o_O.Q said:
Mr Khan said:
Right, but this attitude is monopolistic and likely in a grey area regarding consumer law (at best), because they sell you a product, not the service, and they shouldn't have the legal right to alter the product you purchased or else they suspend your access to the service. They are discrete realms. Would you be claiming this if Windows/Apple said "upgrade your software so that we can uninstall part of your software or we'll disable your network card?"
The idea is effectively the same. The terms of your access to the service should not be used as leverage for them to remove value from your purchased product. The similarity on the case against Hotz is that Sony asserted that they have control over the current version of software as well (e.g. that it is actionable for users to alter their current software, or distribute information to that effect), which definitely is not the case. They have egregiously overextended the notion of where the service ends and the consumer's property begins, and one day they will be taken to task for it with great prejudice.
|
well to be honest we have to look at the whole picture here - sony did this in responce to geohot breaking down the security on the console... the last time that happened on a sony console look at what happened - the psp now has little support outside japan... so in terms of your question yes it was definitely unfair but beyond that i'm quite sure most people would rather not have a situation like the psp happen with the ps3
really and truly i place most of the blame on geohot, had he not distributed means to break through the security sony wouldn't have removed other os ( there would have been no reason to )
|
Agree, but the ends in no way justify the means.
