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

Forums - Sony - Sony Gets Other OS Class-Action Lawsuite Dismissed

fordy on 14 December 2011
Rpruett said:


You still didn't answer what I just said.  PSN is an accessory that Sony does not have to provide.  It's a service that you agree to abide by their terms and conditions to use.  It's a seperate entity from the PS3 itself.  PSN Plus is just a further example of that.

The courts have spoken,  the case was dismissed because as it currently stands there is NO case. Sony denied you service to the PSN, not to your system.  While that sucks, nothing about that is illegal hence the court result.  No new evidence is going to crop up so as I said,  you're going to have to accept it.

The PS3 is an incredibly power gaming machine (Relative to it's competing consoles),  for standard every day computing?  It's miserable as they all are.  It's built for gaming with the open-endedness to allow Linux usage.  You're still a retard for using Linux on it. The only viable explanation is wanting to 'utilize' the cell processor.  Which I am sure encompassed a few thousand people. 


I'm not talking about PSN Plus. Read the rest of the sentence. PSN is not the only thing that are taken from OtherOS users...

You didn't read the previous posts like I said, did you? The real case is whether things such as the ability to play new games are hindered for OtherOS users. I honestly don't give two shits about being on PSN. Other companies ban people from their online services, they can too. The new evidence will be whether one comes across a game that requires a firmware version after that of OtherOS, which Sony could then be charged with denying offline access to certain games, as well...

A computer that sucks at computer stuff, but good at games....now I've heard everything. There is nothing too different to the PS3 with relation to other PowerPC processors. SPUs have existed many years before the PS3 claimed to have them (threaded, floating point pipelining). If you're basing this via first hand experience with OtherOS, keep in mind that the Hypervisor drivers were designed to severely limit the processing capacity in order to maintain system control, hence why Geohotz was tinkering with them in the first place. Unless you're familiar with progressing CPU architecture, I suggest that you don't go there.



Around the Network
Darc Requiem on 14 December 2011
Icyedge said:
fordy said:
Icyedge said:
fordy said:
Icyedge said:


Hence the removal of PSN, not "other OS". PSN is a separate agreement, they can legally close, refrain or ban anyone at any time. That was the point of the judge.

Exactly! Sony have every right to ban you from THEIR service, so this whole crap about sacrificing personal property freedoms for the protection of cheating is pure bullshit.

Its not about removing "other OS", its about removing PSN to people who want to keep "other OS". Which like you just said, is rightful. Sony can apply any rules they want for people to access their PSN service, in this case, the removal of "other OS". Read the judge's conclusion once again.

Ahh, but let me ask you this. Do some off-the-shelf games require updates to the firmware AFTER the OtherOS removal branch? If so, you've also effectively disabled the PS3 as a game console, not just PSN..

Like I said on page 3, either the judge missed that point, or nobody have concrete proof of that. Ill give benefit of doubt to the judge :). That being said, if it can be proved that new games have on disc mandatory installation that requires you to remove "other OS" the petitioners should go into appeal. In any case, the issue is being extremely exagerated ;).

Starting with Red Dead Redemption games required a updated firmware that did not feature Other OS option. This firmware is included on the game disc.  So in order to have that feature you'd be restricted to PS3 games that released before RDR.



Player1x3 on 14 December 2011
fordy said:
o_O.Q said:
fordy said:
Player1x3 said:

Im just saying, huuge majority of people dont feel ripped off, because huuge majority of people didn't care about the feature.


I'm sure that's comfort to whose who wanted a Linux box/game system, saw Sony ADVERTISE IT THAT WAY, and spend their hard earned money on it, only to have it yanked away from them. Yeah, I could picture them saying "Well what can I do? I'm just one consumer. I have every right to be lynched"

"Sony ADVERTISE IT THAT WAY"

i've seen several say this yet can't remember a single ad i didn't even see it on the box when i bought my ps3 what advertising are you speaking about specifically?


According to the manual, when Sony Computer Entertainment designed the PS3, "it was fully intended that you, a PS3 owner, could play games, watch movies, view photos, listen to music, and run a full-featured Linux operating system that transforms your PS3 into a home computer."

http://au.gamespot.com/news/6162316.html?tag=result;title;0

Sony also said the features their functions may change while using software updates



z101 on 14 December 2011
legend92(3) said:

The Lawsuite was filed back in April 2010.  Good to see it dismissed.


Why is this good? Another slap in the consumers face from a big company.



Things I like: Magic-Alchemist - The magic iPhone, Android and browser game:

www.magic-alchemist.com/

List of Nintendo Switch games (german):
http://www.zimmer101.de/nintendo-switch-spiele/

Munkeh111 on 14 December 2011
Persistantthug said:
Munkeh111 said:
Persistantthug said:
Baalzamon said:
Good, because the argument was moot. If they still wanted to use Linux, they simply shouldn't update past the update where it was removed, simple as that.


You say it as though people had a legitimate choice.  They didn't.

That's an ultimatum.

 

Sony got away with telling people, DO THIS OR ELSE.

On principle, Sony should have lost this.

No, Sony said that you can continue to use Linux, but if you do, you can't use the PlayStation Network

It is very simple, and this is why Sony make consumers agree to things, so that they can keep control of the system

 

Listen, because you might not be following,

the ULTIMATUM was,

we'll take your OTHER OS away,

or

We'll take the PSN away along with various other PS3 and basic functionality.

 

 

That's exactly what Sony put forth.

Well yeah, do this or there will be consequences. You agreed that we couild remove functionality when you signed up to PSN

There is a choice, do you want to use your PS3 primarily for playing games and consuming media, or do you want to use it as a computer?



Around the Network
Izo on 14 December 2011
fordy said:
Izo said:

As far as its concerned the case was thrown out. Sony isnt teading on personal propierty rights thats the way you take it.

1. OtherOS was a rarely used feature and blueray playback/usb ports are not. 2. Sony has to face the reaction for removing a feature that everyone uses. Would I be pissed if they removed a feature like that? Yes  Is it the same as removing a underused feature in order to protect themselve? No and thats the relm of reason. People blew this issue out of the water even if they didn't use linux on ps3. Legit users have a right to be pissed but they had a choice to keep it. 

2. Accutally they gave you the choice to keep your oh so important feature or use there FREE service that they dont have to offer in the first place and since its obv. the better choice people picked it instead and then complained about OtherOS.

Your expression is that of 2 negatives. This is a situation of picking OtherOS or a free service. 


I'm willing to bet that the majority of users don't use the USB ports, so your argument is pretty pointless there. Yes, people blew it out of the water, but if you were given a choice of sacrificing one feature, or another (or possibly two. We need to see whether some more recent games require firmware updartes after OtherOS removal), you'd be pretty ticked off, too.

I'm going to say this right now; there is no such thing as a free lunch. You want a service you have to pay for it. Believe it or not, you may THINK that PSN is free, but it's basically paid for by the savings of bypassing personal property rights. Once again, this is supposed to be a level playing ground. If other companies are playing fair, why is Sony the ones who are cheating? Wouldn't you call that gaining an upper-hand on competitors?

Oh, and by the way, if it was just a matter of blocking the OtherOS users from PSN, then it would be fine. However, there is great concern that more recent games have the possibility of not working on the older firmware that these users are stuck with for staying with OtherOS.

Alot of users do need the USB port for move so its widely used. If they do force updates on disc that require removal of OtherOS to play it. That's a legit issue if its true. That would be pretty easy to prove and Sony couldn't win that.

PSN is still free no matter what you say. They didn't remove OtherOS to bypass your rights it was a secruity risk. Any company can do anything they want with a free service they dont owe it to you. They do however owe any ps3 owner the ability to play ps3 games no matter how new.  What upper hand is Sony getting by removing an undereused secruity risk while giving you the option of ussing it or there free service. I wonder if people think they wanted to get rid of it just to do it.

Again taking away the ability to play new games is a completely reasonable issue and no one can defend it. If that is indeed true.



o_O.Q on 14 December 2011
fordy said:
o_O.Q said:


no sony fixed the second exploit ( via the keys ) i'm not sure how but they did 

"Sony has admitted that, in order to fix it, it would require new hardware"

no sony never said so, there was speculation from various media outlets about that but sony never said so... then again they eventually fixed it so i guess thats why


Dude, the exploit is still there. The entire PS3 system runs off the master publishing key. There are two things that can happen in this situation:

 

1. Re-issue all software that was signed using the master key. This includes commercial off the shelf

2. Issue new hardware (if it's PS3 backward compatible, security would have to be quarantined in it's own Virtual Machine, since it's already been compromised.)

 

Since I haven't seen any mass recall statements from Sony in the paper, nor have I seen any word of a PS4 being released, it's pretty safe to say it's still there. The reason why you don't hear it so much? Besides Sony issuing the gag order on Geohotz and taking down any public publishings of the key, if I were Sony I'd keep a low profile about it, too....

for someone who doesn't really seem to understand the situation very well you seem to be extremely sure of how right you are here have a read :

 

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/03/ps3-no-longer-hackable.html

http://slumz.boxden.com/f13/ps3-firmware-3-60-released-ps3-security-fixed-sony-won-1509025/

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/03/10/ps3-firmware-3-60-is-live-with-cloud-saves-oh-and-hacker-su/

 

i suggest you just take a step back, take a deep breath and educate yourself more on this issue... who knows maybe then you'll stop claiming things that have no validaty to them like how sony supposedly advertised other os and the ps3 is still supposedly insecure via the keys



TadpoleJackson on 14 December 2011
PullusPardus said:

i agree, why do microsoft fans always talk about how amazing it feels when they're the only people who pay for online gameplay?


Honestly I feel that anyone that pays a monthly fee for anything that should be free is kind of a fool. PSN+, XBLG, MMOs, Last FM. I'm kind of iffy on stuff like Hulu though. >.<  



TadpoleJackson on 14 December 2011
thismeintiel said:

And Sony is still offering those features at $249 now, as well as the dozens of features they have added for free.  And yes, the minority do not matter if they harm the majority of purchaser's experience. 

What I find funny is people who are upset because they ended up being wrong.  Many Sony haters were speaking of this case, saying Sony will have their asses handed to them.  What happened?  Geohot knew he had no case, so he settled with Sony.  And now the class action lawsuit was thrown out.  Sony won.  I guess some people can't handle those facts.

No offense, but you don't know what you are talking about. This argument has been made several dozen times on this forum. The anti-Geohot people are all under the illogical premise that Sony wanted to spend millions to stop thig guy from ever hacking a Sony product again. Sure, that is exactly what they wanted to do... Your same flimsy argument can be made against your point to. If Sony knew he didn't have a case then why did they settle? Why not just bury the guy as an example. Sony is a giant multi billion dollar company. Who has a history of throwing it's weight on smaller companies till they can't handle the court costs... Quite honestly, yes. I'm sure that if Geohot had stayed in he would have lost just to the sheer fact that he would run out of money soon and have had to fire his lawyers... 5 good lawyers... lets say $100 a piece an hour... It's not known how much he raised but lets be liberal and say $50,000. That would buy him 100 hours. And that's being conservative with the lawyer price and liberal with how much he raised.

 

Edit: Not to mention that when the trial ended he had less than $10,000 remaining



o_O.Q on 14 December 2011
TadpoleJackson said:
thismeintiel said:

Lol, ripping us off?  Are you serious?  Sony has given PS3 owners quite a bit of value for their money, probably outdoing other companies this gen.  Free online.  Decent web browser.  Free Wi-fi (something the original 360 didn't ship with).  Included rechargeable batteries in the controller (no need to spend extra money to purchase your own).  Blu-ray.  Concerning the article, Sony was the ONLY one to include an Other OS feature to let people play around with Linux using the PS3, without having to hack the console.  And everyone was happy til Geohot wanted to make a bigger name for himself by hacking the PS3.  He wasn't happy enough working with other hackers/homebrewers building upon PS3 Linux, making it better, faster.  He had to have the whole thing.  Which would have been fine if he had just kept it to himself or maybe just hacked a few of his friends consoles, instead of trying to get even more recognition fromt the masses.

@ OP

Glad this was the ruling.


Hah, I was more than content leaving this topic be. Since people were just reaffirming what I said, including you. That and it's the same old pointless argument that I have heard a couple dozen times "Screw the minority" more or less. But this post was just too funny. "The console that was twice the price of the other consoles at launch had more features, so it's ok if they took some out." Face the facts something that people paid for is gone. It was forcefully taken from them. They were given the choice between playing new games or having their linux. Yes, they were a minority, but they were still paying customers... they were probably the best customers... Geohot had, what, 5 PS3s by the time he finished? Sony ripped people off... the few "geeks" and "nerds" that cared were the ones that had the power to fight back.

And a couple of your facts 
"A decent web browser" hahahaahaha xD. I'll write that one off to a joke 

"Free wifi" Sony did release PS3s without wifi... 

"rechargeable batteries in controllers" Now, correct me if I'm wrong but besides the two controllers that came with my consoles(two different consoles). The three I bought came with rechargeable controllers? Which I promptly threw away... but that's beside the point 

"5 PS3s by the time he finished? Sony ripped people off"

well actually given that ps3s were sold at a loss ( over $100 ) then and i don't believe he bought many games... i'd have to say its actually the opposite ( but of course some people are only ever going to see this issue in a way that is favourable to geohot )