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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
That's the way things work over here. Consumer has to exercise their rights against the retailer, retailer has the right to take it to the responsible party further up the supply chain. The law permits Amazon to recoup all of their costs.
You won't see that happen. That was back in the day of the PS2, and as far as I'm aware Sony never actually got away with that claim. Since then the tax rules have changed so that there isn't the same distinction between games consoles and computers, so there's no tax break involved in passing one off as the other.
It wasn't a yes/no question. The question was "what is your position on the fact that Sony have removed functionality from the PS3 in a way that EU law appears to hold you liable for?"
If the retailer had simply said, "Our position is that we don't owe you shit" he would not have taken them to court, and would have reported that this was their position to anyone who was interested. He would then have contacted Trading Standards to ask them whether there was any case against Sony.
I've been doing a lot of reading up on these things recently (I'm the PS3 owner mentioned in the story, and quite embarassed to be front page news on Slashdot when all I actually did was send a mail to Amazon asking them to clarify where they stood on this whole affair) - the relevant EU directive (1999/44/EC) states that where the retailer pays out but the lack of conformity was caused by the producer (or someone else further up the supply chain) the retailer has the right to go after the person responsible for the lack of conformity to get their money back - in this case, Sony. I'm hoping Amazon will end up doing this, because they're not the ones to blame for this.
Yes, but you're all communists living under oppressive regimes that stifle individual creativity and deny people the impetus and ability to make the use of their God-given talents, instead encouraging laziness and crime.
I'd be a lot happier if Microsoft had seen fit to let all versions of Windows 7 be used as an upgrade to the preview. The fact that I'll have to reinstall from scratch is the only reason I've not installed my legally purchased copy yet.
He asked for an example of a game in HTML5. I provided an example of a game in HTML5. A simple transaction.
Ironically it's you who's left over bleating to yourself, working yourself up into a frothing rage over things that nobody ever said. You might want to check your caffeine dosages.
Slashdot Mirror
Or drive at or under the speed limit. Why is it that people never seem to consider this simple solution?
Surreptitiously cover up the 'io' with your thumb and it gets more appealing to some.
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.
They're all obliged to.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's the way things work over here. Consumer has to exercise their rights against the retailer, retailer has the right to take it to the responsible party further up the supply chain. The law permits Amazon to recoup all of their costs.
The latter, and the EU directive is very explicit about that.
You won't see that happen. That was back in the day of the PS2, and as far as I'm aware Sony never actually got away with that claim. Since then the tax rules have changed so that there isn't the same distinction between games consoles and computers, so there's no tax break involved in passing one off as the other.
It wasn't a yes/no question. The question was "what is your position on the fact that Sony have removed functionality from the PS3 in a way that EU law appears to hold you liable for?"
If the retailer had simply said, "Our position is that we don't owe you shit" he would not have taken them to court, and would have reported that this was their position to anyone who was interested. He would then have contacted Trading Standards to ask them whether there was any case against Sony.
I've been doing a lot of reading up on these things recently (I'm the PS3 owner mentioned in the story, and quite embarassed to be front page news on Slashdot when all I actually did was send a mail to Amazon asking them to clarify where they stood on this whole affair) - the relevant EU directive (1999/44/EC) states that where the retailer pays out but the lack of conformity was caused by the producer (or someone else further up the supply chain) the retailer has the right to go after the person responsible for the lack of conformity to get their money back - in this case, Sony. I'm hoping Amazon will end up doing this, because they're not the ones to blame for this.
...but also switch, surely?
Yes, but you're all communists living under oppressive regimes that stifle individual creativity and deny people the impetus and ability to make the use of their God-given talents, instead encouraging laziness and crime.
Surely that depends on the crime?
Yes, but if you don't agree, replace Mozart with something that you believe is better than Hannah Montana and still sells less.
Hannah Montana outsells Mozart, you know. Like the man said, ad populum arguments really don't work.
Yeah, that's new and surprising. :D
I'd be a lot happier if Microsoft had seen fit to let all versions of Windows 7 be used as an upgrade to the preview. The fact that I'll have to reinstall from scratch is the only reason I've not installed my legally purchased copy yet.
That's no help - most Slashdotters are American. What's that in imperial assloads?
He asked for an example of a game in HTML5. I provided an example of a game in HTML5. A simple transaction.
Ironically it's you who's left over bleating to yourself, working yourself up into a frothing rage over things that nobody ever said. You might want to check your caffeine dosages.
Sure.
http://www.effectgames.com/effect/games/crystalgalaxy/