit your access to *their* service.

But that is still a breach of contract(1): the machine was sold as a machine that can run Linux *and* use the service. Now all of sudden it's either one or the other. According to several jurisdiction (France is cited in the example) Sony owes their customer some money.

---

(1): Of the Sale, not the EULA. These tend to be slightly more enforceable in several jurisdiction.

Re:Technically : Not exactly

[CowboyBob500]

But that is still a breach of contract(1): the machine was sold as a machine that can run Linux *and* use the service. Now all of sudden it's either one or the other. According to several jurisdiction (France is cited in the example) Sony owes their customer some money.

Close, but not quite correct. In the UK (and the EU), an item must be sold as "fit for purpose" and it is the retailer that is obliged to ensure that is the case not the manufacturer. In terms of electronic devices, fit for purpose usually means that it must perform the functions that it was advertised as performing at the time of purchase for a minimum of 6 years. Clearly this action by Sony breaks this sales contract, but the refund must come from the retailer as it was they that the consumer entered into contract with.

However, the retailer would then claim the compensation back from the manufacturer as they are also entitled to the same "fit for purpose" guarantee. Therefore it will Amazon (in this case) that come knocking on Sony's door for a refund, not Joe Public. Sony may have a harder time brushing them off.

Re:Technically : Not exactly

[DJRumpy]

Actually that's not quite correct. You are authorized to USE the software in question, you do not own it. You only have a license to use it. Depending on the terms of the license, it could be legal for Sony to make such a move. That said, I will be VERY interested to see what happens with the consumer laws in the UK, which seem to be a bit more stern than those we have in the U.S.

The fact that the device was sold with certain capabilities which are now no longer available is something that smacks of a classic class action lawsuit waiting to happen.

Re:Technically : Not exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

You only have a license to use it.

Incorrect. In the UK EULAs are unenforceable if signed/clicked after the point of sale.

Re:Technically : Not exactly

[KDR_11k]

Only if the system presented you an EULA on startup and even that's shaky.

Re:Technically : Not exactly

[DJRumpy]

If I recall correctly, it does (or at least it did on my old PS3). It's the first thing you see when you turn it on.

Re:Technically : Not exactly

[cynyr]

yep, and all you have to do is hold the down button, and then press X. there is no comprehension test, or the like.

Re:Technically : Not exactly

[DavidTC]

Please stop perpetuating lies that various entities have claimed but are utterly, completely, legally incorrect.

Under the law, if you exchange money for something without making any sort of agreement beforehand, you have, indeed, purchased that thing. If you walk into a store, pick something up off the shelf, carry it to the counter, set it down, hand money to the clerk, get a receipt, and walk out with that thing, you own it. There's plenty of case law about this.

Including a copy of software in a box.

Now, it's a copy of a copyrighted thing, so you can't make copy or do various other things forbidden by copyright law, but it is still a copy that you own. Copyright restrictions are restrictions under the law, not ones that the publisher has randomly made up. They don't get to randomly make up new ones. (The law does give the publisher to grant permissions to violate those rules if they want, but the rules themselves are legal ones.)

It's like you buy a car, and the city you live in forbids parking on a street unless you are a resident of the house you park in front of, or unless you have permission of the owner. The fact they can grant you one exception to how you are normally disallowed, by law, from using your car does not mean you have leased your car from that house! No, not even if you bought it from that homeowner.

And, on a more practical note, it's hard to see how anyone could be in a contractual agreement with the publisher anyway. 99.99% of the time software owners never even interacted with the publisher...most of the time, software is purchased from a third party. So, at best, you could have a contract with them. (Which you don't.)

Did GameStop license the software and somehow got the ability to sublicense it to other people? I'd really like to see that contract. I suspect they simply made a purchase, just like any other reseller makes with a wholesaler. You can't magically jump up the chain and have a contractual relationship with the publisher when you buy from a reseller!

Now, later, you might have agreed to some EULA that (claim to) restrict what you can do with the software more than normal copyright law, but that's irrelevant to the fact you purchased that copy. An EULA can't retroactively undo a purchase from a third party. (I supposed, in theory, it could assert that you're selling it back to them in exchange for something, but I've never seen one do that.)

The idea that you 'license' software dates from ages ago, when copyright law didn't really cover software, and hence you actually did license it...and by 'you', I mean 'people running mainframes', as that was all that existed at the time. And, indeed, plenty of mainframe software is still licensed...by which , I mean, people actually sit down and sign contracts beforehand.

This 'licensing' concept does not, and has never, under any circumstances, applied to any copyrighted work that people walk into stores and purchase.

Re:Technically : Not exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

You own the media the software is on, not the software. Software licenses are perfectly legal.

You can destroy the CD you bought, you can resell the media you bought it on, but you can't sell the software unless you are allowed to according to the license. Ever heard of Psystar? If you argument was sound, they would still be in business.

Re:Technically : Not exactly

[ArundelCastle]

Therefore it will Amazon (in this case) that come knocking on Sony's door for a refund, not Joe Public. Sony may have a harder time brushing them off.

In all the comment soup you seem to have missed TFA: http://www.thinq.co.uk/news/2010/4/14/sony-refuses-to-sanction-ps3-refunds/

"The decision by Amazon to give a consumer a partial refund is clearly between Amazon and the consumer, but we do not expect the decision to have a legal basis and we have no plans to compensate retailers."

They have just publicly said they don't have Amazon's back. It will likely take a court ruling for them to kiss and make up.

Re:Technically : Not exactly

[DavidTC]

Just asserting lies doesn't make them true.

And Pystar was in violation of the DMCA.

Re:Technically : Not exactly

[91degrees]

It seems to me, and I'd have thought to most reasonable people that you bought a copy of the software as part of the console.

There was certainly no indication at the time of purchase that the software was only being leased. And as the software is an inherent part of the machine, buying the machine means your buying a copy of the software, in much the same way as you're buying the case.

It's not like they can pull the same "Oh you need a licence to install it because that's a 'copy'" argument. You haven't installed the software. You are making no copies. You own that copy.

Re:Technically : Not exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, Sony's not got a leg to stand upon in the Merchantability space with what they've done there- Amazon UK will carve them to ribbons over it if they take it all to Court over there.

Re:Technically : Not exactly

[DavidTC]

Yeah, and even the 'You need a license to install it because that's a copy' is bogus because you're explicitly allowed to do that under copyright law. You are allowed to make as many copies as necessary to actually use the software, you can copy it to the hard drive, memory, disk caches, whatever is needed to run it, as an explicitly granted right by copyright law for software.

But that's exceptionally bogus in this case, as, um, you didn't install the software, nor did you copy it at all. (The software itself might be copying itself around in memory, but that's hardly under your control, and, as I said, explicitly allowed under law anyway.)

And the whole 'Oh, you really licensed it at purchase' just becomes hilariously obviously bogus (As opposed to be less obvious, but just as bogus) when you actually purchase a device. So, magically, every device that you purchase with software in it is not sold? Shouldn't there be, like, warning labels or something? 'Warning, device cannot actually be purchased.'

The bankers that think they own everyone's car (With included computer and software) are going to have a fucking heart attack. 'Holy shit, we...what? We licensed those cars? The car manufacturers still own them? And can legally disable them at any time they want? What the hell does that mean? So...all those cars are worthless? I...I...my arm is numb...I...can't... billions of dollars of assets...I...*thud*'

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[delinear]

Glad I never bought one, I just don't trust Sony enough.

Funny, since the Sony ROOTKIT fiasco I have felt the same way about Sony.

Ditto, I desperately wanted to own a PS3 but I didn't feel (despite the calls at the time of "they've changed, they've changed") that they were trustworthy for a number of reasons, culminating in rootkits. They obviously care nothing for their customers, and it appears from this latest news that they care nothing for their retailers or EU law, either - I wonder, do they now feel they're too big to fail?

As for the box pictures, that makes little difference. As a customer you would only have to demonstrate that you could reasonably be expected to know about the feature - considering the amount of press the console got on the web before launch, with every single function and feature dissected and analysed, you'd have to have been living under a rock to not know about Other OS. I certainly was aware of it before the console launched (it was one of the key things that almost swayed me to buy one).

Unsurprising

[brucmack]

My experience is that very few electronics corporations give a rat's ass about consumer protection laws. I believe Sony also claims to sell their consoles here with a 1-year warantee, despite the fact that the legal minimum is 2 years.

Re:Unsurprising

[EvilDrMike]

My experience is that very few corporations give a rat's ass about laws.

Fixed that for you.

-EDM

Re:Unsurprising

[Sockatume]

That was an EU directive which individual nations are expected, but not obliged, to turn into a local law.

Re:Unsurprising

[cheros]

Sony can sell what it wants, but it cannot override national laws, even with contract small print.

I was informed in the UK that I'm be entitled to a partial refund because the product no longer reflect the conditions and specifications as sold (i.e. the feature set that made me buy it). All it takes is enough people to complain they don't get a refund to land them with a formal investigation. Actually, AFAIK that might have already started, and right it is too.

What Sony has done here is sold you a full spec car, and then changed the alloys for steel rims without tires. It still works, it's still a car but it's not what you ordered. I find this unacceptable by any metric you care to name, so I'm quite happy to go all the way.

This has also fatally damaged my trust in Sony, there is simply no way I will buy any more equipment from them.

Re:Unsurprising

[shutdown -p now]

My experience is that very few electronics corporations give a rat's ass about consumer protection laws.

We'll see how that goes in the court.

And the answer is....

[esaulgd]

c) remove the Other OS, update and only use it for playing. Revenue stream continues for Sony (on new games) - but at the cost of goodwill to the company.

I don't see any decent outcome for Sony on either of the three options...

Sony is clearly aiming for this option. There is no loss of goodwill because 99.9% of customers don't care about the Other OS.

Re:And the answer is....

[Lonewolf666]

But how many people will care about the fact that Sony screws over its customers again? Probably some more.

Personally, I have NOT bought one of the CD Sony infected with a rootkit http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/10/31/2016223.shtml, so by your logic I should not care. But I noticed that Sony cannot be trusted. Now they have shown the same attitude again.

As a consequence, I will certainly not buy any computing equipment from Sony, because it seems quite likely that they will fuck with it at some time.
What will be next?
Planned obsolescence in Sony PCs, via expiration date in the BIOS?
Sony => no thanks!

Re:And the answer is....

[DavidTC]

Seriously.

I don't buy hardware from Sony for the same reason I don't watch sci-fi on Fox or why I don't consider 'rebates' as part of the cost when making purchases.

I sometimes call it a boycott, but it's not one of those as much as 'those things have repeatedly screwed me over, and are going to screw me over again if I have anything to do with them' logic.

'Doctor, doctor, my hands hurts when I do this.'
'Well, then, stop doing that.'

When you do Sony, it hurts. Stop doing Sony. It's not rocket surgery.

Re:LOL, what's with the Sony Hate Crusade?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a little bit more complex.

See, you could go the other way around: it's defective because it won't let you sign in to PlayStation Network or play new games. Of course, that's because you don't install the new firmware... but it doesn't say anything about a requirement to update the firmware anywhere when you purchase the unit.

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[delinear]

Well check the state of your local consumer laws. In the EU they can't refuse to deal with you in this way, as much as they'd like to, because the contract was between you and them, not you and the manufacturer. It's their problem how to get the money back from the manufacturer. If at all possible, make your complaint in writing, be firm but not agressive, most companies will pay out because it's not worth the hassle, although they'll certainly try and fob you off initially.

Re:could be related to VAT or something tax relate

[MartinSchou]

I know that there are countries in Europe that have lower VAT rates for computers, as opposed to game consoles.

I can't speak for other countries (I live in Sweden and spent 31 years in Denmark), but we have a minimum of 15% VAT in the EU, but each country can pick one or two groups of merchandise that gets a lower tax.

The VAT isn't the issue though - import tariffs do. And the import tariff is the same for laptops and game consoles - namely 0%. Granted, you need to pay the VAT for the item as well, but that doesn't affect the 'regular computer vs game console' argument.

Re:Why did SONY even bother making this a feature.

[delinear]

I know others will say it and not mean it, but if Sony does not fix this I will *never* buy any Sony product (of any kind) again.

I'm one of those who has determined not to buy Sony again - the PS3 has come closest to swaying me, but all in all it's not been too difficult (even avoiding Blu-Ray despite being into movies in a big way). I know one man alone won't make a difference to the way Sony treat their customers, and I don't pretend I'm about to start any kind of revolution, but what I can be sure of is that they won't be screwing me over. That's good enough for my peace of mind.

Re:LOL, what's with the Sony Hate Crusade?

[delinear]

I would argue (and no, IANAL but I did take a degree in it, albeit quite a while ago) that being able to install updates from the manufacturer is an integral function of the device, since (and here I'm speaking from my 360 experience, as I don't own a PS3, but can't imagine it's any different) it's not possible to use the device for online play without accepting said updates. The ability to play online is a core feature of the console, without that it's not fit for purpose, which means you have to accept the update, or else Sony would have to allow people to play online without updating to get around this.

To give a more direct example, imagine being sold a SatNav with no maps on the basis that the maps are offered as a download from the manufaturer, you download and install the maps and they brick the device - you definitely have a claim against the retailer, even though your actions in agreeing to download the maps caused the breakage, because without agreeing to that you'd have a device totally unfit for purpose. While the PS3 is a multi-function device and they've only removed one of its purposes, the principle still stands.

Re:LOL, what's with the Sony Hate Crusade?

[MemoryDragon]

The suing here is not even a problem regarding labor laws, the local countries runs organisations and they fight it out in court for you without additional costs, the same goes for national consumer organisations, once they receive a load of complaints they drag the company causing them to court if they have a case without additional costs to their members.
Labor Law violations happen here as well, but usually the company is dragged to court instantly over them and that can happen even from the cleaning personal or anyone else who does not own a lot (no costs required expect to be member of one of those orgs)
So those draconian labor contracts usually can be signed, if the company tries to enforce it ends up in court and always looses.

The law

[wisnoskij]

Well unless I am misinformed it really looks like their is pretty much a solid case for claiming that the law would force them to offer reimbursements in Europe.
So they might not have a choice if someone pushes enough.

Unless they are saying that they plan to break European law.

Re:The law

[jimicus]

Unless they are saying that they plan to break European law.

They're breaking it already.

My guess is they've decided that they won't accept that they're breaking it until a sufficiently high-ranking judge says they are. That will take some time.

Re:The law

[Jedi Alec]

*Paging Mrs. Kroes*

*Paging Mrs. Kroes*

Re:Why did SONY even bother making this a feature.

[MemoryDragon]

The funny thing was that even with the lower import taxes and counting out the VAT sony mostly charged 30-50% more for the consoles here than they did in the states, so they tried to ripp off the governments of their import taxes and sack them in themselves by also using a 1:1 dollar Euro calculation!
Speaking of slimey behavior!

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[nosferatu1001]

It was included in the manual and, pre launch, heavily advertised by the CEO of SCE US

Both count as advertising a feature that was then removed.

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[Sir_Lewk]

Well it certainly was in their promotional material, and on their website. I actually considered buying one of these several years ago just for this feature. Glad I didn't.

Re:LOL, what's with the Sony Hate Crusade?

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically most contracts with "consumers" are protected with laws that allow changes only if they benefit the customer.

That makes have most European countries have something like two warranties.

One warranty that comes from the statute, and which in most countries in the EU (probably all, as it comes from the directive) a commercial seller cannot remove from a contract with a consumer.

And a second warranty that most sellers (actually it's the manufacturers) voluntary offer.

For the first one, the conditions are fixed by law, and can only be improved upon by the seller.

For the second one, as it's voluntary, the seller can insist on his own rules. E.g. you need to service the car only at certain shops, you need to register with full name your new Sony TV, and so on.

They are also usually completely seperate, because just extending the statute warranty by a year does not allow the seller to enforce his own rules, ...

Another item is, that all these "national" laws are derived usually from EU directives, which again works similar, the directive usually defining the minimum allowed, ...

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[Lumpy]

Sony realize???

they STILL don't think they did anything wrong by spreading a Root-kit to all their customers. you know, why don't the tea party zealots go after the real enemies of freedom? Big corporations that try to screw the public whenever they can? I'm honestly surprised to see that most of the big banks did not end up with their building burned to the ground, And riots in the streets asking for the heads of those companies to be in jail.

BDA patent pool and Columbia Pictures

[tepples]

Suggesting that "OtherOS costs Sony real money" is no less applicable than saying "Blu-Ray users cost Sony real money".. should Sony disable PS3 users who play movies but DON'T play games?

Bad analogy. Sony's parent company, Sony Corporation, owns a lot of the patents licensed by the BDA as well as Sony Pictures Home Entertainment. So every time someone buys a Blu-ray Disc, Sony gets paid, and if it's published by Columbia, Tristar, Revolution, Destination, or Screen Gems, Sony gets paid twice.

Re:BDA patent pool and Columbia Pictures

[Svartalf]

Ah...but SCEA, which is where the loss occurs, loses money on the deal- and it's SCEA that's DOING this, not all of Sony. I can assure you, they're not considering this from the lost cash angle- and even if it was that, I can assure you that the gains in BD sales aren't being factored into it all that much- differing division and only the bigwigs up at the highest levels ever think in those terms, not the division people (the ones DOING this...).

Someone revealed they have a gaping hole in the hypervisor and the nature thereof. It's trying to buy time putting a finger in that hole in the dike- not costs...

File a consumer complaint with your states A.G.

[Anonymous Coward]

In Texas you can do it here: http://www.oag.state.tx.us/consumer/complain.shtml

Re:Why did SONY even bother making this a feature.

[Sir_Lewk]

Sony at one point shipped a disc with some (iirc) Redhat install for the PS2, possible it was that move that they did for tax reasons.

"Proprietary platforms?!"

[Anonymous Coward]

...So much for proprietary platforms and me.

What the fuck are you talking about? ALL game platforms are proprietary, in some way. Not everything you touch in the world's gonna be "open source", dude. I understand the "locked down" complaint, but that open source kool-aid needs to be poured down the drain.

Seriously. It just sounded stupid.

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[somersault]

The reply was:

Thank you for your email.

We take this opportunity to express our regret at the issues you have had with the Sony PS3.

We have considered carefully the points expressed in your email, and we recommend that you bring this matter to the attention of the manufacturer, Sony. We do not consider the application of either EU Directive 1999/44/EC or the Sale of Goods Act 1979 to be relevant in these circumstances.

I did wonder if the initial refund story was a hoax even before I got this reply, and I'm not sure if it's worth pursuing it any further. They also gave me Sony's number and a link to one of their websites, but I suspect Sony will be even less helpful.

Re:Douchebags

[cjjjer]

Actually this is what I was thinking, it's not like Sony/the retailer is forcing them to update to the latest firmware, the users chooses to update and loose that functionality.

If Sony had been smart they would have written this in the agreement of the firmware update and have the user accept it before applying the firmware. I don't own a PS3 (I will never own another Sony product again) so maybe it's already there. If so then suing Sony might be a moot point I would think.

NO! WRONG! STOP!

[Suzuran]

NO! WRONG! DO NOT DO THIS!
The OS on fat PS3s in *NOT* on the drive! It's in flash memory!
Even if you backup the drive, it does NOT back up the firmware!
If you backup and then upgrade you WILL NOT be able to go back down in firmware versions!
DO NOT DO THIS!

Re:NO! WRONG! STOP!

[SScorpio]

It was never mentioned that backup did anything with the firmware. It does backup the HDD though, so you can install a larger or replacement drive is needed and recover what you had running before without needing to connect to PSN to redownload everything. It would also be useful if you want to change how much space you have allocated to OtherOS verses GameOS which requires wiping the drive.

If people listened

[McGiraf]

If people listened to Richard Stallman the would have seen this coming.

Re:If people listened

[NevDull]

If people listened to Richard Stallman, they'd be trying to run games on their Linux machines, and not Linux on their proprietary game machines.

If people listened to Richard Stallman, the PS3 wouldn't exist in the first place.

Re:If people listened

[shutdown -p now]

It's hard to listen to a man who makes a perception of being so close-minded and fanatical, especially in person (not to mention that his look and habits turn people off just as much).

If you want the message to be heard, you need a proper messenger.

Re:If people listened

[McGiraf]

"If you want the message to be heard, you need a proper messenger."

If you speak to close-minded people, yes you do.

Re:If people listened

[supssa]

The dude believes that if I spend years writing a game, with art, music and an amazing story it should be free and opensource. He is a communist who eats shit off his feet while giving talks. He is no messiah.

Re:If people listened

[McGiraf]

Thank you for you insight.

Where can I buy your awesome game?

A BETTER car analogy

[fuzznutz]

How about Toyota removing your air conditioner as a precondition to the accelerator pedal recall?

Re:Why did SONY even bother making this a feature.

[Xest]

It was a tax dodge.

They wanted the PS3 classified as a computer rather than an entertainment device, but their bid largely failed. When it did fail, support for OtherOS became pointless, they never implemented it for the user, they implemented it for their own attempt to avoid paying tax where it was due.

It sucks for the user though, because when the user sees a feature, they assume it's their for their own good and for their own use, not merely for Sony's use to try and fiddle the tax system.

That said, it's not the first time either- look at backwards compatibility support, that got cut pretty quickly too. It just seems to be in Sony's nature to promise all sorts of things, and then cut them later when they feel the cost of maintaining them is outweighed by the profits they bring in. At least in the case of backwards compat. they followed the rule of law though. In this case they're clearly in breach of European consumer laws.

PS3 Compatible Software

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, if they can't use PS3 compatible software on their PS3, then the games/systems are mislabeled and that could be seen as fraud.

A charge for the US? False advertising.

[VGPowerlord]

I can't check playstation.com from work, but last I heard (a few days after the firmware update), Sony was still advertising the Other OS feature on its website, despite none of its newer models shipping with it... and now its older models having it removed via firmware update.

This is clearly false advertising, as an advertised feature doesn't appear in the final product.

Perhaps someone should point this out to the Federal Trade Commission?

US customers

[sunjay]

Are there any laws similar to the european ones in question that protect consumer for the US?

That law may not apply...

[Theaetetus]

Just for anyone interested (I was), the law cited is:

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?

I'll be asking for a refund from GameStop as I also were required to remove the portion to be able to buy new games.

I assume you told the GameStop clerk that you were purchasing the PS3 specifically for the particular purpose of installing another OS?

In the US, it's even more explicit:

Uniform Commercial Code 2-315. Implied Warranty: Fitness for Particular Purpose. Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.

Nonetheless, I doubt Gamestop would give you a refund, and I'm really surprised Amazon gave this guy a warranty:
Gamestop (from http://www.gamestop.com/gs/help/disclaimer.aspx:

TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMISSIBLE BY APPLICABLE LAW, GAMESTOP DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

And Amazon (from http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=footer_cou?ie=UTF8&nodeId=508088:

TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMISSIBLE BY APPLICABLE LAW, AMAZON DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

And of course, if you go back to the source, here's the one that came in the box with your PS3 (from Sony, here http://us.playstation.com/support/warranties/ps3/index.htm):

THIS WARRANTY IS PROVIDED TO YOU IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR THE PS3 HARDWARE, WHICH ARE DISCLAIMED HEREUNDER. HOWEVER, IF SUCH WARRANTIES ARE REQUIRED AS A MATTER OF LAW, THEN THEY ARE LIMITED IN DURATION TO THE WARRANTY PERIOD.

Re:That law may not apply...

[jimicus]

The important phrase in that disclaimer is "TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMISSIBLE BY APPLICABLE LAW".

Many countries expressly do not give the customer the luxury of being able to throw their rights away like that. The retailer might just as well say "TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMISSIBLE BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE SUN WILL NOT RISE TOMORROW".

Re:That law may not apply...

[Theaetetus]

The important phrase in that disclaimer is "TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMISSIBLE BY APPLICABLE LAW".

Many countries expressly do not give the customer the luxury of being able to throw their rights away like that. The retailer might just as well say "TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMISSIBLE BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE SUN WILL NOT RISE TOMORROW".

However, the laws usually prohibit the customer being able to fully waive the implied warranty of merchantability (though, as above in Sony's warranty, you can substitute an express warranty of merchantability, so that the rights are still retained), and waive any express warranties that appear in the same document as the disclaimer... They don't usually prohibit waiver of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. In fact, I don't know of any that prohibit that.

Re:That law may not apply...

[dimeglio]

You should know that where I'm from EULA and such do not take precedence over the law.

In Canada/Québec there is this interesting section of the consumer protection law which states that a supplied good or service must be as it is described or meet the description as laid out in the contract.

  "40. Un bien ou un service fourni doit être conforme à la description qui en est faite dans le contrat."

That's not the case of the PS/3 as the "other OS" feature is "likely" described as a feature in the user's manual.

Re:That law may not apply...

[uglyduckling]

"...goods must (1) comply with the description given by the seller..."

The second clause only applies for things not covered by the first part. So the other OS feature was advertised (i.e. part of the 'description') so you don't have to specify it to the retailer. If you wanted something in addition, e.g. a very specific other OS would work ("this will run Amiga OS, right?") then part 2 would apply.

Re:That law may not apply...

[bjoeg]

I'll be asking for a refund from GameStop as I also were required to remove the portion to be able to buy new games.

I assume you told the GameStop clerk that you were purchasing the PS3 specifically for the particular purpose of installing another OS?

In the US, it's even more explicit:

I'll be asking GameStop the very same thing. GameStop sold me the old console september last year, when the Slim model had just hit the shelves. GameStop advertised in the window "Get the old PS3 while in stock" reffering to the missing features and components from the new slim model.

Now I have a PS3 that is more or less equal to a slim model, which even was cheaper back then.

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[ErikZ]

The Tea Party isn't going after Sony because they're not your personal fantasy fulfilling device.

Sony will get bit by this by Retailers and lawsuits, we already have existing laws and methods for dealing with this.

You're dealing with issues emotionally instead of logically.

We are not being noisy enough!

[xavierpayne]

I called SONY customer relations to chat with them about the dropping of linux in their latest PS3 update. After very civily conveying my dismay at their decision to punish honest users of the PS3 by retro-actively ripping out the previously advertised, supported, and paid for "Other OS" feature I asked what they could do for me to even things up for effectively turning my non ps2 compatible fat into an oversized-overpriced slim. Their answer: "Sir I take hundreds of calls a day and you are the first to call and complain about this particular issue." Linux fans, PS3 owners who are linux fans... If that statement is true I'm dissappointed in you. 1-800-345-7669 (SONY) Hours: Mon-Sat 6:00AM-8:00PM / Sun 7:00AM-6:30PM PT If you are going to call be civil. But make it clear their action hasn't gone unnoticed and is unnacceptable. According to a friend of mine who has also called if you want to escalate it further, you can apparently call 1-866-286-5123 Monday through Friday from 8am-5:30pm Pacific time, a.k.a. 11am-8:30pm Eastern. They need to know just how much this bothers their customers. The impression I have so far is that it's not even a blip on their radar.

Re:We are not being noisy enough!

[Trelane]

Their answer: "Sir I take hundreds of calls a day and you are the first to call and complain about this particular issue."

I called later in the day (CDT) on April 1 and was told there had been a large, steadily increasing number of complaints about the issue. But you're right; anyone who finds it crap and who owns a ps3 should call and/or write and complain. And be civil. They even sent me a customer satisfaction survey afterwards. Heh heh. :)

Re:We are not being noisy enough!

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot nerds wake up to find not everyone shares their values. News at 11.

Re:We are not being noisy enough!

[Anonymous Coward]

Major car manufacturer sells car with changeable console light colors.
Car mfu disables functionality with firmware update due to arbitrary reason XYZ.
[nerdrage]
Car mfu mails affected owners stick-up colored lamps for console lighting at modest expense.

I'm not fucking with you guys. If this gets pressed, you'll get a rebate for a crappy live CD and Sony moves on. I know the potential refund money is not at all the issue; no amount of nerdrage is going to sway the world's collective wants/desires towards geekdom, sorry.

Re:We are not being noisy enough!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's the standard answer given by the Tech Support when they receive any complaint. Just ignore it and keep hastling them.

If it was a different *feature* being removed...

[warchildx]

This situation is a big p.i.t.a. You buy a system that was advertised with features that are later removed. some have stated you (as consumer) have no recourse as you do not have a contract with SONY.

1) You purchased a system "in good faith that the *advertised* features would remain"

2) yes, the consumer protection laws may or may not help since you purchase from a retailer vs sony, but SONY still "Broke" your system. if someone broke your car window, you could go after them directly in court, etc.

3) If instead of the "Other OS" feature, what if it was the "Watch BlueRay Movies" feature. you bought the system expecting certain features to remain, and not be removed/blocked without permission by firmware update. (And BTW, some blueray players, etc are lan connected, and EXPECTED to be updating to stay current (like different blueray spec revisions)

A decent percentage of those who purchased a PS3 vs XBOX360 did so because of those "Other Features". (Namely: BluRay player built in, and the OtherOS openness)

Re:could be related to VAT or something tax relate

[Anonymous Coward]

There's usually 2 VAT rates, a "normal" >16% rate, and a reduced rate. The latter only applies for such things as Food, some books and newspapers as well as specific services (e.g. hotels). It's actually import duties on top of the VAT that are/were different for computers vs. entertainment devices.

Re:If it was a different *feature* being removed..

[warchildx]

...(And BTW, some blueray players, etc are lan connected, and EXPECTED to be updating to stay current (like different blueray spec revisions)...

This statement is made in reference to someone elses comment about the end user not being required or expected to be updating firmware of their device. most if not all devices/software that are built with the ability to check online for updates, are expecting the user to perform those updates to stay within warranty/support/etc.

In other words (Just an example, not really my situation): SONY "told" me to perform firmware updates on a device they designed and warranty/support...I performed the update...The update removed functionality that was advertised when equipment was purchased...(yes, vendors can release updates that remove older functionality) But users were not told this would happen and given an option to NOT update, but remain under warranty/support/etc.

BTW, I dont even own a PS3

Re:Douchebags

[xavierpayne]

Actually this is what I was thinking, it's not like Sony/the retailer is forcing them to update to the latest firmware, the users chooses to update and loose that functionality.

Buying a device that promises to do A, B, and C. Then being told after the purchase that you have to pick "A" or "B and C" is not much of a choice. Even if I do nothing I loose advertised features (no PSN, no games or movies that require a firmware update). If I do update I loose real time AVC encoding: http://codecsys.fixstars.com/en/

How much is the Other OS worth?

[JTsyo]

I wondering how they came up with the £70 amount. The PS3s with OtherOS were retailing for about $400, so that's about quarter the price. Sony might be better off buying back the PS3s than offering a partial refund since people might be less inclined to get rid of the PS3.

Re:How much is the Other OS worth?

[colonelquesadilla]

Probably thought that was the value of the feature, since it is roughly the price difference between fat and slim versions?

Ratbags

[AdmV0rl0n]

When will people get it?
Sony rootkitted people's PCs and did so insecurly to boot.

They sold the original PS3 with a list of specifications and base functions, and removal of these where they were sold with them is clearly fundamentally a breach.

It would be very interesting to delve and see how Sony transported these across the globe and what original tax bases and statements were made. Computers and consoles get varying differences in tariffs and import duties.

But at the end of the day, Its Sony's responsibility to protect the game development and copy protection area. That is in their interest, however, removing paid for accepted features is simply not acceptable.

What next? Blu ray? Old games? This is partially a fault with creeping 'rentalisation' where its being in vogue that the console and everything connected to it does not belong to you. But even if this is the case, you bought the big old PS3 at a price premium, and one of its features the OS option.

At the end of the day, a customer paid a lot of money for something, and parts are being made non functional - quite deliberatly.

Sony repeatedly crap on customers, and have a very grim outlook towards them. Wether its getting your sony equipment repaired, rootkits being installed on your equipment without permission, or functions being removed from you equipment - Sony is a compny unfit for your custom and its time you enforced it.

Easy Solultion for trhe future...

[DarthVain]

Never buy any Sony product ever again. I was sort of leaning that way anyway due to the other snafus they have been involved with.

I mean for me it just seems like s simple decision. Don't trust them, then don't buy them. They have a history of doing underhanded things in the name of profit protectionism at the cost to their clients. Why bother anymore? Besides, I am pretty sure Sony's time has come and gone anyway, the glory days are over and there are plenty of better choices out there.

Affects all users

[pruss]

1. Some comments are suggesting that this only affects users who both want to play games and use Linux. But that's not correct: when functionality is reduced, that reduces resale value, and it does that for every user. Maybe the reduction is small. But it is a genuine reduction in value. How large that reduction is, I do not know, but with a large enough user base, even a small reduction will be a large overall loss to the user base. (Moreover, I would guess that there is a correlation between being the sort of person who buys used gear on ebay and being geeky, and there is a correlation between being geeky and wanting use Linux, so the effect on resale prices may not be entirely negligible.)

2. So, I think, everybody who owns an affected PS3 can reasonably demand a partial refund in compensation for a reduced feature base.

3. IANAL, but the claim that Sony can modify features as per EULA is, surely, to be understood within the bounds of common sense. For instance, surely it would not be OK for Sony to say: "We said that we can change features at our discretion, and we have changed the maximum number of controllers per PS3 to one. If you want to play N player games, buy N-1 more PS3s, and our new firmware will let you network them with one display." Likewise, it would not be acceptable for Sony to say: "We said that this was a computer, and we've disabled all console games, to keep you from wasting time that should be spent on serious computing." Major advertised features are not something the reasonable person understands the EULA as granting Sony the right to take away.

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont want them to go after sony.

I want them to go after the real threat to the constitution and American freedom.

Corporations. Wanna fix Washington? eliminate corporations existing as an citizen, make it illegal for them to lobby and contribute to elected officials.

All they are doing is chasing a pink elephant that happens to be popular. If they want to save America, then start by getting rid of the stuff that is destroying America.

That is why most people think tea party people are morons.... because they are angry over stupid shit.

I see where this is heading...

[safetyinnumbers]

The next consoles will just be empty plastic boxes. But they come with a free circuit board, cables, psu and controllers!

It's like the motels that promise to a refund for anything you're not satisfied with, and the "Free" wifi had a poor signal.

Or the things you can buy online for 0.01c and $8 shipping - if you're not satisfied, return it for a full refund (minus shipping).

Amazon.com is not someone to screw with

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is the UK Amazon, but seriously I can't think of a worse retailer to go to battle with except Walmart, and even then that's iffy based on the types of products Sony makes. Sony may be posturing here, but I bet there's a very large contingent inside scrambling to make sure this can go back in if necessary.

Seriously, Sony is huge, but they have no retail business on their own. Amazon or Walmart could make life very hard for all parts of Sony. Given that Sony has already basically "lost" this console generation (and I'm not saying that to mean the PS3 is bad; it's just not up to par with the 360 or even the Wii in its special arena) you'd think they wouldn't be burning good will before they even get a shot with the PS4, because right now MS could easily make the PS4 end up with sales numbers similar to the Dreamcast (which would be poetic given that Sony was largely responsible for that).

Simply "bottom shelving" Sony products for a few months will make Sony squeal uncle; I'm interested to see if Amazon or Walmart do exactly that.

It only does...

[Anonymous Coward]

"It only does Playstation Home.

  It only does Exclusive Games

  It only does Everything.... Except Linux."

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

you know, why don't the tea party zealots

You know, and I say this as a person that otherwise enjoys reading your posts on this site, tarring people you don't agree with as "zealots" makes you look childish and to a reasonable person, completely invalidates any otherwise sensible thing you have to say.

Obligatory disclaimer: I'm not a teapartier or a Sony sympathizer.

Won't Sony owe back taxes to the EU for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no expert on EU VAT (Value Added Tax) law, but...

One of the advantages Sony enjoyed by allowing a full service operating system was that it made the PS3 a general purpose computing device, thereby lowering the VAT. Unlike a sales tax, Sony was responsible for paying that tax. Now by removing the general purpose computing functions, wouldn't Sony owe back taxes on every PS3 sold in the EU?

You bought a Sony product?

[Sfing_ter]

You bought a Sony product? (Cue Nelson)
HA HA!

Sony cares

[nilbog]

The update actually bricked my PS3 so I can neither play games, use other OSes, or even turn the thing on. I called Sony and they made it clear that they don't care. It doesn't matter if you can install another OS. It doesn't matter if you can play games. It doesn't matter if you can watch movies. All that matters is that you bought the console, and that's good for Sony.

Re:Why did SONY even bother making this a feature.

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction. It was a super computing platform.

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[DavidTC]

Maybe, but it depends whether the feature was actually advertised, or just happened to be there.

There are three sorts of features.

There are ones that everyone expects such a device to have. For example, all things sold as bicycles are assumed to have some sort of steering mechanism. A PS3, being a gaming console, you'd expect it to, for example, hook up to a television.

That is the implied fitness for purpose, the one that the PS3 EULA disclaims. Although, legally, that makes no sense. You're required to notify purchasers in advance if a product does not have what such a product is normally considered to have. It's not some sort of contractual thing, you have to tell them 'This product might be broken for the normal purposes you'd use it for', so they can examine it before purchase. You can't sell it to them, and then quickly sign something to cover your ass.

Likewise, I don't think it's vaguely reasonable to sell new, correctly manufacturer products 'as is', as software normally is. 'As is' is for broken stuff, so some guy who wants to sell a broken car to someone for parts can't get sued later for selling a non-working car. But whatever, that's not what we're talking about here.

The second sort of feature are, as you said, advertised features. And, yes, a good deal of advertising was made out of the fact that PS3s could run Linux. It wasn't on the box, but it advertised everywhere else.

And, sadly for Sony, you can't disclaim advertised features.

If I have a bike without steering, I can sell it 'as is', and people are required to inspect it before buying, and presumably not buy it if they need to be able to steer. However, I can't sell it 'as is' and, at the same time, have a big sign saying 'With steering', and then claim i sold it 'as is'. Period. That's just out and out fraud.

The third sort of feature, just for completeness, is extra features that aren't advertised, and aren't expected, but just exist. For example, various 'run pirate game' hacks for consoles. Manufacturers have every right to close those up and not tell people. (Whether or not they have to the right to close them on already sold devices is an interesting question.)

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[DavidTC]

Go with the Barnes and Noble nook. that's what I'm buying if I buy one.

As book sellers, I trust their copyright instincts better than Sony.

Same with Amazon, although I like supporting brick and mortar stores.

Sony has been infected with both MPAA and RIAA copyright insanity. God only knows when they'll decide their books were only licensed.

Yes, yes, the DRM is essentially the same on all the ebook things, but I'm just saying that I trust a bookseller's philosophy more than Sony.

Barnes and Noble actually lets you come into the store and read books! Without buying them! Inconceivable!

Re:I'm pretty sure you could do this in Australia

[DavidTC]

As a customer you would only have to demonstrate that you could reasonably be expected to know about the feature - considering the amount of press the console got on the web before launch, with every single function and feature dissected and analysed, you'd have to have been living under a rock to not know about Other OS.

Not entirely. If Sony itself had never mentioned it, they'd be fine. Just because it happens to run Other OS, and someone figured that out and started telling people, doesn't mean Sony has to keep that ability. Even if it had been put in there on purpose.

However, Sony itself repeatedly promoted it, and in fact pointed it out in the first place. Not on the box, granted, but in press releases, and in PR events, and all sorts of things. Hell, it's in the manual, apparently.

So what if?

[cyberjock1980]

Say instead of disabling the "Other OS" feature they had disabled a particular OP code. Let's just say it's a OP code that some games use, but not all. If you have those games they would no longer work because the OP code doesn't exist. Would you have a basis to sue Sony because your games are no longer playable that you paid for? What about the company that sold the games that would no longer play? Would they have grounds to sue?

Now, we aren't playing a game, so this situation doesn't exist. I'm wondering if Sony got away with disabling this feature because there isn't really a company that can retaliate, and they're confident they can keep their customers from winning a court battle.

Just thinking outside the box a little..

Sony retail stores

[nuggz]

but they have no retail business on their own

I have to disagree, I've physically been inside a Sony Style Store.
Which in Canada is run by Sony of Canada.

Re:LOL, what's with the Sony Hate Crusade?

[shutdown -p now]

Microsoft removed functionality in NXE (XBLA Downloader)

Was it advertised when it was being sold?

Nintendo removed MP3 support in firmware

Was it advertised when it was being sold?

Sony removed OtherOS because if was being hacked..

That was advertised when PS3 was being sold, therefore, what they did is fraud.

Re:A charge for the US? False advertising.

[shutdown -p now]

The page is there, but they've sticked a warning that it doesn't work after firmware update on top.

Re:Why did SONY even bother making this a feature.

[Sir_Lewk]

How the shitcock is this a troll?

Fucking retarded mod.

Anonymous Coward.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony, You have lost a loyal customer. this is unforgivable!

This applies to me Unfortunately

[Douglas Goodall]

I bought two generation one PS3's because they had the Cell processor and I wanted to experiment with high performance multi-core systems. Sony has stated that they lose money on each PS3 that doesn't get additional game revenue. They didn't state that while they were selling the first PS3 units. It wasn't part of the EULA that you were expected to buy their games. I am used to buying hardware and doing what I like with it. That didn't include any intention to reverse engineer any part of the machine, which I have not done. I guess I cannot let either of my machines accept any further updates from Sony, because Yellow Dog Linux is my development environment for Cell experimentation. I wonder if there will bea class action suit down the road about this. As an aside, I will not be buying any more Sony products, ever.

What non-proprietary platform?

[tepples]

I sold that motherfucker through online auctions along with all games. So much for proprietary platforms and me.

So now on which platform do you play video games? Windows is proprietary software too. And when you have friends over who happen not to have brought their gaming PC, how do you play games with your friends?

Are you an attorney sopssa, you dipshit?

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject above, and quit trying to play "smart" sopssa, you illiterate dipshit. Unless you can produce a degree in law and a license to practice it? Shut up.

Re:could be related to VAT or something tax relate

[Anonymous Coward]

They removed "Other OS" from retail PS3s with the introduction of the slim model. There really is no good reason to remove "Other OS" from the no longer generally available fat PS3s that have already been sold.

Screw PS3

[Anonymous Coward]

Originally, I was planning on buying one, because:
-Its an excellent architecture on which you can potentially do development work with cell processors.
-The graphics and game performance are great.
-I wouldn't have to buy a PS2 for all the used PS2 games I recently inherited.

Then they changed the models to not be backwards compatible. I figured, OK no problem, I'll just buy one of the models that is backwards compatible off of someone.

Then the patch came out. I'm questioning what my motivation would be for purchasing this rather than continuing to game on my computer and instead spend the money on an embedded board to do more interesting development on.

At this point, it almost seems as if Sony is begging both their customers and the retailers not to purchase from them. What is the motivation here? Why are they trying so hard to loose money on this thing? What's next, taking away the capability to play games on the platform?