sony's illegal business practice!!!!!!!

[oldschoolfool]

joeorc said:

strunge said:

bxnytony said:

ok guys imma point out several of the things that are illegal about sony's current "optional" 3.21 firmware update.

1) after market modification is illegal for both the consumer and manufacturer without consent from the opposite party. it states in the tos that they reserve the right to alter software at anytime however its illegal since u cant pre agree to modification. Federal law renders their own tos void because u cant actually enter into an agreement which breaks the law within itself.

2)false advertising - every single ps3 system and game advertises psn access. now no ps3 advertises or specifies firmware requirements therefore they can not block u from accessing the psn based solely on what firmware you use. Also some games clearly state on the box specific firmware requirements. if ur system meets the minimum required firmware then they are legally bound to allow u access to all functions of the game including online play. since no game could possibly require firmware 3.21 as it just came out blocking the access of those who choose not to upgrade is a violation of ur consumer rights. they agree to let u play online when u buy the game so how can they pull it back because u don't upgrade to a firmware that isn't specified as a requirement.

3)theft of service- when u purchase a system or game u are not just purchasing a product u are purchasing a service. the psn is a service that they agree to give u access to upon purchase. it  is clearly advertised on all packaging with no listed firmware requirements. no it is not a free service. every single game and system bought is money for sony that is used to maintain the service that is clearly advertised on the packaging. again by restricting ur access based on firmware they are disabling ur access to a service that was already agreed upon at a set "price".

4)consumer deception- the new update is specifically listed as optional!!! how is that possible when not updating will restrict from using features that were previously functional. this is illegal. even if it states that you will be blocked should u not update in a new eula or tos, by refusing the update u r also refusing the tos or eula including the part which bans u form utilizing the psn based on firmware specification.

5) the psp- (big issue here) my psn account is blocked on my ps3 but not on my psp???????????? how is that? same account same psn. i'm sure they use different programming and code but they also use different firmware. the psn is not designated as psp or psn therefore they obviously cant restrict it based on firmware as my psp CANT use ps3 firmware 3.21 duh. you cant say oh for the psp its one thing and for the ps3 its another as they both are granting access to the same network.

Please people read this and take note. Hey xbox players same goes for u guys. this is bigger than sony or games in general. the precedence this could set is that any manufacturer could remove or disable any fucntion they see fit after u pay for it. 

by that logic, or lack of logic, every update would be illegal, not just the ones you don't want.  so what you are proposing is that no system can ever be updated.  I don't think you've thought this through very much.  not to mention the fact that if you update the firmware you have agreed to do so, so there is no conflict.

oh, all these monday morning arm chair lawyers.  pass the bar exam and then get back to us on this.

i have a few friend's that are lawyer's from my day's when i was in the Navy, some of the best lawyer's are in the Navy, they have to be,

and while they do see it as a sad turn of event's they do see it as this law suit would go nowhere because of the simple fact that Sony is not removing it with out your consent.

pure and simple if they did out right than that would be an issue, just because one of the choices is not as good as the other does not mean it's not a valid choice, you can still keep your Other OS but the effect's are noted before you decide to keep it or not. they gave full disclosure. that is why it's not Mandatory. If to avoid personal information theft of PSN user's would require the function of Linux to be removed, the people bringing up this in a court of law would have to prove how Linux would not be a security liability. unless you know the full security encryption, that is unless your Sony than i very much doubt you could prove it, on the other hand Sony can prove it to the court that Linux is a security and encryption liability now due to Geohot's hack.

 

I wonder if anybody's going to actually sue Sony over this. That would be interesting.