• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Sony PS3 'Other OS' dismissed, Judge cites no proof Sony violated ToS

Bateluer

Bateluer

Lifer
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...s-other-os-class-action-suit-against-sony.ars

Sony removed the ability to use the "Other OS" feature of the PlayStation 3 through a firmware update last year, and this made a small—but vocal—group of gamers very upset. A judge has thrown out a class-action lawsuit trying to hold Sony accountable for these actions, stating that the legal case has not been made proving why Sony is in violation of its agreements with consumers.

"The dismay and frustration at least some PS3 owners likely experienced when Sony made the decision to limit access to the PSN service to those who were [un]willing to disable the Other OS feature on their machines was no doubt genuine and understandable," Judge Seeborg wrote. "As a matter of providing customer satisfaction and building loyalty, it may have been questionable."

The problem is that the plaintiffs could not prove that they were entitled to an ongoing relationship with Sony after the date of purchase, and they had the option of turning down the update and continuing their use of their Linux installations. "As a legal matter... plaintiffs have failed to allege facts or articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable," Judge Seeborg wrote.

This has to be comforting to Sony, which is now protected against class-action lawsuits by a clause in the PlayStation 3 terms of service that removes consumers' right to sue and take part in class-action suits altogether. Gamers could opt out, but with the requirement of a physical letter being mailed, it's doubtful large numbers took the time and effort.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the number of people using a PS3 for Yellowdog is extremely tiny, but wtf? Yes, you could have declined the update, and then lost the ability to use PSN and PS3 games? Judge Seeborg doesn't seem very well versed on technology.
 
Last edited:
Bateluer said:
Judge Seeborg doesn't seem very well versed on technology.
Click to expand...

That is one of the biggest problems with out legal system in our technological world. Judges and juries are typically not well versed in technology.

However, it is questionable that what Sony did was illegal. It is just not very cool of them. It is sad that the option was linux or pretty much every other feature of your console.

A quote I found on slashdot many years ago:
"At the point when "content providers" reach into my home, and disable features on a device which I own; I feel compelled to wish someone would kill them until they are dead."
 
Last edited:
This is more or less exactly what I thought was going to happen, and I happen to agree with the judge. It won't win Sony customers, but in no way was it against the law.
 
I'm guessing it would be illegal to create a Linux version that emulates the Sony OS to any inquiring software?
 
Kadarin said:
My choice in response to this is to simply avoid buying Sony products from this point on.
Click to expand...

Me too, and i was a huge sony fan in the past. I actually used my PS3 with YD mainly for web browsing(PS3 browser is pathetic) and other HTPC type tasks and was more than a little pissed when i found out i could either keep YD and have nothing else work or have everything else but no YD.

Sony can suck my fucking dick.
 
Kadarin said:
My choice in response to this is to simply avoid buying Sony products from this point on.
Click to expand...

Really? The rootkit thing didn't do it for you earlier? It did for me.

I did agonize over breaking down and buying a refurbished PS3 from Microcenter for dirt cheap. Finding out its was at FW 3.44 cracked me. I'm pretty sure Sony lost out in the end though.
 
OVerLoRDI said:
A quote I found on slashdot many years ago:
"At the point when "content providers" reach into my home, and disable features on a device which I own; I feel compelled to wish someone would kill them until they are dead."
Click to expand...

Richard Stallman said:
The motive for DRM schemes is to increase profits for those who impose them, but their profit is a side issue when millions of people’s freedom is at stake; desire for profit, though not wrong in itself, cannot justify denying the public control over its technology. Defending freedom means thwarting DRM.
Click to expand...

...
 
Ichinisan said:
My 60GB w/ full backward compatibility hasn't been updated because I don't want to lose OtherOS support.
Click to expand...

I tried that untill i realized you cant play online or use any of your PSN media/games untill you update.

If it was as simple as not updating i would be way less pissed off about this.
 
lxskllr said:
Richard Stallman said:
The motive for DRM schemes is to increase profits for those who impose them, but their profit is a side issue when millions of people’s freedom is at stake; desire for profit, though not wrong in itself, cannot justify denying the public control over its technology. Defending freedom means thwarting DRM.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Say what?

Another motive for DRM schemes is to increase the content and motivate content creators to create more.

Not to mention, you have seen the reports on how much Sony has *lost* for all their PS3 sales, right? If you're going to pull that argument, I'd like to see the data that shows Sony _has_ profited.

I look at it as, DRM schemes are the way to ensure the rules of capitalism, the rules that govern the rest of our economy, the rules that you, I, and these companies must live under, the rules of pricing & supply & demand can still function when you have a system where replication and distribution cost virtually nothing.

While companies at times go too far in my opinion, it doesn't change my opinion that I have no sympathy for those who believe they are *entitled* to freely obtain the works that other people spent time and money creating.
 
Last edited:
cubby1223 said:
While companies at times go too far in my opinion, it doesn't change my opinion that I have no sympathy for those who believe they are *entitled* to freely obtain the works that other people spent time and money creating.
Click to expand...

Piracy and homebrew are completely different. I'll agree that making sure content providers receive money for their work is hugely important. Removing the option to install Linux does not seem to be at all related to fighting piracy though. Last time I checked PS3 games don't run on linux...

Maybe Sony providing linux drivers for their hardware would make it easier for a PS3 emulator to be developed down the line? But in reality, the complexity of modern consoles seems to be a barrier enough in regards to emulation. Take a look at PS2 emulation, that is just recently getting up to speed.
 
I am still on FW 3.15 for OtherOS support. I am pissed because there are even some BD movies I can't watch (it's not just the latest games).
 
cubby1223 said:
I look at it as, DRM schemes are the way to ensure the rules of capitalism, the rules that govern the rest of our economy, the rules that you, I, and these companies must live under, the rules of pricing & supply & demand can still function when you have a system where replication and distribution cost virtually nothing.

While companies at times go too far in my opinion, it doesn't change my opinion that I have no sympathy for those who believe they are *entitled* to freely obtain the works that other people spent time and money creating.
Click to expand...

No dude. Corporations DO NOT have more rights than citizens. They DON'T have the right to restrict copying. They DON'T have the right to prohibit you from using your devices as you see fit.

Before you say something stupid about laws that were bought by the corporations, keep in mind that governments don't grant rights. Governments only serve to restrict rights ;^)
 
lxskllr said:
No dude. Corporations DO NOT have more rights than citizens. They DON'T have the right to restrict copying. They DON'T have the right to prohibit you from using your devices as you see fit.

Before you say something stupid about laws that were bought by the corporations, keep in mind that governments don't grant rights. Governments only serve to restrict rights ;^)
Click to expand...

They have the right to enter into a contract with you. If you agree to that contract, they have all the rights outlined in that contract.

You have the choice to enter into a contract with them, or not. Do you also believe that phone carriers who sell phones at subsidized prices shouldn't have the right to lock the phone to that carrier?
 
actuarial said:
You have the choice to enter into a contract with them, or not. Do you also believe that phone carriers who sell phones at subsidized prices shouldn't have the right to lock the phone to that carrier?
Click to expand...

No, they have no such right. When you sign a contract to rent an apartment, are you forbidden from renting any other place for that year? As long as you pay your contract fee each month, what's done with the phone should be up to the user.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top