Quantcast
PS3 Custom Firmware 3.21OO Release Imminent

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS3 Custom Firmware 3.21OO Release Imminent

Warning the following post might require moderation.

Fuck Geohot! I am sorry you guys are all fucking butt hurt about the other OS removal but wtf did you buy your PS3 in the first place. I am going to venture a guess and say that it was to play great games and watch blu-rays. If it was so you had something to run linux on then you deserve a kick to the nuts or cunt. WE BUY OUR PS3 TO WATCH MOVIES OR PLAY GAMES. That is the reason to buy one period now once you have bought the system it is okay to enjoy the other features. But please forgive me if I don't join your fucking crusade to save a feature 98% of the PS3 didn't know existed and couldn't give a damn about. I would much rather enjoy my quality online gaming sans other os support than to have gaming turn into the wild west like it has on the 360. If I die in MAG or something I want it to be legit not because some little fuck hole glitched the system and now can head shot through walls or cannot be shot because they are off the map. If that is what you want to do sell your PS3 pick up a 360 and have fun, otherwise shut the fuck up and go play God of War.



Around the Network
bowspearer said:
Wlakiz said:
slowmo said:
Random Canadian said:

Lol k you win,  your right you paid for something that had no effect on the price.

 

Anyways so where is this 3.21OO CFW?  DYA expected Geo to make a CFW and then find an exploit in the XMB to execute unsigned code to allow R+RW access to the nand !!

 

I doubt anything like that is "imminent"

It's not about the price or the feature in the sense that I want to a monetary refund.  It's the principle of a company removing a feature that was sold with a product, it sets a alarming precident and its madness people have just accepted this as being ok for people who care about consumer rights.  I understand if you don't want to care its just tiring hearing people constantly say "It doesn't matter, I didn't use it".  There is no "win" unless you understand now why it is an issue for me.

Just to highlight the bolded that this is another potential bonus of better understanding the FW, it could potentially open up the possibility of fixing some of the more obscure faults like the red error screen which could be nand related too.  If you can dump the nand and fix corrupted parts of it there is some potential to be able to fix these faults without having to pay the first party premium.

As you say, unless Geohot decides to make it a long term project I doubt we will see anything more than CFW for a long time.

 

It is an issue for you because you cling on to the bubble that you have this magical consumer's right that gives you protection to everything. When you buy an apartment with an ocean view, are you guaranteed that you will have this view forever? NO, a new high-rise would be built, blocking your view in the next 5-6 years.

"Just to highlight the bolded that this is another potential bonus of better understanding the FW, it could potentially open up the possibility of fixing some of the more obscure faults like the red error screen which could be nand related too.  If you can dump the nand and fix corrupted parts of it there is some potential to be able to fix these faults without having to pay the first party premium."

Are you just pulling this out of your ass? You want to tell me that CFW can fix hardware fault problems? Where in the history of CFW and hacked console did these third party software managed to fix hardware fault problems?

 

"As you say, unless Geohot decides to make it a long term project I doubt we will see anything more than CFW for a long time"

Read his blog, he has shifted his attention to the IPad. He'll do it when he has interest, or when there is nothing else for him to claim fame in.

 

If by "magical consumer right" you mean consumer protection laws, then those of us in Australia and the EU don't just believe it exists, we know it's there as fact. You refer to time limits, but the EU demands that marketed features which were deciding factors in a purchase remain present for a minimum of 2 years from the date of purchase, in Australia, the minimum period is the warranty period. These are indisputable facts. If you wish to argue with them, then the only one living with "magical belifs" is yourself.

Legal take: lawsuit against PS3 v3.21 does not hold water in court?

April 4, 2010
Recently Sony removed the capability to use Other OS functionality in the PS3. This action was taken by Sony in order to preemptively block George Hotz’s PS3 hack. Apparently, some consumers are “thinking” about suing Sony for removing this functionality. Many will be wondering if this suit will hold in court.

George Hotz decided to release his PS3 hack/exploit out onto the Internet not that long ago. A few weeks later, Sony decided to remove Other OS feature, which allows you to install Linux onto the PS3. The exploit/hack created by Hotz requires Linux to be installed. According to Sony, the company made the decision to remove this feature in order to improve system security.

Apparently a few folks are attempting to file a lawsuit against Sony. Currently, there is no actual suit as it has been all talk up to this point.

This seems like an interesting situation so I decided to reach out to a friend that practices IT patent law to get his take on the matter.

He pointed a few interesting things out that software developers usually disclaim in order to CYA (cover-your-ass).

1) False Advertisement argument –

2) Bait and Switch argument –

In conclusion, from the facts on the table it seems like the lawsuit will most likely not hold up in court. Apparently, Sony has done a thorough job of CYA. However, as with any lawsuit, depending on the judge there is no way of knowing how things will turn out.

 


http://gamer.blorge.com/2010/04/04/legal-take-lawsuit-against-ps3-v3-21-does-not-hold-water-in-court/

and Sony is not the only one

 XBL TOS:
Microsoft may ... upgrade, modify, withdraw, suspend, or discontinue any functionality or feature of the Service, any game or other content available or accessible through the Service, or any hardware or software associated with the Service or with an original Xbox or Xbox 360 console, or personal computer, from time to time without notice, which may involve the automatic download of related software directly to your original Xbox, Xbox 360 console, or personal computer, including software that prevents you from accessing the Service, playing pirated games, or using unauthorized hardware peripheral devices.
Wii Network Services EULA:
You understand that the Wii Console specifications and the Wii Network Service are constantly evolving and that we may update or change your Wii Console or the Wii Network Service in whole or in part, without notice to you. Such updates may be required for you to play new Wii games or continue to access the Wii Network Service. We may also upgrade, change, or terminate the Content or game software or may discontinue offering Products without notice to you.



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

cmeese47 said:

Warning the following post might require moderation.

Blah blah blah

Good for you that its not an issue, was it really worth getting risking getting banned over though to try and dismiss others genuine concerns.  I didn't report you though as I understand the frustration of this issue not going away because people proceed to keep bumping it telling those interested in the ACTUAL OP contents that they shouldn't care.  A better option would be to not post and let the thread die or see if Geohot abandons it completely then lock the thread and ban further comment until a firmware is actually released to the public.



The genuine concerns of others was voided when they agreed to the EULA. Sony had clear permission to remove said feature regardless if there reason had merit or not.



slowmo said:
Wlakiz said:
slowmo said:
 

I'll answer the bolded, the rest has zero to do with retail law and is a terrible analogy. 

1.  Lets say for instance your 360 DVD drive board dies and you do not posess the drive key for it.  You can do the JTAG hack or one of the earlier fixes if it is exploitable to retrieve the CPU key on that console and hence decrypt the key vault giving you the DVD key so you can put it into a new drive and it will work fine.

2.  Lets say your 360 comes up with the xmas tree lights fault, this could be recovered potentially in the same manner by dumping the firmware and injecting your keyvault into a CFW which would allow you to then reflash back to stock if you wish.

3.  Lets say your 360 has a E71 error which is a firmware fault on occasions, CFW allows you to fix that too.

4.  On the original Xbox if your HDD died the console was a brick for all intensive purposes.  Guess what CFW would allow you to install another drive and lock it to the Xbox thus allowing it to function again.

5.  The Pandora hack on PSP's can recover some bricked PSP's that failed normal software updates.

I'll not continue much further but I think I've just proved my point you know very little on the subject of CFW and hacking.  Perhaps you should follow your own advice and start reading yourself before attempting to "educate" others.

 

1. So... the issue is that the DVD board is broken and to replace it you need a signed DVD drive? How does the CFW help you even get the CPU key to sign the DVD? The answer: it doesn't. CFW won't say: OH PLEASE INSERT NEW DVD DRIVE AND I WILL SIGN IT FOR YOU!!111 Instead, it will circumvent the signing requirement. Which means you can never use the stock FW ever again.

2. Or you can dump the firmware and reflash it with a stock firmware... no CFW is required

3. there is a E71 error and reflashing to stock firmware will fix it.. (assuming FW is the problem) :-p

4. Again, if you use CFW, to circumvent the signing process, then you can never use stock fw ever again. If hackers stop supporting CFW, updating back to original will brick your console.

5. Pandora hack is not a hack.. it is modifying your own battery to activate debug mode. Nothing to do with CFW.

You didn't prove that CFW can fix hardware faults, you just showed that they can be used to replace parts on your own- something that M$ would do for you without CFW. CFW can't fix produciton defects and there are more chance bricking through installing CFW  than installing OFW.

1.  Look up JTAG hack, research Xell, come back and apologise because you don't know anything about it and are wrong.

2.  No if you dump stock firmware then reflash you will fix nothing as you need to extract the key vault, decrypt it then fix the issue and reinject into stock firmware.

3.  No reflashing with a update HDD doesn't always fix the issue and neither does a reheat, you obviously haven't fixed that many 360's, I've done thousands.

4.  No you're wrong AGAIN, you could lock a HDD then revert back to stock firmware.

5.  It is a hack

I did just prove it can be used to fix faults, you're in denial because I've just shown your knowledge to be at best severely limited.  You got owned just admit it and walk away, being in denial doesn't make you any more credible.

Yes, I do owe you an apology, honestly, I did not look much into the Xbox 'homebrew' scene. I made a poor assumption, that Xbox's CPU key was as secured as the PS3 or PSP which prevents digital signing of code. In any case, I relooked into Xbox's exploits, and would like to question some of the claims that you made:

"2.  Lets say your 360 comes up with the xmas tree lights fault, this could be recovered potentially in the same manner by dumping the firmware and injecting your keyvault into a CFW which would allow you to then reflash back to stock if you wish. -> if you dump stock firmware then reflash you will fix nothing as you need to extract the key vault, decrypt it then fix the issue and reinject into stock firmware."

"Xmas lights fault", which specific fault are you talking about? RROD? What are you doing in the CFW step to fix the issue before reflashing back to stock?

"3.  Lets say your 360 has a E71 error which is a firmware fault on occasions, CFW allows you to fix that too."

Again, I am interested how does CFW fix this. According to http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?showtopic=484726 (this site deals with modded xboxs)

and their comment for E71 is : "E71: Dashboard Error - Error within Xam.xex: possibly a dashboard update error, Check below in the "Console Reset Codes" for instructions. If that does not work there is no other solution and the console must be sent back to MS for repair."

"4.  On the original Xbox if your HDD died the console was a brick for all intensive purposes.  Guess what CFW would allow you to install another drive and lock it to the Xbox thus allowing it to function again."

"1.  Lets say for instance your 360 DVD drive board dies and you do not posess the drive key for it.  You can do the JTAG hack or one of the earlier fixes if it is exploitable to retrieve the CPU key on that console and hence decrypt the key vault giving you the DVD key so you can put it into a new drive and it will work fine."

Both above methods are detectable by M$ which would result a CPU key ban, which is might as well making your xbox a deadweight.

"5.  The Pandora hack on PSP's can recover some bricked PSP's that failed normal software updates. -> It is a hack"

I guess accessing a built-in debug mode for reflashing is considered a hack these days. I personally consider it an exploitable feature on the PSP but that is my own definition.

 



Around the Network
bowspearer said:
 

If by "magical consumer right" you mean consumer protection laws, then those of us in Australia and the EU don't just believe it exists, we know it's there as fact. You refer to time limits, but the EU demands that marketed features which were deciding factors in a purchase remain present for a minimum of 2 years from the date of purchase, in Australia, the minimum period is the warranty period. These are indisputable facts. If you wish to argue with them, then the only one living with "magical belifs" is yourself.

Just curious on the status of the legal lawsuit? Whos actually filing the lawsuit? ACCC or your legal represenative(s)?

You may have a case with warranty violation, so I think they should refund your PS3 if you still have your recipet and still have warranaty. My 'magical consumer right comment is directed at the people who no longer have warranty and want to file against bait advertisement which I don't think holds water due to the time limit.

Looking at: 

"

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT 68A

Limitation of liability for breach of certain conditions or warranties

             (1)  Subject to this section, a term of a contract for the supply by a corporation of goods or services other than goods or services of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption is not void under section 68 by reason only that the term limits the liability of the corporation for a breach of a condition or warranty (other than a condition or warranty implied by section 69) to:

                     (a)  in the case of goods, any one or more of the following:

                              (i)  the replacement of the goods or the supply of equivalent goods;

                             (ii)  the repair of the goods;

                            (iii)  the payment of the cost of replacing the goods or of acquiring equivalent goods;

                            (iv)  the payment of the cost of having the goods repaired; or

                     (b)  in the case of services:

                              (i)  the supplying of the services again; or

                             (ii)  the payment of the cost of having the services supplied again.

             (2)  Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a term of a contract if the person to whom the goods or services were supplied establishes that it is not fair or reasonable for the corporation to rely on that term of the contract.

             (3)  In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) whether or not reliance on a term of a contract is fair or reasonable, a court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and in particular to the following matters:

                     (a)  the strength of the bargaining positions of the corporation and the person to whom the goods or services were supplied (in this subsection referred to as the buyer ) relative to each other, taking into account, among other things, the availability of equivalent goods or services and suitable alternative sources of supply;

                     (b)  whether the buyer received an inducement to agree to the term or, in agreeing to the term, had an opportunity of acquiring the goods or services or equivalent goods or services from any source of supply under a contract that did not include that term;

                       whether the buyer knew or ought reasonably to have known of the existence and extent of the term (having regard, among other things, to any custom of the trade and any previous course of dealing between the parties); and

                     (d)  in the case of the supply of goods, whether the goods were manufactured, processed or adapted to the special order of the buyer."

 

So basicaly Section 3C, should be a cause for concern on your case. You need the court to be convinced that the  "the person to whom the goods or services were supplied establishes that it is not fair or reasonable for the corporation to rely on that term of the contract."




Wlakiz said:
slowmo said:
Wlakiz said:
slowmo said:
 

I'll answer the bolded, the rest has zero to do with retail law and is a terrible analogy. 

1.  Lets say for instance your 360 DVD drive board dies and you do not posess the drive key for it.  You can do the JTAG hack or one of the earlier fixes if it is exploitable to retrieve the CPU key on that console and hence decrypt the key vault giving you the DVD key so you can put it into a new drive and it will work fine.

2.  Lets say your 360 comes up with the xmas tree lights fault, this could be recovered potentially in the same manner by dumping the firmware and injecting your keyvault into a CFW which would allow you to then reflash back to stock if you wish.

3.  Lets say your 360 has a E71 error which is a firmware fault on occasions, CFW allows you to fix that too.

4.  On the original Xbox if your HDD died the console was a brick for all intensive purposes.  Guess what CFW would allow you to install another drive and lock it to the Xbox thus allowing it to function again.

5.  The Pandora hack on PSP's can recover some bricked PSP's that failed normal software updates.

I'll not continue much further but I think I've just proved my point you know very little on the subject of CFW and hacking.  Perhaps you should follow your own advice and start reading yourself before attempting to "educate" others.

 

1. So... the issue is that the DVD board is broken and to replace it you need a signed DVD drive? How does the CFW help you even get the CPU key to sign the DVD? The answer: it doesn't. CFW won't say: OH PLEASE INSERT NEW DVD DRIVE AND I WILL SIGN IT FOR YOU!!111 Instead, it will circumvent the signing requirement. Which means you can never use the stock FW ever again.

2. Or you can dump the firmware and reflash it with a stock firmware... no CFW is required

3. there is a E71 error and reflashing to stock firmware will fix it.. (assuming FW is the problem) :-p

4. Again, if you use CFW, to circumvent the signing process, then you can never use stock fw ever again. If hackers stop supporting CFW, updating back to original will brick your console.

5. Pandora hack is not a hack.. it is modifying your own battery to activate debug mode. Nothing to do with CFW.

You didn't prove that CFW can fix hardware faults, you just showed that they can be used to replace parts on your own- something that M$ would do for you without CFW. CFW can't fix produciton defects and there are more chance bricking through installing CFW  than installing OFW.

1.  Look up JTAG hack, research Xell, come back and apologise because you don't know anything about it and are wrong.

2.  No if you dump stock firmware then reflash you will fix nothing as you need to extract the key vault, decrypt it then fix the issue and reinject into stock firmware.

3.  No reflashing with a update HDD doesn't always fix the issue and neither does a reheat, you obviously haven't fixed that many 360's, I've done thousands.

4.  No you're wrong AGAIN, you could lock a HDD then revert back to stock firmware.

5.  It is a hack

I did just prove it can be used to fix faults, you're in denial because I've just shown your knowledge to be at best severely limited.  You got owned just admit it and walk away, being in denial doesn't make you any more credible.

Yes, I do owe you an apology, honestly, I did not look much into the Xbox 'homebrew' scene. I made a poor assumption, that Xbox's CPU key was as secured as the PS3 or PSP which prevents digital signing of code. In any case, I relooked into Xbox's exploits, and would like to question some of the claims that you made:

"2.  Lets say your 360 comes up with the xmas tree lights fault, this could be recovered potentially in the same manner by dumping the firmware and injecting your keyvault into a CFW which would allow you to then reflash back to stock if you wish. -> if you dump stock firmware then reflash you will fix nothing as you need to extract the key vault, decrypt it then fix the issue and reinject into stock firmware."

"Xmas lights fault", which specific fault are you talking about? RROD? What are you doing in the CFW step to fix the issue before reflashing back to stock?

"3.  Lets say your 360 has a E71 error which is a firmware fault on occasions, CFW allows you to fix that too."

Again, I am interested how does CFW fix this. According to http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?showtopic=484726 (this site deals with modded xboxs)

and their comment for E71 is : "E71: Dashboard Error - Error within Xam.xex: possibly a dashboard update error, Check below in the "Console Reset Codes" for instructions. If that does not work there is no other solution and the console must be sent back to MS for repair."

"4.  On the original Xbox if your HDD died the console was a brick for all intensive purposes.  Guess what CFW would allow you to install another drive and lock it to the Xbox thus allowing it to function again."

"1.  Lets say for instance your 360 DVD drive board dies and you do not posess the drive key for it.  You can do the JTAG hack or one of the earlier fixes if it is exploitable to retrieve the CPU key on that console and hence decrypt the key vault giving you the DVD key so you can put it into a new drive and it will work fine."

Both above methods are detectable by M$ which would result a CPU key ban, which is might as well making your xbox a deadweight.

"5.  The Pandora hack on PSP's can recover some bricked PSP's that failed normal software updates. -> It is a hack"

I guess accessing a built-in debug mode for reflashing is considered a hack these days. I personally consider it an exploitable feature on the PSP but that is my own definition.

 

2. The xmas tree light fault is a alternating red and green fault code which isn't standard and is generally related to a keyvault error for example incorrect region coding.  By alternating red and green I mean the top two LED's in the quadrant will flash green and the bottom two will flash red, they will then switch so the top is red and the bottom green and flash in that order.  It is not a RROD and doesn't return any secondary codes.  I don't blame you for not having heard of it as its quite rare in most unmodded consoles but becoming more regular in hacked boxes where people screw up modifying the key vault.

3.  E71 is indeed a dashboard error, I don't know why but on occasions I'm guessing bad blocks develop in the nand that were not present at manufacturing and so aren't flagged as they should be.  If the bad block happens to fall in a essential dashboard file (which are obviously stored in the nand or an arcade couldn't work) then updating by normal means probably doesn't pickup the bad block and keeps writing data to it.  If you manually read the nand using a spi flasher then you can identify where bad blocks occur and rebuild a new firmware image with the bad blocks remapped to other areas of the image so they will not be damaged when you write back to the nand.  I would also add that E71 isn't always a software fault and a GPU reheat can resolve some of them, although they generally end up as RROD with a secondary 30022 code eventually.

4.  If the xbox was online before you apply the softmod then it would be banned due to the marriage theory when reverted to stock.  If it hadn't been online though and you swapped the HDD, you could quite happily game on it until they discontinued Live recently as they were unable to detect when you reverted to original firmware and whether the HDD was the original or not.  You may actually be able to clone the identity of one HDD's serial number onto another to get past the marriage theory but I never needed to goto such lenghs personally.  This would make the first half of my post redundant.  Most people didn't clone though because they wanted to install bigger HDD's which wouldn't work with a cloned firmware installed.

1.  No you're still wrong I'm afraid.  You dump your original firmware using a flasher.  You build a image, you write it back.  You apply the JTAG hack.  You get your CPU key.  You use a flashtool combined with your CPU key and original nand dump to extract your dvd key.  You use one of the DVD firmware flashing programs to write back a stock firmware image with your DVD key.  You then write back your original firmware dump and remove the JTAG hack.  The console is now back in its original factory state and is not detectable as having been modded.  I know this for a fact because I have done it.

5.  Semantics, either way we both see its merits for fixing faults surely.  For instance it allows you to replace the wifi board in a PSP that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

 

 

 



Don't worry, you all will update to newest firmware and you might not even know it. I think first ones will be those who are connected to internet. After a while when older games get goty versions etc. there will be updates on game discs that will update your firmware. Do this or do that you are screwed and can take only rubber fist into your hmm... donkey. :)

http://www.thinq.co.uk/news/2010/4/22/sony-can-update-ps3-firmware-without-asking/



Wlakiz said:
bowspearer said:
 

If by "magical consumer right" you mean consumer protection laws, then those of us in Australia and the EU don't just believe it exists, we know it's there as fact. You refer to time limits, but the EU demands that marketed features which were deciding factors in a purchase remain present for a minimum of 2 years from the date of purchase, in Australia, the minimum period is the warranty period. These are indisputable facts. If you wish to argue with them, then the only one living with "magical belifs" is yourself.

Just curious on the status of the legal lawsuit? Whos actually filing the lawsuit? ACCC or your legal represenative(s)?

You may have a case with warranty violation, so I think they should refund your PS3 if you still have your recipet and still have warranaty. My 'magical consumer right comment is directed at the people who no longer have warranty and want to file against bait advertisement which I don't think holds water due to the time limit.

Looking at: 

"

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT 68A

Limitation of liability for breach of certain conditions or warranties

             (1)  Subject to this section, a term of a contract for the supply by a corporation of goods or services other than goods or services of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption is not void under section 68 by reason only that the term limits the liability of the corporation for a breach of a condition or warranty (other than a condition or warranty implied by section 69) to:

                     (a)  in the case of goods, any one or more of the following:

                              (i)  the replacement of the goods or the supply of equivalent goods;

                             (ii)  the repair of the goods;

                            (iii)  the payment of the cost of replacing the goods or of acquiring equivalent goods;

                            (iv)  the payment of the cost of having the goods repaired; or

                     (b)  in the case of services:

                              (i)  the supplying of the services again; or

                             (ii)  the payment of the cost of having the services supplied again.

             (2)  Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a term of a contract if the person to whom the goods or services were supplied establishes that it is not fair or reasonable for the corporation to rely on that term of the contract.

             (3)  In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) whether or not reliance on a term of a contract is fair or reasonable, a court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and in particular to the following matters:

                     (a)  the strength of the bargaining positions of the corporation and the person to whom the goods or services were supplied (in this subsection referred to as the buyer ) relative to each other, taking into account, among other things, the availability of equivalent goods or services and suitable alternative sources of supply;

                     (b)  whether the buyer received an inducement to agree to the term or, in agreeing to the term, had an opportunity of acquiring the goods or services or equivalent goods or services from any source of supply under a contract that did not include that term;

                       whether the buyer knew or ought reasonably to have known of the existence and extent of the term (having regard, among other things, to any custom of the trade and any previous course of dealing between the parties); and

                     (d)  in the case of the supply of goods, whether the goods were manufactured, processed or adapted to the special order of the buyer."

 

So basicaly Section 3C, should be a cause for concern on your case. You need the court to be convinced that the  "the person to whom the goods or services were supplied establishes that it is not fair or reasonable for the corporation to rely on that term of the contract."


Actually I'm not suing them and to my knowledge the vast bulk of people aren't directly suing them. What's happening is that they're lodging a complaint with the ACCC. Basically it's the equivalent of going to the police and pressing charges for a more direct and personal case of theft or fraud. What happens from there is that the ACCC investigate, pass rulings and can from there, if they find Sony has breached the law, they can fine Sony, order restitutions and recalls to be paid out and in extreme cases, they even have the power to revoke a company's trade licence here, which should by some turn of events (say Sony being fined and ordered to compensate customers through retailers and refusing to cooperate with the ACCC) result in it being illegal for Sony to trade in Australia in any way shape or form, until that revocation of their trading license was overturned. That's how much power the ACCC has in this situation.

I realise I'm using the most extreme outcome possible, but I want people here to understand that this isn't merely a case of a lawsuit as in civil proceedings, but rather undertaking criminal proceedings against Sony through a government regulatory body.

From there, I suspect people will proceed with lawsuits based on a successful outcome. To answer your question about my situation, I shouldn't comment on the situation right at this minute.



cmeese47 said:
The genuine concerns of others was voided when they agreed to the EULA. Sony had clear permission to remove said feature regardless if there reason had merit or not.

Ok if you're saying this then you clearly don't understand how contract law works. To begin with any contract which breaches a country's laws is legally null and void. The company can swear blind that their actions are legal, but it's about as credible a stance as a serial killer claiming their homocides are legal. Furthermore under contract law, if duress can be proved, and in this case there is a clear case of it (not to mention that the "choice" breaches consumer protection laws whichever way you look at it) and so once again, their contract here is legally null and void.

If you're going to try and use EULAs and T&Cs to argue a case, you need to understand just what scope they have in regards to the law.