By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - A better way to get what you want after 3.21

only777 on 01 April 2010

I don't know why people belive that TOS or EULA is the be all and end all. If a company makes a TOS/EULA that contradicts the law, it doesnt matter what it says.
No one has the right to decide what is and what is not legal apart from the goverment!

I brought a machine that at purchase was made clear was open platform and allowed access to PSN.
Now the PSN TOS can say what ever the fuck it likes, so long as its LAWFUL - and most of it is. Things like harasment, personal detail thieft - these are the sort of things Sony can push onto you becuase they are inline with the law. Sony do not have the right to create a TOS/EULA that violates the law of the country I live in, thats the bottom line.

My right under EU law says that what I purchase must do what it said it would do when I brought it. Now Sony CAN write what they like in their TOS/EULA, but they still can't break the law. And just becuase they wrote in the TOS/EULA that they may remove features from the PS3 OS, it doesnt make it legal!

Think of it this way, of their TOS/EULA says they can remove features of their choice. Next month they remove the feature to play Blu Ray films. Do you really think Sony wouldn't have the shit sued out of them for that?
Of course they would, they would be sued into the ground.
The difference here is that it is only a small amount of PS3 users using linux that there wont be hardly any back lash and they can get away with it.
The law is the law, and Sony don't make it. Their TOS/EULA is not the law.



Sony want to make money by selling art, Nintendo want to make money by selling fun, Microsoft want to make money.

Around the Network
strunge on 01 April 2010
only777 said:
I don't know why people belive that TOS or EULA is the be all and end all. If a company makes a TOS/EULA that contradicts the law, it doesnt matter what it says.
No one has the right to decide what is and what is not legal apart from the goverment!

I brought a machine that at purchase was made clear was open platform and allowed access to PSN.
Now the PSN TOS can say what ever the fuck it likes, so long as its LAWFUL - and most of it is. Things like harasment, personal detail thieft - these are the sort of things Sony can push onto you becuase they are inline with the law. Sony do not have the right to create a TOS/EULA that violates the law of the country I live in, thats the bottom line.

My right under EU law says that what I purchase must do what it said it would do when I brought it. Now Sony CAN write what they like in their TOS/EULA, but they still can't break the law. And just becuase they wrote in the TOS/EULA that they may remove features from the PS3 OS, it doesnt make it legal!

Think of it this way, of their TOS/EULA says they can remove features of their choice. Next month they remove the feature to play Blu Ray films. Do you really think Sony wouldn't have the shit sued out of them for that?
Of course they would, they would be sued into the ground.
The difference here is that it is only a small amount of PS3 users using linux that there wont be hardly any back lash and they can get away with it.
The law is the law, and Sony don't make it. Their TOS/EULA is not the law.

no, it allows access to the PSN dependent on additional requirements you must agree to.  you continue to ignore that fact, and that is why your argument is worthless. the PS3 states the system provides access to the pSN, not that you are allowed to access it absent of any further requirements. 



strunge on 01 April 2010
SpartenOmega117 said:
Whats really amazing is how far fanboys go to protect sony. Sony doesn't need a mom guys. It can handle itself. For the better or the worse this was a dumb update. I don't use other OS but i do like that it is there because might need it one day.

Seriously guys you are not getting anything from this update. you are only losing something whether you care about it or not. Just don't protect Sony on this one because this update is not doing anything to the gamer. It is only removing something that many people use.

not as amazing as somenoe who doesn't have the intelligence to grasp a simple argument and confuses defending the decision as somehow indicative of defending Sony absolutely. 



only777 on 01 April 2010
strunge said:
only777 said:
I don't know why people belive that TOS or EULA is the be all and end all. If a company makes a TOS/EULA that contradicts the law, it doesnt matter what it says.
No one has the right to decide what is and what is not legal apart from the goverment!

I brought a machine that at purchase was made clear was open platform and allowed access to PSN.
Now the PSN TOS can say what ever the fuck it likes, so long as its LAWFUL - and most of it is. Things like harasment, personal detail thieft - these are the sort of things Sony can push onto you becuase they are inline with the law. Sony do not have the right to create a TOS/EULA that violates the law of the country I live in, thats the bottom line.

My right under EU law says that what I purchase must do what it said it would do when I brought it. Now Sony CAN write what they like in their TOS/EULA, but they still can't break the law. And just becuase they wrote in the TOS/EULA that they may remove features from the PS3 OS, it doesnt make it legal!

Think of it this way, of their TOS/EULA says they can remove features of their choice. Next month they remove the feature to play Blu Ray films. Do you really think Sony wouldn't have the shit sued out of them for that?
Of course they would, they would be sued into the ground.
The difference here is that it is only a small amount of PS3 users using linux that there wont be hardly any back lash and they can get away with it.
The law is the law, and Sony don't make it. Their TOS/EULA is not the law.

no, it allows access to the PSN dependent on additional requirements you must agree to.  you continue to ignore that fact, and that is why your argument is worthless. the PS3 states the system provides access to the pSN, not that you are allowed to access it absent of any further requirements. 


The additional requirements in this case break EU law!  Thats the point,  Sony are not allowed to change the machine from what was advertised.

Answer me this then, if Sony made you choose between Blu Ray movie playback or PSN access, which of the two actions would you take?

1)  Give up Blu Ray movie playback and continue to access PSN becuase their TOS/EULA says they can do what they like.

-or-

2)  Go to trading standards and complain that Sony is not living up to their end of the bargin becuase your PS3 does not do what you brought it for.

Answer that question, pick one of the two answers.



Sony want to make money by selling art, Nintendo want to make money by selling fun, Microsoft want to make money.

Icyedge on 01 April 2010
only777 said:
strunge said:
only777 said:
I don't know why people belive that TOS or EULA is the be all and end all. If a company makes a TOS/EULA that contradicts the law, it doesnt matter what it says.
No one has the right to decide what is and what is not legal apart from the goverment!

I brought a machine that at purchase was made clear was open platform and allowed access to PSN.
Now the PSN TOS can say what ever the fuck it likes, so long as its LAWFUL - and most of it is. Things like harasment, personal detail thieft - these are the sort of things Sony can push onto you becuase they are inline with the law. Sony do not have the right to create a TOS/EULA that violates the law of the country I live in, thats the bottom line.

My right under EU law says that what I purchase must do what it said it would do when I brought it. Now Sony CAN write what they like in their TOS/EULA, but they still can't break the law. And just becuase they wrote in the TOS/EULA that they may remove features from the PS3 OS, it doesnt make it legal!

Think of it this way, of their TOS/EULA says they can remove features of their choice. Next month they remove the feature to play Blu Ray films. Do you really think Sony wouldn't have the shit sued out of them for that?
Of course they would, they would be sued into the ground.
The difference here is that it is only a small amount of PS3 users using linux that there wont be hardly any back lash and they can get away with it.
The law is the law, and Sony don't make it. Their TOS/EULA is not the law.

no, it allows access to the PSN dependent on additional requirements you must agree to.  you continue to ignore that fact, and that is why your argument is worthless. the PS3 states the system provides access to the pSN, not that you are allowed to access it absent of any further requirements. 


The additional requirements in this case break EU law!  Thats the point,  Sony are not allowed to change the machine from what was advertised.

Answer me this then, if Sony made you choose between Blu Ray movie playback or PSN access, which of the two actions would you take?

1)  Give up Blu Ray movie playback and continue to access PSN becuase their TOS/EULA says they can do what they like.

-or-

2)  Go to trading standards and complain that Sony is not living up to their end of the bargin becuase your PS3 does not do what you brought it for.

Answer that question, pick one of the two answers.

You dont get it man, the answer to something like that is not sueing, they are legally correct, they dont have to offer you PSN. What you need to do is sell your PS3 and stop buying their products, that is your right as a consumer.



Around the Network
letsdance on 01 April 2010
strunge said:
only777 said:
Ok people that say there is not a case here are wrong. When I brought the machine, it was advertised as a machine that included online gaming and open platform. Both are STILL on there website, I don't need to point out online gaming as a feature but heres the open platform part:
http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html
If I lose either one of those things then Sony has broken an EU law which is:

· be fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase.

Now EU law overides any companys TOS or EULA, so thats is that argument out the window.
I use linux (Ubuntu) on my PS3, but I'm a fair man. I'll let Sony take it away to keep the PS3 piracy free.
But I want something back, all Fat owners have been robbed otherwise. I paid for this feature, by law you can't take it way.
Now I don't need a good lawer, becuase in the UK we have a thing called Trading Standards (and watchdog) which do these things for you.
If you think what I'm saying is correct and fair, then join my facebook group about it so I can have a few voices behind me before I take it has far as trading Standards.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=110549712296723

except the online function is a function that requires additional components and agreements -- you still have to agree to specific terms to use it and if you don't you choose not to access it.  the option isn't a feature Sony has to provide free of regulations as you are dishonestly attempting to portray it as.  by your logic, I can sue Sony if I don't have an internet connection because the system says I can play online but does not state on the package that I have to provide an additional component to do so  -- my own internet connection. 

online play is clearly provided as an optional feature that requires additional acceptance on your part, and now you want to attempt to claim you have no obligation to accept additional requirements to utilize it.  you haven't thought your position out very thoroughly if that is a vital aspect of your argument. 


/thread

 



strunge on 01 April 2010
only777 said:
strunge said:
only777 said:
I don't know why people belive that TOS or EULA is the be all and end all. If a company makes a TOS/EULA that contradicts the law, it doesnt matter what it says.
No one has the right to decide what is and what is not legal apart from the goverment!

I brought a machine that at purchase was made clear was open platform and allowed access to PSN.
Now the PSN TOS can say what ever the fuck it likes, so long as its LAWFUL - and most of it is. Things like harasment, personal detail thieft - these are the sort of things Sony can push onto you becuase they are inline with the law. Sony do not have the right to create a TOS/EULA that violates the law of the country I live in, thats the bottom line.

My right under EU law says that what I purchase must do what it said it would do when I brought it. Now Sony CAN write what they like in their TOS/EULA, but they still can't break the law. And just becuase they wrote in the TOS/EULA that they may remove features from the PS3 OS, it doesnt make it legal!

Think of it this way, of their TOS/EULA says they can remove features of their choice. Next month they remove the feature to play Blu Ray films. Do you really think Sony wouldn't have the shit sued out of them for that?
Of course they would, they would be sued into the ground.
The difference here is that it is only a small amount of PS3 users using linux that there wont be hardly any back lash and they can get away with it.
The law is the law, and Sony don't make it. Their TOS/EULA is not the law.

no, it allows access to the PSN dependent on additional requirements you must agree to.  you continue to ignore that fact, and that is why your argument is worthless. the PS3 states the system provides access to the pSN, not that you are allowed to access it absent of any further requirements. 


The additional requirements in this case break EU law!  Thats the point,  Sony are not allowed to change the machine from what was advertised.

Answer me this then, if Sony made you choose between Blu Ray movie playback or PSN access, which of the two actions would you take?

1)  Give up Blu Ray movie playback and continue to access PSN becuase their TOS/EULA says they can do what they like.

-or-

2)  Go to trading standards and complain that Sony is not living up to their end of the bargin becuase your PS3 does not do what you brought it for.

Answer that question, pick one of the two answers.

they haven't changed the machine as it was advertised.  the system is advertised as providing access to the PSN dependent upon additional requirements.  you want to claim that they are required to provide the PSN without any additional regulations. that's ridiculous.  if you choose not to meet those additional requirements, that is your choice, but it is dishonest to attempt to project your choices onto Sony.

show me where Sony is obligated to provide you with regulation free access to the PSN simply because you own the machine.  you can't.

PSN is a service that is separate from the PS3 but accessed through the PS3, and a service that requires additional requirements beyond simply owning a PS3. the fact that you don't know the difference is why you are over your head. any fool can file a lawsuit, but being able to win one is another story.  file the suit, stop talking about it, see if you can get a lawyer to take the case that won't require payment up front as opposed to at judgement (which would reveal whether the lawyer thinks you have a case or whether he is simply willing to do as you ask since you are paying him).



letsdance on 01 April 2010

I find it funny. Remember when people said that Sony would be sued after the FW that bricked a couple thousand PS3's and sony refused to replace them out of warranty... yeah... nothing happened then like nothing will happen now. This will blow over in a week and the people will stop acting like they actually cared about this and hate sony for the next thing they do.



only777 on 01 April 2010
strunge said:
only777 said:
strunge said:
only777 said:
I don't know why people belive that TOS or EULA is the be all and end all. If a company makes a TOS/EULA that contradicts the law, it doesnt matter what it says.
No one has the right to decide what is and what is not legal apart from the goverment!

I brought a machine that at purchase was made clear was open platform and allowed access to PSN.
Now the PSN TOS can say what ever the fuck it likes, so long as its LAWFUL - and most of it is. Things like harasment, personal detail thieft - these are the sort of things Sony can push onto you becuase they are inline with the law. Sony do not have the right to create a TOS/EULA that violates the law of the country I live in, thats the bottom line.

My right under EU law says that what I purchase must do what it said it would do when I brought it. Now Sony CAN write what they like in their TOS/EULA, but they still can't break the law. And just becuase they wrote in the TOS/EULA that they may remove features from the PS3 OS, it doesnt make it legal!

Think of it this way, of their TOS/EULA says they can remove features of their choice. Next month they remove the feature to play Blu Ray films. Do you really think Sony wouldn't have the shit sued out of them for that?
Of course they would, they would be sued into the ground.
The difference here is that it is only a small amount of PS3 users using linux that there wont be hardly any back lash and they can get away with it.
The law is the law, and Sony don't make it. Their TOS/EULA is not the law.

no, it allows access to the PSN dependent on additional requirements you must agree to.  you continue to ignore that fact, and that is why your argument is worthless. the PS3 states the system provides access to the pSN, not that you are allowed to access it absent of any further requirements. 


The additional requirements in this case break EU law!  Thats the point,  Sony are not allowed to change the machine from what was advertised.

Answer me this then, if Sony made you choose between Blu Ray movie playback or PSN access, which of the two actions would you take?

1)  Give up Blu Ray movie playback and continue to access PSN becuase their TOS/EULA says they can do what they like.

-or-

2)  Go to trading standards and complain that Sony is not living up to their end of the bargin becuase your PS3 does not do what you brought it for.

Answer that question, pick one of the two answers.

they haven't changed the machine as it was advertised.  the system is advertised as providing access to the PSN dependent upon additional requirements.  you want to claim that they are required to provide the PSN without any additional regulations. that's ridiculous.  if you choose not to meet those additional requirements, that is your choice, but it is dishonest to attempt to project your choices onto Sony.

show me where Sony is obligated to provide you with regulation free access to the PSN simply because you own the machine.  you can't.


THE FUCKING QUESTION, ANSWER IT.



Sony want to make money by selling art, Nintendo want to make money by selling fun, Microsoft want to make money.

Icyedge on 01 April 2010
only777 said:
strunge said:
only777 said:
strunge said:
only777 said:
I don't know why people belive that TOS or EULA is the be all and end all. If a company makes a TOS/EULA that contradicts the law, it doesnt matter what it says.
No one has the right to decide what is and what is not legal apart from the goverment!

I brought a machine that at purchase was made clear was open platform and allowed access to PSN.
Now the PSN TOS can say what ever the fuck it likes, so long as its LAWFUL - and most of it is. Things like harasment, personal detail thieft - these are the sort of things Sony can push onto you becuase they are inline with the law. Sony do not have the right to create a TOS/EULA that violates the law of the country I live in, thats the bottom line.

My right under EU law says that what I purchase must do what it said it would do when I brought it. Now Sony CAN write what they like in their TOS/EULA, but they still can't break the law. And just becuase they wrote in the TOS/EULA that they may remove features from the PS3 OS, it doesnt make it legal!

Think of it this way, of their TOS/EULA says they can remove features of their choice. Next month they remove the feature to play Blu Ray films. Do you really think Sony wouldn't have the shit sued out of them for that?
Of course they would, they would be sued into the ground.
The difference here is that it is only a small amount of PS3 users using linux that there wont be hardly any back lash and they can get away with it.
The law is the law, and Sony don't make it. Their TOS/EULA is not the law.

no, it allows access to the PSN dependent on additional requirements you must agree to.  you continue to ignore that fact, and that is why your argument is worthless. the PS3 states the system provides access to the pSN, not that you are allowed to access it absent of any further requirements. 


The additional requirements in this case break EU law!  Thats the point,  Sony are not allowed to change the machine from what was advertised.

Answer me this then, if Sony made you choose between Blu Ray movie playback or PSN access, which of the two actions would you take?

1)  Give up Blu Ray movie playback and continue to access PSN becuase their TOS/EULA says they can do what they like.

-or-

2)  Go to trading standards and complain that Sony is not living up to their end of the bargin becuase your PS3 does not do what you brought it for.

Answer that question, pick one of the two answers.

they haven't changed the machine as it was advertised.  the system is advertised as providing access to the PSN dependent upon additional requirements.  you want to claim that they are required to provide the PSN without any additional regulations. that's ridiculous.  if you choose not to meet those additional requirements, that is your choice, but it is dishonest to attempt to project your choices onto Sony.

show me where Sony is obligated to provide you with regulation free access to the PSN simply because you own the machine.  you can't.


THE FUCKING QUESTION, ANSWER IT.

Easy answer: PSN is a free extra! Legally speaking, in front of a judge, Sony is the good company by offering free extras while your the bad consumer arguing its not a free extra and that you have the rights to it whatever happen. You seem to not realize that if Sony want, they can stop the PSN service and close down their servers anytime they want. Its a free extra! You never paid for it, maybe in your mind when purchasing your PS3, but on paper, never! Tough, theres a small door open on relation to how they market PSN, if you can prove that they falsely represent PSN as being part of the package you pay for instead of a free extra. If your really serious in sueing them I would try that.