Slashdot Mirror
Sony Can Update PS3 Firmware Without Permission
Stoobalou writes "Sony's latest firmware update comes with a revised End User License Agreement which allows the company to change any part of the console's operating system without notification or permission. You might think you own the console you paid for, but Sony has a very different idea."
Shouldn't the EULA that I agreed to when I bought the hardware apply, not a revised one released after the fact? What are the consequences of refusing this firmware update?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Guess that means that hacked firmware is the way to go, and keep your machine offline.
There Can Be Only One...
Kinda sorta sounds familiar . . . but I dunno . . .
Would a company like Sony rootkit their customers . . .?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Who else can see all consoles going this way? Part of the appeal to content producers and the console makers themselves is having consistent and complete control over the platform. It's things like this that will hopefully keep the PC relevant as a gaming and entertainment platform
Sounds pretty reasonable. At least there's no mention of rootkits for now.
My work here is dung.
This pretty much disgusts me as a customer, because most likely it means I won't be able to play newer games on my PS3 without worrying that they might be messing around with my system and removing functions I enjoy using on my system. The summary fails to add that Sony also says it's not their fault if they end up bricking your PS3. So, besides having a new flash pushed down your throat, if it fails you have to pay to have it fixed.
No, thanks. I'll stick to my DS Lite and Wii (which is still running System Menu 4.0 and had the IOS files updated using DopIOSMod), where I actually do have enough freedom of what I can or cannot do with my BOUGHT hardware.
EULAs aren't the most legally bind 'agreements' at the best of times. But one that applies retroactively is ridiculous even by EULA standards.
Is anyone really surprised? I don't think so. Sony saying one thing and then doing the complete opposite is nothing new.
If I paid money based on the device having a certain functionality and the company takes that functionality away that is fraud. If I sold you an MP3 player and 60 days later it would no longer play MP3s would you say so what?
LOL! What are you thinking? This is America, dammit. And in America, corporations are king. Corporations dictate the law. Corporations dictate how you can use their products, even when you've bought them outright. Corporations can change contracts whenever they want, however they want, and you just have to suck it up and enjoy it.
Shit, son, if you're saying that the terms of contracts have to be honored, and can't be changed unilaterally by corporations, then that sounds damn near like SOCIALISM.
EULAs say all kinds of crazy stuff that never actually get done. I seen ones that border on 'signing' away Constitutional rights. But I've ever heard of a single case of a legitimate, license-holding, console-owning user being forced to do something awful because of EULA verbage. Like buying a house. All real estate loans since forever ago allow the bank to 'call' the entire loan amount at any time for any reason. But they never actually do. They just was you to know they can.
If Sony releases a firmware update that pisses off more than a tiny percentage of users, they will undoubtedly reverse it. And if that tiny percentage of modders/cheaters/hobbyists or whatever else are really hacked off by the update, then they should sell their PS3's on Ebay for 80% of what you paid for it and move on with their lives for God's sake.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
How many devices are out now that give the manufacturer complete remote control of the device?
A lot, but most of them have an alternative without such a leash. Game consoles have PCs, iPod Touch has the Archos 5, iPhone has phones that run Android OS such as Nexus One, iPad has the Touch Book, and soon handheld game systems will have the Pandora PDA. This leaves cable boxes, but those aren't tied to the manufacturer as much as to the MPAA-puppet cable companies.
So SONY in their latest ToS has basically admitted that they believe they have carte blanche over hardware you payed between $300-$600 dollars for. Not counting accessories and purchases. Yes. With 3.21 this only affected linux and it was optional (arguably). But from 3.30 forward SONYs stance is they can AUTOMATICALLY and WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION update the console. The updates can add/remove features, capabilities, even content you have bought and paid for and you (in their eyes) can't do a thing about it. GeoHot was right. This isn't about Linux anymore. This is about who owns what you paid for.
This seems like such a huge deal when you put it that way, but really... so what?
Let's see how you feel after Sony's monitoring programs see how good you are at Starfighter and recruit you in their real world war against the Ko-Dan Empire. Meanwhile, your android replacement will be sleeping with your wife.
I know these recent steps by Sony are done with the aim to prevent modding of PS3s, but these moves will actually drive more PS3 owners to mod or hack their PS3s.
I haven't updated to the 3.21 firmware (the one that disables Other OS), and I suspect many others have ignored the update as well. I'm betting Sony sees this and in response has decided the best way to go is to force future updates down our throat, not giving us the option.
DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
+1
Dumbest thread topic I have seen in a long time, and an insult to those who live/have lived under true totalitarian regimes. Waah, my video game system automatically updates! I'm so oppressed!
If Sony wishes to house a device under their control on my premises, I hope they won't mind being invoiced for my (very reasonable, I assure you) colocation fees...
Not sure why Sony is taking the heat for it more than others. Maybe it's because the good guys like Valve wouldn't pull this crap on us!
http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/
2.A. License Terms.
Face it, all EULAs are designed so that the seller (ha, I mean licensor of course!) can screw you all they want. You just have to hope they don't do it.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
A strange maxim to apply: the principles of capitalism say that if Sony decided to discontinue the PS3 and brick every system (say, directly after the release of the PS4), consumers would be free not to purchase Sony products anymore and a competitor would exploit the company's poor behavior and corrective action would naturally result. On the other hand, the principles of jurisprudence over property say that the same action would be trespass to chattels (i.e. something similar to destruction of property) without the normal coupling of aftermark modification. A party cannot interfere with the lawful possession of property by another.
But that argument returns to the client/server nature of the property in question: is it intentional conversion if your wireless company stopped accepting connections from your particular model of phone? The phone is clearly property that you own and free from restriction beyond the federal regulations regarding airborne communication, but so are the towers owned by the service provider.
These questions just go to show that a large portion of property law is theoretical and has not been litigated. Fascinating nonetheless.
Seriously, why doesn't Sony just start leasing their consoles instead of selling them? Just pay $20 a month. If it breaks, you get a replacement at no charge. If you do anything they don't want you to do, they can argue that it was never *yours* to begin with. Kind of how I can't hack around with my cable modem because it's technically not mine.
This signature serves no purpose other than to help you see which posts were made by me.
When I decided to buy the PS3, it made that choice based on the fact that I could legally run Linux on it, as well as use it for a game console. What happened to the promise in the commercials that "It does everything?" I refuse to install any update that takes away this important functionality, and will continue to use the system as a computer. I have already filed a complaint against Sony with the Federal Trade Commission. I will never buy any more games for it, and I will never buy another Sony products again. Sony you can stick it to everyone else, but you've lost this customer, and any profit that you will ever gain from me again.
But that's not what is happening here.
You are free to continue using your PS3 as it was bought, you just have no right to continued free support from the manufacturer. Sony has changed the conditions of that free support, which you are totally able to reject.
So it's a choice - get something from Sony in exchange for agreeing to let them modify your firmware, or keep full control of the machine yourself and lose out on official Sony support from here on forward.
They aren't taking anything away, they just aren't giving you anything anymore. Only on Slashdot could the two possibly be confused by people who call themselves intelligent.
Sony forced you to access their network? Did they use a gun or threats against your family or something?
Oh, right, they enticed you with features you want. Force had nothing to do with it at all.
The law is not catching up quickly enough.
What good is the law when it's not enforced? If you root Sony's computers, you'll go to prison. Nobody went to prison when Sony rooted me and lots of other people. It didn't even cost them much money.
Why haven't those in charge of the mining company that killed all those miners two weeks ago after being cited time after time for safety violations, including their methane detectors and ventilation systems not working properly, been charged with negligent homicide? If you negligently killed two dozen people how long would you be free?
More laws are not the answer until they start enforcing the ones already on the books. A law that isn't being enforced is hardly a law at all, and a law that is selectively enforced is just plain evil.
Free Martian Whores!
I decided to read the entirety of the new EULA before the update yesterday, after the whole "Other OS" situation, and the bottom line is that you, as a user of the PS3, are only licensing the software on the system.
You own the plastic and the metal of the console, and can do anything you want with it. You do not own the system software on the machine. This means no reverse engineering the system software, no editing the software, no reselling or redistribution of the software. This includes editing the software to circumvent encryption or DRM on any medium you play on the console, or editing it in any way to use the system software as a gateway to installing another OS or apps. The Other OS hack that is currently out now is in direct violation of the user's licensing agreement.
You can turn your PS3 into a doorstop, or you can run any OS or apps you want on it, AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT MESS WITH THE INCLUDED SYSTEM SOFTWARE. If you can code an entirely new system software to run the PS3 WITHOUT using any preexisting code from the system software included with the PS3, you are welcome to do so, and I encourage someone with the skills to do so to attempt this.
If you have ever pressed "Accept" while updating your system software, then you have agreed to play by Sony's rules, which is just fine for me and the other 95% of the people using the PS3 to play games and watch movies.
This isn't about linux. It never was. This is about getting what you paid for, and keeping it.
Let's say you bought a fairly expensive item - like a car. Let's also, for the sake of simplicity, say you paid for it in full. You are the owner of the car.
Included in the price you paid, there are a bunch of features - some you'll use, others you won't. Regardless of whether you use them, you paid for them. Moonroof, heated seats, air conditioning, etc...
Let's say one of those features is free maintenance every 6 months, at the manufacturer's dealership. You bring in the car, and they change the oil, fill the fluids, check the air in your tires, replace the windshield wipers, etc...
Now, a year after you bought the car, you bring it in for service. When you get it back, the heated seats have been replaced with physically-identical un-heated seats.
This may not upset you too much if you never actually used the heated seats. However, was it right for the manufacturer to remove them?
The next time you bring it in for maintenance, you ask what they plan to do. In addition to the usual stuff, they tell you they intend to remove your air conditioner - not because there's a problem with it, but because the manufacturer has decided they don't want to support air conditioners anymore. You protest - you paid for the air conditioner, and it's something you use. You don't want to lose it. The dealership says "OK, take the car and leave then. We're not working on it unless you let us remove the air conditioner. Oh, and you won't be able to play any new CDs in your CD player until you let us remove the AC."
This is what Sony's already done. This is what folks are complaining about - and what they have a right and duty to complain about.
What Sony's doing now is equivalent to the dealership saying: "We can come in the middle of the night and remove your AC if we so choose, without telling you or giving you the right to refuse".
Who owns that car again?
Who owns your PS3?
They marketed the PS2 as a system that could:
1) Play PS3 games, including games with online functionality.
2) Use linux, and other OSes.
It is a Playstation 3. As such, one has a realistic expectation that "Playstation 3 compatible" software will run on it. Unlike the PC, Sony controls the hardware and licenses the software specifically to ensure such compatibility.
It had Other OS support. It was marketed as supporting it. People (in some cases) bought it specifically as a result of such support.
Here's the crux of the problem: They have made it impossible to actually use the device as it was marketed.
I have games that boast they have online support. Sony says they are PS3-compatible, and support networking (subject to the terms of the Playstation Network). They then use the PSN to force an upgrade which would disable the very functionality they sold me.
So,
"Buy this PS3, get games, online functionality, and linux"
"Lose linux, or lose online functionality"
With forced firmware updates, it can get even worse. Newer PS3 games can require certain firmware versions to run.
"Buy this PS3 to get games, online functionality, and linux"
"Lose linux, or lose games, and online functionality"
Even if you accept the Playstation Network TOS changes, and feel that "it's their network, they can set whatever terms they want" - the PS3 was marketed as a dual-purpose device, and forced firmware changes would literally force you to choose between the two. That would be fine if it was sold that way, but it was not.
More laws are not the answer until they start enforcing the ones already on the books. A law that isn't being enforced is hardly a law at all, and a law that is selectively enforced is just plain evil.
It's not selectively enforced. It's quite logical. The company has more money than you do, so they don't get punished. See how easy that was?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
People who have lived under totalitarian governments are speaking up about how parts of the West (esp. the English-speaking parts) have more surveillance than the Eastern Block ever had, and how saddened they are that the War On Drugs and War On Terrorism are being used to promote a cycle of maximum incarceration.
Oh, BTW, welcome to the War On Piracy.
Fine, so in software, they disable the switch that enables the heated seats/AC. You still can't use the feature you paid for.
Any plan which depends on a fundamental change in human behavior is doomed from the start.