No actually the legal argument came about because someone started discussing the legalities of CFW when the whole situation has come about because Sony's illegal actions. Regardless of what Geohot has done, it does not justify Sony breaking the law any. You keep sprouting nonsense, but then why is the ACCC currently investigating the situation? Why did the NSW Dept of Fair Trading tell me flat out that what Sony ha done was illegal? Why did Amazon.uk refund that customer (something you'd only do if you knew the law was clear cut and were trying to avoid a criminal investigation taking place.

You keep wanting to excuse Sony by blaming their arrogance and criminal behavoiur on his actions, but it's absolutely ludicrous.

Since you want to talk about legalities, let's put this in a very brutal context. Suppose for a minute that Person A who I do not know and am in the same restaurant with by chance has made serious enough death threats against Person B that they fear that they'll be murdered any day. Person B then gets hold of a semi automatic weapon, bursts into the restaurant and kills every single person including me. By your logic, it's Person A that should be charged with my pre-meditated murder and not Person B when it was Person B who decided they were above the law and wanted to take extreme measures, who got hold of a semi automatic weapon, and killed me, and every other innocent bystander in an effort to make sure they killed the Person A and anyone who MIGHT be associating with them.By your argument, to translate it to this scenario, he was justified in commiting a massacre because he had every reason to believe that his life was in danger from a single victim of several at the scene.

What court of law in any country would let Person B off in that scenario?

You can quote all the computer misuse laws you want, but those only apply where actual misuse has taken place. As Sony's actions here extend far beyond those cases (in this case just a single case) and break the law in infinitely more instances, you can't even claim that the law breach is justifiable. Geohot didn't remove my otherOS function, Sony did, so why exactly should I blame Geohot in my own personal situation when consumer protection laws clearly state that this is irrelevant?

No actually the exact analogy is it's like you move into a new rent controlled building, and an someone vandalizes a section of the building's door and so to tighten security the building owner evicts everyone right on the spot regardless of whatever laws exist that prevent him from doing it because as one of you is a vandal living there, all of you living there probably are.

no it's not at all.

Your analogy =

and an someone vandalizes a section of the building's door (hacker exploits a security weakness)

and so to tighten security the building owner evicts everyone right on the spot (locks down all ps3s)

regardless of whatever laws exist that prevent him from doing it because as one of you is a vandal living there (hacker is a ps3 user)

all of you living there probably are. (all ps3 users are hackers)

Your metaphor is terrible.

And yet that is exactly what happened. If the type of metaphor is bad (as mine was a paraphrased response) blame joeorc for the original.

It's more like;
You live in a condominium which has a business, a veranda, and business-lounge on the 4th floor.
Previously, you could go to the fourth floor and eat in the lounge and watch tv or hang out on the veranda.
Due to complaints about people coming in at all hours of the night and missing papers from the office, and people disrupting workflow during the day, residents are denied access to floor 4. Unfortunately for the office guys, they now no longer have access to the condo pool, roof, bar, and gym too, and can only access the 4th floor.
Condo Association says,
"if you pay 299.99$, we will give you another key to provide access to the whole building but we will be keeping an eye out for anyone that does anything and you will be evicted if problems arise".

joercs makes sense though

Person vandalizes the locks in a corridor of the estate. (Hacker exploits Other OS)
landlord seals off corridor, changing the locks. (Sony removes access to Other OS)
Says that a new key will work for everything, but that your old key will lack ability to access corridor (Sony says if you buy a new ps3 you can access everything, but your old ps3 can only be used for games) (slight problem in the metaphor, it should be an "either/or" analogy. This could be remedied by saying, "you can either live here and not have access, or live in the corridor")

But yeah, his metaphor is far more appropriate than yours. You brought it to the point of charicature)

Since we are talking about metaphor, I like this analogy better:

Your mother tells you: "Hey we are going to move to a new house with less crime rate.. etc but we can't bring some of your toys to the new house" (New firmware with something left behind)

You then have a choice, you either tell your mother "Hey mom, I paid for my toys and I love my toys, I am going to stay in the old house without your support" (not upgrading from 3.15) or you can say "Ok, Mom, I'll leave my toys behind and come to the new house with your support" (upgrade to new firmware with your toys left behind).

Actually it's your analogy which doesn't hold up. The problem is that in places such as the EU and Australia, what's made this ilegal is that fact that what was advertised was both an online gaming console and a media centre Linux PC. It was marketted as both, people bought it on those grounds and now one of those features (along with the ability to play any games or blu-ray discs if you keep the media centre pc functionality) is ripped out- I can actually get you exactly where Sony were quoted as saying it was capable of all of the above in press releases by going to the court documents submitted for a class action suit against Sony in the US.

The problem there is that under Australia Law, if a person buys something to use it fro a purpose advertised or implied by the manufacturer, then the product is legally required to be able to perform those functions, for at least the term of the warranty. Under those laws, forcing consumers to have to make that choice is in and of itself, illegal.

It's for that reason your analogy is wildly inaccurate, particularly when the EU and Australia (along with any other countries with similar consumer protection laws) arguably make up a far greater marketshare than North America, and therefore for the majority of users this is as much a criminal matter as opposed to a civil matter, as say, if Sony were guilty of Tax evasion (which they now are in the EU as of April 1st this year).

For the first part, you are refering to 'bait advertisment' which in Trade Practice 1974, state that it is only considered 'bait advertisement' if the product, service and price was offered at unreasonable period length of time . You need to find an advertisement made in the last two years that explictly and implictly state that PS3's purpose is to offer gaming, movie and media center Linux PC (Ok, you'll have to show me where its states about media center linux.. because PS3 only offers loading of otheros, it does not directly support any Linux operating system, although it recommends YDL), . Also, you have to make sure the website you linked as advertisement is valid in your region. For example, if they advertise in a NA hosted website, it may not mean the advertisment is meant for you.. unless you can find an offical link from the EU/AU main site to the said advertisement.

Regarding to breaking waranty, Sony would be relying on Terms of contract and Under Trade practice 1974 section 69 it is to be determined if:

whether the buyer knew or ought reasonably to have known of the existence and extent of the term (having regard, among other things, to any custom of the trade and any previous course of dealing between the parties);