Support NeoGAF

[charlequin]

I believe most companies just include bullshit (unenforceable or just void stuff) to scare customers, hoping some actually believe they are binding.

Yep, this is extremely common.

That said, almost all EULAs are partially valid and enforceable

Depends on your jurisdiction. EULAs are a form of adhesion contract (that is, a contract that you are claimed to "agree" to just by using a product you've purchased, without actively literally agreeing to enter a contractual arrangement with anyone), which makes them invalid by default in some countries and has led to a situation where their enforceability in the United States is legally ambiguous, with the current precedent differing based on which regional circuit you fall under.

 

[missile]

... You have just proved my point. Chasing down Linux security holes is a distraction. They should save resources and focus on entertainment.

There will always be a security hole. Sorry. And chasing them down is of
primary importance. Each cutting edge security system profits from the flaws
of all the former ones. And I'm pretty sure that Cell's security architecture
will carry on to the next gen. Another interesting aspect with respect to
security is whether a virtualized system can be made secure. Cell's security
architecture is the most advanced within this regard, but GH and JB have
essentially shown how such a system can be broken. This should give IBM and
Sony a very valuable information in adapting their security architecture
even further.

False. If SCEA is losing money, how do they give back ? Why not ask GM to give back something to the community ? It's a super huge company. They need to appease the shareholders and core customers first.

Sure, they have to appease their shareholders, but they won't likely to do so
if piracy takes over on the PS3. So you may end up ...

Secondly, do you have proof that PS3 Linux cost a little ?

... losing a lot of money due to piracy just because you didn't wanted to
spent a few bucks in comparison.

And btw, I never wanted the OtherOS feature for 'free'. Free? Well, I
actually paid for that feature. So speaking about the cost, it's not my fault
if Sony can't cover the cost from their sells. If true, then Sony did a wrong
calculation on their end.

Cost is a factor, sure, but it's not the factor / reason that has lead to the
removal of the OtherOS feature from the Phats. The cost argument is for the
public. But don't get me wrong, maintaining the OtherOS with respect to the
GameOS doesn't come for free, no question about that.

I will make a claim:
The reason for the removal of the OtherOS feature has nothing to do with
the cost to maintain it.

John Koller, Sony's director of hardware marketing, answered ars technica
on August 18, 2009, after being asked "Why was the ability to install Linux
removed from the system?", as follows;

John: "There are a couple of reasons. We felt we wanted to move forward with
the [Game] OS we have now. If anyone wants to use previous models and change
the OS, they can do so. ... We wanted to standardize our OS." -- [Ref]

I can't find any word about that maintaing the OtherOS was an issue.

Sarah Ewen, one of the official website admins on playstation2-linux.com,
stated on August 22, 2009, the following with respect to aragon's question
"Why no Linux in PS3 Slim?";

Sarah: "The reasons are simple: The PS3 Slim is a major cost reduction
involving many changes to hardware components in the PS3 design. In order to
offer the OtherOS install, SCE would need to continue to maintain the OtherOS
hypervisor drivers for any significant hardware changes - this costs SCE.
One of our key objectives with the new model is to pass on cost savings to
the consumer with a lower retail price. Unfortunately in this case the cost
of OtherOS install did not fit with the wider objective to offer a lower
cost PS3." -- [Ref]

Why does Sarah's argument differs from John's by that much? Hmmm, just
imagine she had answered in the vein of John ala 'We don't give a fuck about
Linux anymore. Go fuck yourself!'. xD If you ask me, the cost argument works
pretty good while speaking to the public. One dollar could already be too
much for a company to spend. Btw; did you know that Sarah has removed her
comment later on?

Well, even if we consider Sarah's argument, there is no indication that
maintaining the OtherOS was an issue.

On the next day, on Aug. 22, 2009, Geoff Levand, one of the official PS3Linux
maintainer, wrote in a reply to Elliot Orwells;

Goeff: "Please be assured that SCE is committed to continue the support for
previously sold models that have the 'Install Other OS' feature and that
this feature will not be disabled in future firmware releases. ..." -- [Ref]

He got this assurance straight from SCE's management.

And yet again, there is no indication that maintaining the OtherOS was an
issue. Quite the contrary is the case, they were pretty confident to support
the OtherOS in each future firmware release.

Hence, the recent removal of the OtherOS feature from the Phats has nothing
to do with the cost to maintain it.

I do believe that the cost to maintain the OtherOS are in effect pretty low,
whereas the cost to adapt the hypervisor for the Slim aren't. But with a
proper license model via PSN the cost could had been covered ...

They already mentioned that writing Linux drivers for new PS3 model is non-trivial, and delay launches.

..., I guess.

This contradicts your original claim that PS3 can compete with low cost PC for the average consumers (e.g, your friend's girl friend). It's just a dev env for Cell.

If the Phats would support the RSX under PS3Linux, he would have bought her
a PS3 instead of a low-end PC, which is the assumption I made previously, that
the RSX would be enabled.


However, all these considerations are superfluous the day we can run
unsigned code on the Slim.... And that day will come.

 

[iapetus]

Sure, that's a different issue though.

They can choose to refund people who are using PS3 Linux and play games actively. It would be a relatively small number.

They can't limit it to those people, though. Because whether people currently do both these things or not, their ability to do so in the future is being curtailed, contrary to the way in which the PS3 was originally promoted.

I agree. Anytime you get your feelings hurt, you should suggest a law to fix the malice done to you.

You're a cretin, aren't you? Nobody's suggesting a new law. Nobody's using a loophole in law. There is already a clear law that states you can't do this shit without compensating the customers you screw over, and it's there because it's the right thing.

 

[hirokazu]

I can't believe how crazy the Sony Defence Force is in here.

 

[jiggles]

I'd imagine it wouldn't be too difficult for Sony to worm their way out of any legal action, because you're not forced to update the firmware to use the product you bought. Your old games still work, and your PS3 still does everything it could before if you don't update. Except sign in to PSN, obviously, but they probably have some ground there given that it's:
a) A service, rather than a product
b) Free of charge
c) Always been advertised with a disclaimer that access is subject to their PSN terms of service

Of course, redownloading your PSN games and retail games like Warhawk and MAG only serve to grey the situation further, but the big problem for Sony, in my eyes, is how downloading the new software direct to your PS3 carried no indication that it was removing OtherOS. (Unless the changelog just wasn't shown on Slims because it did nothing)

 

[missile]

... Unless the changelog just wasn't shown on Slims because it did nothing ...

Just the version string was changed. :lol

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I can't believe how crazy the Sony Defence Force is in here.

I can't believe how crazy the Linux Defense Force is in here.

 

[missile]

I can't believe how crazy the Linux Defense Force is in here.

I can't believe how crazy the Believe Defense Force is in here.

 

[Huggy]

I can remember some games requiring certain firmware and even installing it for you if you don't have it. I wouldn't try playing those games without it because it's a waste of time as you can't. I think it even said so in that agreement I agreed to when I updated last night.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I can't believe how crazy the Believe Defense Force is in here.

I can't crazy the Defense Believe Force is in here. :lol

 

[missile]

I can remember some games requiring certain firmware and even installing it for you if you don't have it. ...

Wat? Can anyone confirm this?

I can't crazy the Defense Believe Force is in here. :lol

:lol

here is the crazy Force I can't Defense in Believe.

 

[Fafalada]

The PS2Linux Kit was never ment to be a business the way you might think;

My point was that it garnered limited interest (albeit, still bigger then the free OtherOS on PS3). And selling RSX access on PSN would do little to improve that.
If you want expanded audience and/or turn this into any sort of business you need to offer people a carrot (eg. AppleStore, XBL homebrew section, piracy... ).

If the Phats would support the RSX under PS3Linux, he would have bought her
a PS3 instead of a low-end PC, which is the assumption I made previously, that
the RSX would be enabled.
However, all these considerations are superfluous the day we can run
unsigned code on the Slim.... And that day will come.

So your reasoning is that an average user that would use it for mail/browsing/? needed RSX and without it those things were impossible?
And well, if people just wanted hw-acceleration in Linux and all you need for that is GPU access why those never happened for other machines running Linux with full hw access?

 

[Goldrusher]

There will always be a security hole. Sorry. And chasing them down is of
primary importance. Each cutting edge security system profits from the flaws
of all the former ones. And I'm pretty sure that Cell's security architecture
will carry on to the next gen. Another interesting aspect with respect to
security is whether a virtualized system can be made secure. Cell's security
architecture is the most advanced within this regard, but GH and JB have
essentially shown how such a system can be broken. This should give IBM and
Sony a very valuable information in adapting their security architecture
even further.

What's
with
the
line
breaks ?

 

[Kinan]

Wat? Can anyone confirm this?

Of course. Firmware often added new features/free more RAM, etc, and developers utilized them in development. Therefore the corresponding firmware was a requirement.


Now I expect Sony forcing 3.21 requirement on all games that will be released from now on.

 

[wsippel]

In the United States the answer is generally no.

I'm under the impression that even in the US, it's legal (even without consent) if it's necessary to reverse engineer anything to enable interoperability. So, as far as I understand, reverse engineers a platform to be able to run unsigned code is "enabling interoperability", and therefore (probably) legal. I'm neither a lawyer nor American, though.

 

[Brad Grenz]

Geohot: god or super-god?

Or publicity hound who still hasn't proven his hack is good for anything?

 

[obonicus]

They can't limit it to those people, though. Because whether people currently do both these things or not, their ability to do so in the future is being curtailed, contrary to the way in which the PS3 was originally promoted.

They're not going to give money to people who don't complain, though. I guess if you want this reversed, try and get fat owners to ask for refunds in EU countries or see about a class action suit if you're in the US. Sony's probably betting (accurately, IMO) that so few people care that even if they give refunds they'll come out ahead/even, so I think it's futile.

 

[jett]

Wat? Can anyone confirm this?



:lol

here is the crazy Force I can't Defense in Believe.

What, you don't have a PS3? All PS3 games require the latest firmware at time of release. If your PS3 doesn't have it installed, the game will install it from the disc.

 

[iapetus]

They're not going to give money to people who don't complain, though. I guess if you want this reversed, try and get fat owners to ask for refunds in EU countries or see about a class action suit if you're in the US. Sony's probably betting (accurately, IMO) that so few people care that even if they give refunds they'll come out ahead/even, so I think it's futile.

Absolutely. But when people who do complain start getting results, it won't be long before the wider PS3-owning community starts to discover that there's a free money party.

 

[RedNumberFive]

I can't believe how crazy the Sony Defence Force is in here.

I can't believe how crazy the Corporate Overlord Defence Force is in here.

... Actually, I can believe it. This is GAF.

 

[DJ Lushious]

I can't believe how crazy the Corporate Overlord Defence Force is in here.

Truth. Sony giveth and Sony taketh away. Even if you never even used "Install Other OS," it's the principle behind this that is so infuriating.

And I'm a daily user of Unix/Linux, so this whole debacle hurts even worse for me.

 

[gcubed]

Absolutely. But when people who do complain start getting results, it won't be long before the wider PS3-owning community starts to discover that there's a free money party.

i would hope that there would be a class action suit in the US... its a shame we dont have as strong of consumer protection laws as the EU, but then we would be communists.

 

[test_account]

It's complicated, and I don't know. Suffice to say that at the very least, it's grounds for a long and expensive legal battle, regardless of who ends up winning.

Ye, it seems like a complicated thing indeed. And it will probably be a long and expensive legal battle as you say, so maybe it would be cheaper for Apple to do nothing. The hacks are already out there, so even if Apple should win in court, maybe it wont help too much.


EDIT: By the way, speaking about suing Sony, would suing Sony for the removal of the OtherOS feature hold up in court? I read an article where a laywer said that he didnt think that a lawsuit against Sony for removing the OtherOS feature would hold up in court because Sony had done a good job covering themself from this kind of lawsuit. But he also says that with any lawsuit, it depends on the judge, so there is no way of knowing for sure how things would turn out.

http://gamer.blorge.com/2010/04/04/...ainst-ps3-v3-21-does-not-hold-water-in-court/

I guess that this article has already been posted in this thread though, but i havnt read all the posts here, so i havnt seen it being posted.

 

[missile]

My point was that it garnered limited interest (albeit, still bigger then the free OtherOS on PS3).

The interest was a lot bigger, yeah.

And selling RSX access on PSN would do little to improve that.

It wouldn't make a big difference, granted, but the PS3Linux scene would be
different today if the RSX were enabled from day 1, don't you think? With the
RSX enabled most multimedia apps would run a lot faster out of the box due to
hardware rasterizing. Further, X11's framebuffer lies in XDR main memory and
must be copied over to the RSX' video memory on every refresh. This kills a
lot of performance and resources. Software rendering also puts an additional
burden on the PPU. It's such a waste of resources. Having access to the RSX
would make PS3Linux much more pleasing for the average user, leading to a
grow in its user base.

If you want expanded audience and/or turn this into any sort of business you need to offer people a carrot (eg. AppleStore, XBL homebrew section, piracy... ).

Don't you think Sony had something similar in mind, but decided otherwise
further down the road? I don't know.

So your reasoning is that an average user that would use it for mail/browsing/? needed RSX and without it those things were impossible?

I'm glad that you ask beforehand. No, definitely not, quite the contrary is
true. You just didn't read all the posts between me and patsu to see where
I was coming from.

What's
with
the
line
breaks ?

Oh, is it possible to use more than 80 characters per line?

Reading a text in a more column-like fashion is a little bit more effective,
ask the Asians, and also more pleasing despite you have to scroll a bit. And
on the other hand I'm influenced by programming-style and by writing
plain-text messages quite a lot. There is nothing better than a fixed-font
and 80 characters per line. Anyone?

Of course. Firmware often added new features/free more RAM, etc, and developers utilized them in development. Therefore the corresponding firmware was a requirement.

I think you got me wrong. You wrote; "... I can remember some games
requiring certain firmware and even installing it for you if you don't have
it. ...". It sounds to me that in this case the firmware installs automatically.
According to my understanding one gets at least one option to cancel a
firmware update. No?

 

[test_account]

I can't believe how crazy the Sony Defence Force is in here.

Does the defending comment necessarily have to be "Sony Defence Force" though? Isnt Sony Defence Force people who defend Sony no matter what they do? Personally for me the removal of the OtherOS feature doesnt really matter that much to me because i havnt used Linux on my PS3, and i can also understand why Sony removed the OtherOS feature to try to prevent piracy on the PS3. And i also dont know that the removal of the OtherOS feature will really affect the removal of other features from other hardware devices that much because i think that most companies will try to do as much as they can to not remove features from their products unless they feel that it is absolutely necessary.

These opinions of mine might be looked upon as me defending Sony big time, but i dont know i would directly call it that i am defending Sony, i think maybe that i would rather say that i have some kind of understanding why Sony decided to remove the OtherOS feature. In some cases it might be a fine line between "understanding" and "defending" though, but in this case with the removal of the OtherOS feature, since it doesnt affect me that much personally, i would say that i am neither defending or not defending Sony about it, but that i mostly just have a understanding for why Sony decided to remove the OtherOS feature. Did that makes sense?

And i dont concider myself as a part of the "Sony Defence Force" because i dont defend everything that Sony does. I admit that i havnt read all comments in this thread, so maybe you are referring to some comments about defending Sony that i havnt read

And i fully understand if people think that the removal of the OtherOS feature is something important, even if they dont use Linux on the PS3 themself. Some people also use Linux on the PS3, so some people got affected by the removal of the OtherOS feature, and i think that is a pity :\

I also think that it is actually a good thing that not everyone have the same opinion about the removal of the OtherOS feature. If everyone had accepted things like this 100%, maybe things would have been worse in general when it comes to the removal of features from hardware products? But when people stands up to these things, it shows the companies that many people dont accept these things, and that might be a good thing indeed

 

[iapetus]

EDIT: By the way, speaking about suing Sony, would suing Sony for the removal of the OtherOS feature hold up in court?

Various consumer bodies in the UK seem to think so, from what I've seen.

 

[SiegfriedFM]

I don't care about Linux, but I _would_ care if they suddenly decided to remove PS2 compatibility or region free gaming just because there was some exploit. And this slope sure is slippery...

 

[AndyD]

I don't care about Linux, but I _would_ care if they suddenly decided to remove PS2 compatibility or region free gaming just because there was some exploit. And this slope sure is slippery...

It is a loss in functionality for some. No question. But its not core game or multimedia related functionality though, so I am not worried yet.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Does the defending comment necessarily have to be "Sony Defence Force" though? Isnt Sony Defence Force people who defend Sony no matter what they do? Personally for me the removal of the OtherOS feature doesnt really matter that much to me because i havnt used Linux on my PS3, and i can also understand why Sony removed the OtherOS feature to try to prevent piracy on the PS3. And i also dont know that the removal of the OtherOS feature will really affect the removal of other features from other hardware devices that much because i think that most companies will try to do as much as they can to not remove features from their products unless they feel that it is absolutely necessary.

These opinions of mine might be looked upon as me defending Sony big time, but i dont know i would directly call it that i am defending Sony, i think maybe that i would rather say that i have some kind of understanding why Sony decided to remove the OtherOS feature. In some cases it might be a fine line between "understanding" and "defending" though, but in this case with the removal of the OtherOS feature, since it doesnt affect me that much personally, i would say that i am neither defending or not defending Sony about it, but that i mostly just have a understanding for why Sony decided to remove the OtherOS feature. Did that makes sense?

And i dont concider myself as a part of the "Sony Defence Force" because i dont defend everything that Sony does. I admit that i havnt read all comments in this thread, so maybe you are referring to some comments about defending Sony that i havnt read

And i fully understand if people think that the removal of the OtherOS feature is something important, even if they dont use Linux on the PS3 themself. Some people also use Linux on the PS3, so some people got affected by the removal of the OtherOS feature, and i think that is a pity :\

I also think that it is actually a good thing that not everyone have the same opinion about the removal of the OtherOS feature. If everyone had accepted things like this 100%, maybe things would have been worse in general, but when people stands up to these things, it shows the companies that many people dont accept these things, and that might be a good thing indeed

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are Sony Defence Force. You're just incredibly passive-aggressive about it, like a Sony version of donny2112.

 

[test_account]

Various consumer bodies in the UK seem to think so, from what I've seen.

Ah ok, i see. Maybe the laws variates from country to country. The article that i posted earlier was from a US laywer i think, maybe it is different in the UK.

 

[Jamesearlcash]

Wat? Can anyone confirm this?



:lol

here is the crazy Force I can't Defense in Believe.

I can't believe is the defense in the here crazy force

 

[Kinan]

I think you got me wrong. You wrote; "... I can remember some games
requiring certain firmware and even installing it for you if you don't have
it. ...". It sounds to me that in this case the firmware installs automatically.
According to my understanding one gets at least one option to cancel a
firmware update. No?

Sure you get an option, it just calls standard firmware update routine. If you decline, you will not be able to play the game though.

 

[test_account]

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are Sony Defence Force. You're just incredibly passive-aggressive about it, like a Sony version of donny2112.

Maybe i have a different understanding about what Sony Defence Force actually is. My understanding of what Sony Defence Force is, is someone who defends Sony no matter what the subject might be, and no matter how crazy the subject might be. I dont concider myself as one of these persons. Several of times i might defend Sony and/or have some understanding for why they do some of the things that they do indeed, but i dont always defend them.

 

[missile]

... but then we would be communists.

:lol :lol

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Maybe i have a different understanding about what Sony Defence Force actually is. My understanding of Sony Defence Force is someone who defends Sony no matter what the subject might be, and no matter how crazy the subject might be. I dont concider myself as one of these persons. Several of times i might defend Sony and/or have some understanding for why they do some of the things that they do indeed, but i dont always defend them.

I don't agree with everything SEGA does, but you still shouldn't trust a word I say about them.

You can try to work against your biases but it doesn't mean they go away.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Geohot: god or super-god?

Or publicity hound who still hasn't proven his hack is good for anything?

give him time.

the iPhone owners of the world know he delivers regularly. just be patient.

 

[missile]

It is a loss in functionality for some. No question. But its not core game or multimedia related functionality though ...

So you basically say a Wii is useless?

 

[iapetus]

Ah ok, i see. Maybe the laws variates from country to country. The article that i posted earlier was from a US laywer i think, maybe it is different in the UK.

US law is certainly more skewed towards corporations than consumers when compared to EU law.

 

[test_account]

I don't agree with everything SEGA does, but you still shouldn't trust a word I say about them.

You can try to work against your biases but it doesn't mean they go away.

Why shouldnt i trust anything that you say about Sega? But i dont think that i have said to anyone that they should trust and/or agree with what i say about Sony, if that is what you mean? In cases like this with the removal of the OtherOS feature, i mostly (or maybe always?) say my opinions about things, i very rarely say things as statements etc., at least i dont try to do that and that isnt my intentions. If people want to agree or disagree with my opinions, that is up to each person to decide, and if people wants to disagree with my opinions, that is fine, i respect that But in cases like this with the removal of the OtherOS feature i never try to say that people should trust what i say because i mostly speak my personal opinions about these subjects. It is up to each person to decide if they want to agree or disagree with my opinions

How do you mean with working against my biases?

By the way, do you concider yourself as a part of the Sega Defence Force? I always thought that "Defence Force" had some negative ring to it, that is why i didnt really want to be labeled as being part of a defence force because i dont dont defend or agree with everything that Sony does. But maybe people dont really mean anything negative about "Defence Force" and maybe i am missunderstanding something?

 

[AmericanNinja]

I can't believe how crazy the Linux Defense Force is in here.

agreed.

 

[test_account]

US law is certainly more skewed towards corporations than consumers when compared to EU law.

Ok, i see. I guess it would be interesting to see how a lawsuit against Sony for the removal of the OtherOS feature would hold up in the EU compared to in USA and to see if the lawsuits would have a different outcome in EU and in the US

 

[luxarific]

US law is certainly more skewed towards corporations than consumers when compared to EU law.

A government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations. It's pathetic really, how far the Congress/both parties bend over for business. I envy Europeans their consumer protection / data privacy laws.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Why shouldnt i trust anything that you say about Sega? But i dont think that i have said to anyone that they should trust and/or agree with what i say about Sony, if that is what you mean? In cases like this with the removal of the OtherOS feature, i mostly (or maybe always?) say my opinions about things, i very rarely say things as statements etc., at least i dont try to do that and that isnt my intentions. If people want to agree or disagree with my opinions, that is up to each person to decide, and if people wants to disagree with my opinions, that is fine, i respect that But in cases like this with the removal of the OtherOS feature i never try to say that people should trust what i say because i mostly speak my personal opinions about these subjects. It is up to each person to decide if they want to agree or disagree with my opinions

How do you mean with working against my biases?

By the way, do you concider yourself as a part of the Sega Defence Force? I always thought that "Defence Force" had some negative ring to it, that is why i didnt really want to be labeled as being part of a defence force because i dont dont defend or agree with everything that Sony does. But maybe people dont really mean anything negative about "Defence Force" and maybe i am missunderstanding something?

I think milk tastes better when I drink it out of a SEGA cup. Take it as you will. Anyway, this is a derail, so if you want to chat any further about group identification theory, we should probably take it to PM.

 

[Mudkips]

I believe most companies just include bullshit (unenforceable or just void stuff) to scare customers, hoping some actually believe they are binding. That said, almost all EULAs are partially valid and enforceable - parts that are unlawful are void, though. The PS3 EULA tells you not to reverse engineer anything, and that part is invalid for example.

W r o n g .
You can't reverse engineer shit because of the DMCA, not because of the EULA.

Nothing in any video game, console, etc. EULA I have ever fucking seen is enforceable as a legal contract.

Licensing agreements can be valid contracts if they are presented up front, if they are agreed to by both parties, if both parties are legally able to enter into a legal contract (hint: minors cannot), if the language of the agreement itself is legal and enforceable, etc.

Including a "SCROLL DOWN AND CLICK I AGREE" piece of shit that limits your rights to what you've bought beyond any limitations due to actual laws, after you've already bought it, when you can't fucking return if you disagree, has no legal bearing on anything.

It's akin to me saying that you are legally bound to suck my cock if you read this sentence.

I'm under the impression that even in the US, it's legal (even without consent) if it's necessary to reverse engineer anything to enable interoperability. So, as far as I understand, reverse engineers a platform to be able to run unsigned code is "enabling interoperability", and therefore (probably) legal. I'm neither a lawyer nor American, though.

No, that's not legal.
There have been a few post-DMCA cases where it was allowed in order to get necessary shit working for old, unsupported systems. Reverse engineering to run unsigned code on the PS3 certainly doesn't fit that bill.

 

[AndyD]

So you basically say a Wii is useless?

Huh?

No, I meant that the core features of the PS3 are gaming and multimedia. So unless they start removing portions of those, I will not start worry. It was in response to his slippery slope statement.

I am not sure what the Wii has to do with it. It does both gaming and multimedia and not Linux.

Sure you can argue Linux can be used to play games or for multimedia and I have used it that way for roms, but in the grand scheme its not a crucial element of the core gaming and multimedia features.

 

[AndyD]

W r o n g .
You can't reverse engineer shit because of the DMCA, not because of the EULA.

Nothing in any video game, console, etc. EULA I have ever fucking seen is enforceable as a legal contract.

Licensing agreements can be valid contracts if they are presented up front, if they are agreed to by both parties, if both parties are legally able to enter into a legal contract (hint: minors cannot), if the language of the agreement itself is legal and enforceable, etc.

Including a "SCROLL DOWN AND CLICK I AGREE" piece of shit that limits your rights to what you've bought beyond any limitations due to actual laws, after you've already bought it, when you can't fucking return if you disagree, has no legal bearing on anything.

It's akin to me saying that you are legally bound to suck my cock if you read this sentence.

Actually the box instructs you to the EULA website and you can return the product for a full refund if you disagree once you open the box and read the EULA inside.

Using the product is acceptance though and its been upheld that way in a number of cases.

 

[missile]

Huh?

No, I meant ...

But you said that in another thread as well!

Spoiler

just kidding, mate

 

[Mudkips]

Actually the box instructs you to the EULA website and you can return the product for a full refund if you disagree once you open the box and read the EULA inside.

Using the product is acceptance though and its been upheld that way in a number of cases.

Really? I can return my opened PS3 to Amazon, or Sony, for a full refund? :lol
Can I do this after they change the EULA on me? :lol

Can I return an opened game for a refund? :lol :lol :lol :lol

Use of the product is not acceptance of the EULA.
You can't tell that the person using the product is the person who clicked through the EULA.
You can't tell that the person read it.
You can't tell that the person was legally able to enter into a contract.
Etc.

They are not legal contracts.
They have no bearing on your rights as a consumer.

At best, they make it easier (in terms or arguing in court) for a service provider to cut you off from continued use of the service if you don't agree to it. They would be just as able to do this without a EULA.

Please cite a case where someone has denied agreeing to the EULA and has had their consumer rights violated as a result.

 

[DJ Lushious]

They are not legal contracts.

Do you have any preceeding cases that back this up?

'Cause I don't believe you, in this ultra-paranoid-corporate-control-copyright-extravaganza day and age we live in now.

 

[AndyD]

Really? I can return my opened PS3 to Amazon, or Sony, for a full refund? :lol
Can I do this after they change the EULA on me? :lol

Can I return an opened game for a refund? :lol :lol :lol :lol

Use of the product is not acceptance of the EULA.
You can't tell that the person using the product is the person who clicked through the EULA.
You can't tell that the person read it.
You can't tell that the person was legally able to enter into a contract.
Etc.

They are not legal contracts.
They have no bearing on your rights as a consumer.

At best, they make it easier (in terms or arguing in court) for a service provider to cut you off from continued use of the service if you don't agree to it. They would be just as able to do this without a EULA.

Please cite a case where someone has denied agreeing to the EULA and has had their consumer rights violated as a result.

That's what the EULA is for. To let them cut off PSN access if you disagree to it. Hence the agree button.

Read this case:
http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/20040930BNETDOrder.pdf

Its the guys who reverse engineered Battle.net.

Even though the entire EULAs was not on the physical packaging for the PC game (the web link was), the court found that the terms were disclosed before installation of the games and access to Battle.net were granted, and express assent was obtained through the click-thru process.

So yes, they agreed to the EULA which they saw before playing but after buying and thus it was enforceable against them. Same here, buy the PS3, take it home and what do you see before you get on PSN? A EULA, you clicked yes, so its likely enforceable if terms are reasonable.

Another clickthru EULA case here from 09 between Apple and Psystar:
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2009/11/apple_crushes_c.html
And an MS login clickthru EULA was ruled valid in 2010, about a month ago, I just don't have the link in front of me.