|
If you don't know what their is to sue Sony or retailers who sold older model PS3s they you clearly are incapable of grasping how consumer protection laws work. It's as simple as this. If a company, in this case Sony, either implies or directly states that their product, in this case the PS3, has certain features or performance characteristics, and a consumer purchases that product, then they are legally entitled to be able to expect that the product will function in that manner for an extended period of time. Some consumer laws class this as mewrely being the warranty period, others for the life of the product, however the company is legally entitled to ensure that the products performance characteristics and features match those required by the customer for the reasons they purchased the item for. Should the company fail to do this then they are required to renumerate or compensate the customer in a fair and just manner. If Sony aren't willing to accept this then they should completely cease operating in Australia and the EU, along with any other place that has consumer protection laws in place.
They are legally entitled to ensure that the product at the time of purchase to conform to the advertised specification. HOWEVER, they are not entitiled to support the product for future media formats such as BLu-Ray Disc with FW 3.21 requirement. Secondly, the services such as PSN, Sony is only to ensure that your product can connect to PSN but not to 'Sign on'. To sign on, you must agree to another set of contracts and requirements and one to be having the latest firmware.
WRONG! The product MUST adhere to any performance characteristics which were stated or implied at the time of purchase for at least the warranty period under Australian law and the ACCC goes as far as stating that THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT on this legal requirement. That includes being able to access all features on the PSN. What Sony has done with their so called "choice" they claim to give consumers is apply duress and it is most definitely illegal conduct, especially as it can quite easily be argued that multiplayer online gaming was one of the reasons people were buying PS3's.
Curious... where did you read that "THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT"? ACCC's job is to administer Trade Practices Act 1974. and looking at the Trade Practices Act 1974. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149/ Section V, Division 1, 56: Bait Advertisment (assuming thats what you claim that they violate):
(2) A corporation that has, in trade or commerce, advertised goods or services for supply at a specified price shall offer such goods or services for supply at that price for a period that is, and in quantities that are, reasonable having regard to the nature of the market in which the corporation carries on business and the nature of the advertisement.
I was actually told by a member of their staff when I phoned the ACCC information centre.
Actually what I was referring to was the following sections:
Section 68 provides voidance of any provisions that seek to exclude the TPA Division 2. This gives power to the Law to ignore Sony's EULA/T&C.
Section 70 (Division 2) provides supply to fit to description. As OtherOS is removed, the goods (PS3) no longer fits to description. It does not matter even if PS3 is primarily a gaming machine and other crap like that, the law will only see what was FEATURED at the time of sale.
The only way to get out of this argument is to rebut me by saying OtherOS is NOT an advertised feature. I've provided several evidences proving otherwise plus, they're in the manual too.
Section 74c (Division 2) provides recourse to manufacturers in the event of false description. As false description is already argued in Section 70 above, this law provides power for me and all other claimants to claim against Sony and NOT GAME, EBGames, etc (although you could if you want to).
Section 53 Division 1 deals with false representation. This applies to the representation made by Sony reps (link posted in previous posts) saying OtherOS will not be removed. Others may argue this section may only apply for those who purchased the Fat PS3 AFTER the representation because they are technically tricked. I argued further that this section should also apply to EXISTING FAT PS3 owners because had they knew this feature would be tampered in the future, owners could, amongst other things:
1. Sell the PS3 immediately while the value of having OtherOS is still intact. I can prove that the old PS3 was still retailing at higher value than the slim PS3 and OtherOS would be part of the reason.
2. NOT subsequently purchasing accessories or further online games because had they knew OtherOS would be removed, they may sell PS3 immediately.
I see you fail to also grasp the way contract law works. To begin with no contract is valid if any form of duress has been used (which is exactly what has transpired with this firmware update). Furthermore if any term or condition within any contract is in breach of that country's laws, then the contract is legally considered null and void.
This is true.. but again, Sony didn't breach any laws in the said countries, and their actions is still within their rights. Unless said countries prohibit addition, revision or removal of featues through firmwares.
On the contrary, the features that were advertised were removed and so laws were breached. It really is that simple a litmus test.
If you can prove that the "period" of time which the service was offered was not 'reasonable' then maybe..
As I'd already stated, the minimum period is that of the warranty period which for several "phat" PS3 owners, this does clearly take place in.
Again, that's not the way it works. Sony can add all the features they like, they can also remove features which were added after the time of purchase as well as arguably these were not advertised nor were they implied at the time of sale with any of these units. However in this case, removing access to the PSN, future game and BRD playability where FW3.21 or higher is required or otherOS feature is illegal as all of which were either directly implied or explicitly stated prior to and while "phat" PS3s were being sold. The only exception is any "phat" PS3s (most presumably preowned as opposed to new) which has been sold after April 1 this year.
The feature was not advertised or implied (look at the back of your PS3 box). It is still a supported feature for FW 3.15 and below (any new phat ps3 outthere would have FW 3.15 or less). Again, they are only required to support all current games and Blu-ray media at the time of purchase not all future ones.
Again, you completely fail to grasp the situation. It isn't just what's mentioned on the box; it's what's said on Sony's website and what Sony have said in any official statements and press releases. They don't have to specifically state support past certain firmware versions- the fact they the PS3 is advertised in general as both a Blu-Ray player and games console capable of playing all PS3 games, directly implies that said performance will be available for the product life of the PS3.
Press Releases are subject to Forward-Looking Statements, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-looking_statement which does not make them liable for changes in the future.
It does when said statements either make explicit or clearly implied representations about the performance characteristics and features of the item and said performance characteristics and features are removed from the item within the timeframe that consumer law dsays they must remain. What you seem completely oblivious to is the fact that games retailers were still selling "phat" PS3s right upto April 1 and still continue to sell it. In fact my PS3 was only purchased from GAME on March 4 this year and a few days before that Sony ASSURED me over the phone that as long as I bought a "phat" model, I would be able to run the otherOS and made no mention to access to the PSN being removed.
Again you fail to grasp the situation. Sony's so called "choice" they gave consumers, is a clear cut case of duress, so in the case of FW3.21, Sony have clearly resorted to "arm-twisting", making their conduct in places such as Australia and the EU, completely unlawful. Furthermore, while things can be altered, once again it all comes down to the features which existed at the time of sale. The firmware revision which should legally take place in Australia, the EU and all other countries or regions with similar consumer protection laws, is that Sony should be forced to revert their firmware to FW3.15 until such time as Sony can address the issue at hand without breaching consumer protection laws by removing advertised deciding factors in the PS3 being purchased, regardless of the actual number of people who are affected.
Sony did not breach any consumer law. They acted within it. Again, no law prohibit them from adding, revising and removing exisiting features in their new firmware (Laws may prevent them from doing so in a 'forced upgrade' aka without consent of the owner). They simply removed support of FW 3.15 and they are in no obligation to make all future games, media and servives work with FW 3.15.
Have you even been reading what's been posted? Seriously, do you have an intelligence problem or a problem with comprehension because it has to be one or another. I've clearly explained the situation yet you fail to grasp it. What's your next claim, that the Earth is flat? It's every bit as ridiculous a premise as what you've claimed here.
No, I didn't actually read the pages of random claims of lawsuits.. esspecially from people who aren't even seriously finding represenatives. If people actually find violations in the actual text of the consumer act or whatever law they think sony violated then I would be more than happy to read what they post.
And you're basing that on what exactly. The ACCC has been inundated with complants, meaning that people HAVE been seeking representation, including myself.
|
