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

Forums - Sony Discussion - sony's illegal business practice!!!!!!!

joeorc on 03 April 2010
slowmo said:
joeorc said:
slowmo said:
joeorc said:
thranx said:
emo_parker said:
What a waste of internet space this guy is..

Lets sue Microsoft for removing the old blade interface.

Lets sue Sony for removing the old crappy html PSN store.

You must not understand what this is about. It is about consumers getting what is advertised. Using other OS was advertised as someting the ps3 could do, and was touted as an attribute to the ps3. The blade interface was not, neither was the old psn store, both of which you have substitutes for mind you. This about something being taken away from a system that may have been the reason a person bought it. very different from what you said

AND IT STILL CAN!

if you choose not to update you can still use linux...yes or No?

if you choose not too do you still have the function of Linux..yes or no?

Has sony informed the Owner's of the Phat PS3 what they would loose access too before they decide to not update ..yes or no?

the point being is Sony is covered. it's still as advertised, with changes's to How OTHER OS FUNCTION WORK'S! it works prior to 3.21

before there was not CON's to using Linux. On the PS3, Now there is due to security concern's which Sony did tell the consumer before they released this update to be used or not used.

the point is how much does Linux mean to you

if its very important, than do not update. and you still get to keep Linux.

so sony is not forcing the consumer to update, you can choose not too therefore it's still work's as advertised.

Stop spinning and defending Sony, THEY ARE FORCING people to choose Other OS or potentially kill their PS3 for gaming.  This is forcing people to choose, therefor it is a forced decision.  Fair enough if you don't think its a big issue but the fact remains this is a mandatory update if you want PSN right now and in the future it will be mandatory for new games.  Pros and cons don't matter to a consumer, a feature that was present on their console when bought is being taken away, that is WRONG.

Im not spinning it. the very fact that your not being forced. it's up to you on how important Linux is, slomo while I do think it's a raw deal, It also is the choice of the consumer Sony is not outright deleteing it from anyone's PS3. Never mind the fact that you would loose access to PSN, or some Game's that would be the price now for running Linux on the PS3. The reason is because it's a security risk for PSN and mod chipped PS3's.

while I do think it's once again a bad deal , it's also something people would have to make the choice on their own

The best way to deal with this would have been to go a dual firmware route, this is where the PSN update kills Other OS but there is an option to download another version that still has functionality from Sony's website.  Using this method those who wanted to have other OS and gaming would have been kept happy while those sticking their head in the sand saying they don't care would not be bothered either.  There is no choice being given to the consumer, they either cripple their device for other OS or cripple it for PSN and evenually gaming, this isn't a choice!

You can easily roll back firmware on the PS3 so this isn't stopping the hackers, if the PS3 gets hacked there will be no issue rolling back to a firmware with Other OS so you could then hack your console.  This is hurting real consumers and not affecting hackers at all, as for modded PS3's on PSN I'm pretty sure the hardware hacks required would be detectable easily on PSN so the consoles could be banned.

Its like been given the chance to shoot yourself in the right arm or left arm, if you're right handed then the no brainer is to shoot your left arm, still doesn't mean you'd rather not be FORCED to shoot either arm at all. 

 

Edit - So if I want to connect to PSN this update isn't mandatory????  You're saying Sony are allowing people to connect without this update.  You're really scraping the barrel with definitions to try and offset a lost argument now.  By the way that is absolutely spinning.

no it's still not spinning:

Sony gave the outcome if you decide to keep linux:

Consumers and organizations that currently use the “Other OS” feature can choose not to upgrade their PS3 systems, although the following features will no longer be available;

  • Ability to sign in to PlayStation Network and use network features that require signing in to PlayStation Network, such as online features of PS3 games and chat
  • Playback of PS3 software titles or Blu-ray Disc videos that require PS3 system software version 3.21 or later
  • Playback of copyright-protected videos that are stored on a media server (when DTCP-IP is enabled under Settings)
  • Use of new features and improvements that are available on PS3 system software 3.21 or later

So once again your not being forced. being forced would have been deleting it outright from your machine without your

consent

 - 4 dictionary results

–verb (used without object)
1.
to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.
2.
Archaic. to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony.
–noun
3.
permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence: He gave his consent to the marriage.
4.
agreement in sentiment, opinion, a course of action, etc.: By common consent he was appointed official delegate.
5.
Archaic. accord; concord; harmony.
Use consent in a Sentence
Origin:
1175–1225; (v.) ME consenten < AF, OF consentir < L consentīre (see consensus); (n.) ME < AF, OF, n. deriv. of the v.

—Related forms
con·sent·er, noun
con·sent·ing·ly, adverb
non·con·sent, noun
non·con·sent·ing, adjective, noun
pre·con·sent, noun, verb (used without object)
re·con·sent, verb (used without object)
un·con·sent·ing, adjective

—Can be confused: ascent, assent, consent.

—Synonyms
1. See agree.

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
Cite This Source Link To consent

Word Origin & History

consent
early 13c., from O.Fr. consentir, from L. consentire "feel together," from com- "with" + sentire "to feel." "Feeling together," hence, "agreeing, giving permission," apparently a sense evolution that took place in French before the word reached English. Age of consent is attested from 1809.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source
con·sent &lt;a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/ahd4WAV/C0580300/consent" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" mce_src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" alt="consent pronunciation" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;   (kən-sěnt')   
intr.v.   con·sent·ed, con·sent·ing, con·sents

  1. To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree. See Synonyms at assent.

  2. Archaic To be of the same mind or opinion.

n.  

  1. Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence. See Synonyms at permission.

  2. Agreement as to opinion or a course of action: She was chosen by common consent to speak for the group.


[Middle English consenten, from Old French consentir, from Latin cōnsentīre : com-, com- + sentīre, to feel; see sent- in Indo-European roots.]
con·sent'er n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source
Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: con·sent
Function: noun
1 a : compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another; specifically : the voluntary agreement or acquiescence by a person of age or with requisite mental capacity who is not under duress or coercion and usually who has knowledge or understanding —see also AGE OF CONSENT, INFORMED CONSENT, RAPE, STATUTORY RAPE b : a defense claiming that the victim consented to an alleged crime (as rape)
2 : agreement as to action or opinion consent of the Senate, to make treaties —U.S. Constitution article II> consent of the parties established through offer and acceptance —Louisiana Civil Code>; specifically : voluntary agreement by a people to organize a civil society and give authority to a government —consent intransitive verb —con·sent·er noun
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

     
Once again its your choice, not Sony's Sony id offering you the ability to Keep Linux if You Want to.
but be warned there is thing's that you may have to take into consideration.
an if some one want's to point out:

co·er·cion

  &lt;a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/C06/C0617800" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" mce_src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" alt="coercion pronunciation" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt; [koh-ur-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2.
force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.
&lt;img src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/b?c1=2&amp;c2=6034776&amp;c3=&amp;c4=&amp;c5=&amp;c6=&amp;c15=&amp;cv=1.3&amp;cj=1" style="display:none" width="0" height="0" alt="" /&gt;

du·ress

  &lt;a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/D05/D0590900" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" mce_src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" alt="duress pronunciation" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt; [doo-res, dyoo-, door-is, dyoor-] Show IPA
–noun
1.
compulsion by threat or force; coercion; constraint.
2.
Law. such constraint or coercion as will render void a contract or other legal act entered or performed under its influence.
3.
forcible restraint, esp. imprisonment.
Sony did not use that so no.


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.

Around the Network
Seihyouken on 03 April 2010
slowmo said:
Seihyouken said:
slowmo said:
joeorc said:
thranx said:
emo_parker said:
What a waste of internet space this guy is..

Lets sue Microsoft for removing the old blade interface.

Lets sue Sony for removing the old crappy html PSN store.

You must not understand what this is about. It is about consumers getting what is advertised. Using other OS was advertised as someting the ps3 could do, and was touted as an attribute to the ps3. The blade interface was not, neither was the old psn store, both of which you have substitutes for mind you. This about something being taken away from a system that may have been the reason a person bought it. very different from what you said

AND IT STILL CAN!

if you choose not to update you can still use linux...yes or No?

if you choose not too do you still have the function of Linux..yes or no?

Has sony informed the Owner's of the Phat PS3 what they would loose access too before they decide to not update ..yes or no?

the point being is Sony is covered. it's still as advertised, with changes's to How OTHER OS FUNCTION WORK'S! it works prior to 3.21

before there was not CON's to using Linux. On the PS3, Now there is due to security concern's which Sony did tell the consumer before they released this update to be used or not used.

the point is how much does Linux mean to you

if its very important, than do not update. and you still get to keep Linux.

so sony is not forcing the consumer to update, you can choose not too therefore it's still work's as advertised.

Stop spinning and defending Sony, THEY ARE FORCING people to choose Other OS or potentially kill their PS3 for gaming.  This is forcing people to choose, therefor it is a forced decision.  Fair enough if you don't think its a big issue but the fact remains this is a mandatory update if you want PSN right now and in the future it will be mandatory for new games.  Pros and cons don't matter to a consumer, a feature that was present on their console when bought is being taken away, that is WRONG.

I wouldn't say it's not wrong, but it has still yet to be shown that it's illegal which is what this topic is about.

The fact of the matter is, Sony is giving PS3 owners the choice between OtherOS and PSN and future games. Sony has the right to deny PSN to anyone they want. It's their service. There's the matter of "After-Market Modification" on Sony's part with this, but if taken to court, Sony need simply bring up that keeping the feature reduced their ability to run their business due to the threat of piracy and the court will likely take Sony's side.

Some people may cry false advertising, but it's only false advertising if Sony advertises a PS3 using OtherOS and PSN following the update. Any advertising that is done prior to the update is worthless because the circumstances of the device have changed.

I've not mentioned anything on legality, I happen to think Sony aren't stupid enough to break any laws with a update, still doesn't make it right from an ethics perspective.  I reported this thread as I happen to think the debate is a non issue and should have been in one of the other 2-3 threads already on this subject.  I'm merely highlighting that saying this update isn't being forced onto people is ridiculous, once this has been accepted as a fact I'll drop the subject.

I agree that the issue isn't one that needs another topic.

Regarding the update being forced, you'll be waiting a long time if you expect people to accept that it's true when it's quite frankly not.

Jack Tretton isn't holding a pistol to my head and ordering me to update. In fact, so far I haven't. Sony can't force me to update if I don't want to. I'll be giving up PSN, but that's a choice that belongs to me. Sony forced that choice on me, but they're not forcing me to choose one or the other, just coercing.



joeorc on 03 April 2010
Seihyouken said:
slowmo said:
Seihyouken said:
slowmo said:
joeorc said:
thranx said:
emo_parker said:
What a waste of internet space this guy is..

Lets sue Microsoft for removing the old blade interface.

Lets sue Sony for removing the old crappy html PSN store.

You must not understand what this is about. It is about consumers getting what is advertised. Using other OS was advertised as someting the ps3 could do, and was touted as an attribute to the ps3. The blade interface was not, neither was the old psn store, both of which you have substitutes for mind you. This about something being taken away from a system that may have been the reason a person bought it. very different from what you said

AND IT STILL CAN!

if you choose not to update you can still use linux...yes or No?

if you choose not too do you still have the function of Linux..yes or no?

Has sony informed the Owner's of the Phat PS3 what they would loose access too before they decide to not update ..yes or no?

the point being is Sony is covered. it's still as advertised, with changes's to How OTHER OS FUNCTION WORK'S! it works prior to 3.21

before there was not CON's to using Linux. On the PS3, Now there is due to security concern's which Sony did tell the consumer before they released this update to be used or not used.

the point is how much does Linux mean to you

if its very important, than do not update. and you still get to keep Linux.

so sony is not forcing the consumer to update, you can choose not too therefore it's still work's as advertised.

Stop spinning and defending Sony, THEY ARE FORCING people to choose Other OS or potentially kill their PS3 for gaming.  This is forcing people to choose, therefor it is a forced decision.  Fair enough if you don't think its a big issue but the fact remains this is a mandatory update if you want PSN right now and in the future it will be mandatory for new games.  Pros and cons don't matter to a consumer, a feature that was present on their console when bought is being taken away, that is WRONG.

I wouldn't say it's not wrong, but it has still yet to be shown that it's illegal which is what this topic is about.

The fact of the matter is, Sony is giving PS3 owners the choice between OtherOS and PSN and future games. Sony has the right to deny PSN to anyone they want. It's their service. There's the matter of "After-Market Modification" on Sony's part with this, but if taken to court, Sony need simply bring up that keeping the feature reduced their ability to run their business due to the threat of piracy and the court will likely take Sony's side.

Some people may cry false advertising, but it's only false advertising if Sony advertises a PS3 using OtherOS and PSN following the update. Any advertising that is done prior to the update is worthless because the circumstances of the device have changed.

I've not mentioned anything on legality, I happen to think Sony aren't stupid enough to break any laws with a update, still doesn't make it right from an ethics perspective.  I reported this thread as I happen to think the debate is a non issue and should have been in one of the other 2-3 threads already on this subject.  I'm merely highlighting that saying this update isn't being forced onto people is ridiculous, once this has been accepted as a fact I'll drop the subject.

I agree that the issue isn't one that needs another topic.

Regarding the update being forced, you'll be waiting a long time if you expect people to accept that it's true when it's quite frankly not.

Jack Tretton isn't holding a pistol to my head and ordering me to update. In fact, so far I haven't. Sony can't force me to update if I don't want to. I'll be giving up PSN, but that's a choice that belongs to me. Sony forced that choice on me, but they're not forcing me to choose one or the other, just coercing.

no they are not doing even that:

co·er·cion

–noun
1.
the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2.
force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.
if anything it's a :

tradeoff

1 : a balancing of factors all of which are not attainable at the same time <the education versus experience trade–off which governs personnel practices — H. S. White>
2 : a giving up of one thing in return for another : exchange

— trade off transitive verb



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.

Kenoid on 03 April 2010

Its part of copyright agreements



                                  

                                       That's Gordon Freeman in "Real-Life"
 

 

LordChris915 on 03 April 2010
emo_parker said:
Lets sue Sony for removing the old crappy html PSN store.

I remember that, used to take an hour to load anything and everyone was just buying Fl0w and the Lemmings because there was bugger all on it! XD

Good times



Around the Network
consoloid on 03 April 2010

both sides seem right somehow

but almost nobody (normal consumers, who are really affected by it, who change the OS) will do any legal charges against Sony. Why? because probably 95% who wanted to change the OS, did for iligale reasons (game copies), and they'd be in the line of fire too, or not? (are my missinterpreting something?



fighter on 03 April 2010
consoloid said:
both sides seem right somehow

but almost nobody (normal consumers, who are really affected by it, who change the OS) will do any legal charges against Sony. Why? because probably 95% who wanted to change the OS, did for iligale reasons (game copies), and they'd be in the line of fire too, or not? (are my missinterpreting something?

 

Whoever sues Sony won't have his PS3(s) analyzed.



heedstone on 03 April 2010

God, I wish people would stop whining about the new update.

So we've lost the "other OS" feature, Woop dee do!

Would you rather that the PS3 was hackable?  Sony got burnt pretty bad with the PSP so you can't blame them for being cautious with the PS3.

It was pretty pointless anyway, if you REALLY  feel the need to use Linux, then use your damn PC!!



The dude abides   

gerbintosh on 03 April 2010

Well, this paragraph makes your whole argument moot:

http://us.playstation.com/support/useragreements/ps_playstation_network_oct_07.html

"From time to time, it may become necessary for SCEA to provide certain content to you to ensure that PSN and content offered through PSN, your PLAYSTATION®3 computer entertainment system, the PSP® (PlayStation®Portable) system or other SCEA-authorized hardware is functioning properly in accordance with SCEA guidelines. Some content may be provided automatically without notice when you sign into PSN. Such content may include automatic updates or upgrades which may change your current operating system, cause a loss of data or content or cause a loss of functionalities or utilities. Such upgrades or updates may be provided for system software for your PLAYSTATION®3 computer entertainment system, the PSP® (PlayStation®Portable) system, or other SCEA-authorized hardware. Access or use to any system software is subject to terms and conditions of a separate end user license agreement found at http://www.us.playstation.com/termsofuse. You authorize SCEA to provide such content and agree that SCEA shall not be liable for any damages arising from provision of such content or maintenance services. It is recommended that you regularly back up any data located on the hard disk that is of a type that can be backed up."

 

Note: The link in the paragraph shows both TOS.

People keep forgetting that the PSN has its own TOS seperate from the PS3 TOS.  If you don't like the update then don't use the PSN service.  Simple as that.

 

 



gerbintosh on 03 April 2010

**double post**