A better way to get what you want after 3.21

[binary solo]

alekth said:

Icyedge said:
Sony never said that. Some people talking about this, journalist, reporter, blogger simply assumed that. Some newest game ask for an update if yours is very outdated, thats true, but those update will not remove "other OS". Having a mandatory update to play game that would remove "otherOS" would go against law of many country. While if its only banning PSN, its all legal. If you try to find an article (I did), where Sony claim anything like your sentence, make sure its between "quotes". Journalist tends to exagerate things, like saying it wouldnt let you play newest games and bluray.

The sentence is from the official EU PS blog:

http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2010/03/29/ps3-firmware-3-21-coming-april-1st/

Yep, that's the thing that will get Sony hung if there is a decent legal challenge to this. If you choose not to install 3.21 you will eventually not be able to play any new games. As playing games is THE core feature of the PS3 then 3.21 basically becomes a compulsory FW update if you want to keep using it as a gaming console capable of playing all future PS3 game titles. No EULA or ToS will stand up to legal test if it presents you with an ultimatum of having to choose between 2 built in functions for which you bought a PS3. If you don't have Linux installed, and can't prove any intention to ever install it your case would be thrown out as spurious. But if you have and use Linux on your PS3 and you also game on PS3 then you have a case to put.

Then there's MAG. This is an online only game. If you are a Linux enthusiast and a MAG fan Sony are saying to you: Choose between MAG and Linux, because you can't have both. So as of tomorrow there is at least one Blu-ray disc game that a PS3 Linux user can't play.

The point with this case, which would not set anything like the precedent people are suggesting regarding indefinite server support for MP games, is that MS shutting dwon XBL support for the original XBox is non-discrimatory. All XB owners are equally affected. Sony's actions are discriminatory against PS3 owners who want to game and use Linux.

3.21 is anything but optional.

Good luck with this I say. These EULAs and ToSs are probably in need of having some legal tests applied to them. The lawfulness of such contracts should be closely examined. I've no doubt that there are numerous unlawful conditions in most of these types of contracts, it's just no one has had much cause to challenge them previously.

I'll be interested to know how it goes.

And it doesn't matter if Sony are doing this to curb to remote possibility of piracy. You don't commit one unlawful activity as an attempt to prevent possible future unlawful activities for which there is no guarantee that such future unlawful activities will come about. If it's unlawful, then it's unlawful and Sony shouldn't be doing it, end of story.

If what Sony are doing is totally lawful then that's also the end of the story, and while some people might be a bit pissed about it that's just too bad for them.

But you can't automatically conclude that Sony is acting lawfully here, the situation isn't that black and white. There is a piece of legislation that seems to apply to this situation which might render 3.21 unlawful in its current form. The correct process is to test the lawfulness of 3.21 against the relevant statute and determine whether Sony can proceed or whether they need to do something to make 3.21 lawful. Adequate and reasonable compensation as proposed in the OP is one way in which 3.21 can be made lawful without having to change anything about 3.21. But to qualify for the compensation you would need to show that you are negatively affected by 3.21 (i.e that you are a PS3 Linux user and an active gamer). There is no court that would enforce across the board compensation to all phat owners.

A court could also find that while 3.21 is unlawful there is no practical way to reasonably compensate those who are negatively affected (i.e. any compensation that could be specifically targetted to affected people would be unreasonable for Sony to do compared to the nature of the "crime", e.g. an unreasonable compensation would be for Sony to give all phat Linux users a second PS3). Then the court could find that the number of people likely to be negatively affected is so small that the level of "harm" does not warrant preventing Sony from proceeding with 3.21.