Support NeoGAF

[Massa]

Hopefully people will read this story and decide to do something as well.

 

[a.wd]

Hi, Hello, is this the European free money party? I am from the UK and havent updated my PS3, because it has Linux which I use. It is now basically a shiny box for Linux as I dont want to lose my "other-os" functions?

Where Do I get my free money? Can I bring a couple of friends in?

 

[neorej]

Sent in my e-mail directly to Sony (purchased it directly from them), saying I expect either an update that will reverse this update or a financial compensation for loss of functionality and therefor worth of my product.

 

[test_account]

OtherOS was advertised publically, on playstation.com and with (among other examples) Phil Harrison saying it is (was) one of the most powerful things about the PS3.

Ok, i see. I didnt mean to say that the OtherOS feature wasnt mentioned at all, but it wasnt exactly advertised on TV etc. (at least not what i know about) and it isnt even mentioned under the "features" list on my 60GB PS3 box. But was the MP3 feature for the Wii also mentioned at Nintendo.com and mentioned in an interview etc.? (i know that the MP3 feature on the Wii is still there, but i just wonder about it when it comes to being publically announced). But the OtherOS feature for the PS3 have been mentioned publically indeed, but even if it wasnt exactly advertised on TV etc., it was publically mentioned, so i do agree that it was advertised publically

And the reason people are talking about this much is because Sony's doing something illegal. Removing features from new revisions of a product is not illegal, removing features from products you already sold and cashed in from is. I couldn't care less about geohot and whatever he's doing, I never bought any product from him.

Ye, it is probably illegal in some countries at least. But if it is illegal, wouldnt it be easy to force Sony by law to put the feature back? Or would a partial refund of money be enough to obtain the law?

But you are right, people are probably talking more about the removal of the OtherOS feature now compared to when it was removed from the PS3 Slim because now the OtherOS feature is removed from a product where the feature was present at the time the product was sold as you say.

 

[missile]

Well then...

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/09/ps3-owners-eligible-for-cash-refund-after-other-os-removal/

The ball is rolling....

Good job! Good job, iapetus!

 

[neorej]

Ok, i see. I didnt mean to say that the OtherOS feature wasnt mentioned at all, but it wasnt exactly advertised on TV etc. (at least not what i know about) and it isnt even mentioned under the "features" list on my 60GB PS3 box. But was the MP3 feature for the Wii also mentioned at Nintendo.com and mentioned in an interview etc.? (i know that the MP3 feature on the Wii is still there, but i just wonder about it when it comes to being publically announced). But the OtherOS feature for the PS3 have been mentioned publically indeed, so i wont argue or disagree that it was advertised publically



Ye, it is probably illegal in some countries at least. But if it is illegal, wouldnt it be easy to force Sony by law to put the feature back? Or would a partial refund of money be enough to obtain the law?

But you are right, people are probably talking more about the removal of the OtherOS feature now compared to when it was removed from the PS3 Slim because now the OtherOS feature is removed from a product where the feature was present at the time the product was sold as you say.

exactly, when you bought a Slim PS3 you knew, or could have known, that the OtherOS-function was simply not there. In case of the Slim, Sony did nothing illegal, they didn't remove anything in it's lifecycle. The Phats however WERE advertised as being capable of running Linux AND full access to PSN as long as you have an internet-connection. Now Sony puts you for the choice, you must choose either one, you can't have both.

Imagine your PC coming up with a dialogbox saying "hey, all's fine and dandy, but how's about you make a choice. Either play games with me, or use me for media-playback. You can't have both!" after a Windows update...

 

[test_account]

exactly, when you bought a Slim PS3 you knew, or could have known, that the OtherOS-function was simply not there. In case of the Slim, Sony did nothing illegal, they didn't remove anything in it's lifecycle. The Phats however WERE advertised as being capable of running Linux AND full access to PSN as long as you have an internet-connection. Now Sony puts you for the choice, you must choose either one, you can't have both.

Imagine your PC coming up with a dialogbox saying "hey, all's fine and dandy, but how's about you make a choice. Either play games with me, or use me for media-playback. You can't have both!" after a Windows update...

Ye, that is true. Luckily the choice isnt that hard for me on the PS3 as it would be to choose between playing games and media-playback on a PC I never used Linux on my PS3, so to lose that feature doesnt really matter much to me personally. But i know exactly what you mean though. For a person that uses Linux on his/her PS3, maybe it might be pretty much like choosing between playing games or using media-playback on a PC, i agree.


Regarding the legal issue. Has it ever been a similar case where some company removes a feature from an already sold product? If so, what happend in this case? I am curious about how this would turn out in court and what concequence it would have for the product. In the case with the PS3 and the removal of the other OtherOS, what can Sony be forced by law to do? To bring the OtherOS feature back or to do a partial refund to all of those who bought a PS3 Phat that had the OtherOS feature enabled when the PS3 was bought?

 

[neorej]

Ye, that is true. Luckily the choice isnt that hard for me on the PS3 as it would be to choose between playing games and media-playback on a PC I never used Linux on my PS3, so to lose that feature doesnt really matter much to me personally. But i know exactly what you mean though. For a person that uses Linux on his/her PS3, maybe it might be pretty much like choosing between playing games or using media-playback on a PC, i agree.


Regarding the legal issue. Has it ever been a similar case where some company removes a feature from an already sold product? If so, what happend in this case? I am curious about how this would turn out in court and what concequence it would have for the product. In the case with the PS3 and the removal of the other OtherOS, what can Sony be forced by law to do? To bring the OtherOS feature back or to do a partial refund to all of those who bought a PS3 Phat that had the OtherOS feature enabled when the PS3 was bought?

AFAIK there is no precedent. But if laws don't cover removing functionality, regardless to whether you use it or not, the law is dumb.
Imagine you live in Alaska and you buy a car with airco. You never use it, because it's damn cold outside. You take your car to the dealer for a regular tune-up and the mechanic says there's a problem with other similar models and he can fix it right here and now. Only downside is that he'll have to remove the airco and you don't get a refund.
I'm pretty goddamned sure that's illegal.

 

[missile]

... Imagine your PC coming up with a dialogbox saying "hey, all's fine and dandy, but how's about you make a choice. Either play games with me, or use me for media-playback. You can't have both!" after a Windows update...

The lights are on in Redmond! :lol

 

[missile]

I can't see this working on the Slim - the reason for dropping support on that platform was the effort that would need to go into building support for the new hardware revision, and this was before the whole 'security' furore.

I think the drivers are 'compatible'. The biggest issue for a new revision
is to actually proof that all the drivers do what they are supposed to do
while being executed on the new hardware.

 

[iapetus]

Ok, i see. I didnt mean to say that the OtherOS feature wasnt mentioned at all, but it wasnt exactly advertised on TV etc. (at least not what i know about) and it isnt even mentioned under the "features" list on my 60GB PS3 box.

It was mentioned in the (full) online manual, and was billed as one of the most powerful features of the PS3 by Sony at major events. This probably counts.

 

[snap0212]

It was mentioned in the (full) online manual, and was billed as one of the most powerful features of the PS3 by Sony at major events. This probably counts.

Can we still find the manual somwhere on the interwebz? :/

 

[neorej]

Can we still find the manual somwhere on the interwebz? :/

I have a launch manual lying around somewhere, I can probably scan it tonight if I can find it.

 

[Drastic]

http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html

Not a manual, but might be useful. Disclaimer at top recently added.

 

[AndyD]

Decidedly not good enough. Court decisions that have ruled EULAs enforceable have done so pretty clearly under the principle that the user is explicitly and unavoidably confronted with them in the process of gaining access to the software, either with a pop-up window that one must click through to run/install the software or a printed EULA surrounding the software's physical media such that the user has no option but to see it before opening the product. A tiny printed note with a web address telling you that you implicitly agree to what's printed on the other end is pretty clearly an unreasonable contract of adhesion and no one's actually going to legally support that even if they do consider properly-formed EULAs to be legit.



But my point (seriously, go back and read my post! it's totally in there) is that the EULA is irrelevant either way. Either there's no consumer protection against factor X in the US and therefore Sony is safe on the issue without any mention of it in the EULA or there is a protection against it and any EULA term that would counteract it is automatically void.

Ahh. I misread your original post as saying the EULA is invalid either way. Which is not what you were trying to say. Only that the effect of the EULA is irrelevant. Subtle but important distinction.

And I agree with you. The US has no such consumer protection laws that I know of, and as such customers are getting the short end of the stick. Then again, they do get a lower price of entry so I guess its sort of a "get what you pay for" approach.

But I disagree with you on the EULA. The EULA pops up before trying to get a PSN account and it is impossible to get one without agreeing to the EULA. If you don't get a PSN account, you can't upgrade the console and thus you can't get 3.21 and lose OtherOS. So if you don't agree to the EULA you lose nothing of the features. So getting that PSN account to get the firmware update and agreeing to that EULA is in my opinion likely to be upheld by any court.

The only way around it is getting the firmware on a new Bluray game or movie, and even then, the EULA pops up before it installs. So there is no way to get that firmware on your machine that I know of without agreeing to the EULA.

And so it is a choice of upgrading, something that is up to the consumer and for which Sony is unlikely to be held liable and on which I have never heard of a case go in the consumer's favor.

 

[test_account]

AFAIK there is no precedent. But if laws don't cover removing functionality, regardless to whether you use it or not, the law is dumb.
Imagine you live in Alaska and you buy a car with airco. You never use it, because it's damn cold outside. You take your car to the dealer for a regular tune-up and the mechanic says there's a problem with other similar models and he can fix it right here and now. Only downside is that he'll have to remove the airco and you don't get a refund.
I'm pretty goddamned sure that's illegal.

Ye, that is true, but i guess it depends on what the contract says that you signed and agreed to when you bought the car. If the contract says that the car dealership could remove features from the car if they are concidered as safety hazzard and you agreed to this, are you entitled to a refund if they remove a feature (and if they can prove that it is a safety hazzard) when you agreed to this when you signed the contract?

I would say that it is basically the same with the PS3 because it says in the EULA something like that Sony can remove features due to piracy issues and you have to click "i agree" to this EULA. I am not saying that a EULA holds the same weight as a contract that you personally sign with your signature just to underline that, i am just saying that the similarities is that there are some terms that you have agreed to, both with the car example and with the PS3.

I guess that the questions will be if Sony can prove that the removal of the OtherOS feature from older PS3 models really was due to a security issue. And the other question would be if agreeing to the PS3 EULA is enough to make it a valid contract.

I have seen examples in this thread that some EULA stuff has hold up in court and some EULA stuff hasnt hold up in court. I guess it depends on what the EULA says (all EULAs probably have different terms in them), but i have no idea if the PS3 EULA will hold up in court or not. But i am interesting to see the outcome (if someone takes this to court that is)


By the way, what happends if you buy for example a used PS3 and use a borrowed PSN account, then you arent prompted with the EULA i think? Does the law says that it is up to the consumer to read the EULA even if you arent prompted by the EULA?

 

[Trailblaster]

AFAIK there is no precedent. But if laws don't cover removing functionality, regardless to whether you use it or not, the law is dumb.
Imagine you live in Alaska and you buy a car with airco. You never use it, because it's damn cold outside. You take your car to the dealer for a regular tune-up and the mechanic says there's a problem with other similar models and he can fix it right here and now. Only downside is that he'll have to remove the airco and you don't get a refund.
I'm pretty goddamned sure that's illegal.

It's not illegal for Sony to stop supporting "Other OS" in reguard to their completely optional online service. It's well within Sony's right to declare that anyone using PSN can't have "Other OS" enabled. Sony sold a box that supported linux, and it still dose if you don't upgrade to their newest firmware. The PS3 still dose all the things advertived when they sold it to you. So there no illegal action on Sony's part.

PSN is a free service Sony offers to anyone with the latest firmware. Any one that disabled "Other OS" by upgrading did so on their own and with full knowledge of what the upgrade would take away. I just don't see how Sony can be held responsible for something you did voluntarily.

 

[test_account]

It's not illegal for Sony to stop supporting "Other OS" in reguard to their completely optional online service. It's well within Sony's right to declare that anyone using PSN can't have "Other OS" enabled. Sony sold a box that supported linux, and it still dose if you don't upgrade to their newest firmware. The PS3 still dose all the things advertived when they sold it to you. So there no illegal action on Sony's part.

PSN is a free service Sony offers to anyone with the latest firmware. Any one that disabled "Other OS" by upgrading did so on their own and with full knowledge of what the upgrade would take away. I just don't see how Sony can be held responsible for something you did voluntarily.

It is true that PSN is an optional service as you say, but if the PS3 that you bought was advertised to be able to use both OtherOS and PSN, and if it wasnt mentioned anything about that you had to chose to use only one of these features (to choose if you wanted to use the OtherOS or PSN), i guess this is where the legal stuff comes in.

And PS3 games that comes out in the feature might require firmware 3.21, and then you will lose the OtherOS feature even if you dont use PSN. It is optional to play these games or not though, but unfortunately i dont know how what the law says about this.

But i guess it all comes down to if the PS3 EULA is legal or not and if Sony can prove that the removal of the OtherOS feature was/is a security issue for the PS3.

 

[TONX]

Anyone else post on the PS.blog share for bringing OtherOS back?

 

[Trailblaster]

It is true that PSN is an optional service as you say, but if the PS3 that you bought was advertised to be able to use both OtherOS and PSN, and if it wasnt mentioned anything about that you had to chose to use only one of these features (to choose if you wanted to use the OtherOS or PSN), i guess this is where the legal stuff comes in. But i guess it all comes down to if the PS3 EULA is legal or not and if Sony can prove that the removal of the OtherOS feature was/is a security issue for the PS3.

But nothings changed. Your PS3 can use Other OS and it still have access to PSN. But you've always had to agree to Sony's "terms of use" when using their service. In this case Sony's trerms of use includes having the newest firmware to protect their network. It's the same with any other online service. XBOX live Yahoo, even Gmail has a terms of use agreement you have to abide by if you want to use their service. Hell you don't even have to be signed onto PSN use the web brower.

If you no longer have "Other OS" it's YOUR fault not Sony's.

 

[test_account]

But nothings changed. Your PS3 can use Other OS and it still have access to PSN. But you've always had to agree to Sony's "terms of use" when using their service. In this case Sony's trerms of use includes having the newest firmware to protect their network. It's the same with any other online service. XBOX live Yahoo, hell Gmail has a terms of use agreement you have to abide by if you want to use their service.Hell you don't even have to be signed onto PSN use the web brower.

If you no longer have "Other OS" it's YOUR fault.

Something has changed though. To be able to use PSN, you must have firmware 3.21 installed. If you try to connect to PSN without having firmware 3.21 installed you will then be prompted that there is a new firmware version available. If you chose to not install this firmware update, then the connection to PSN will be canceled. But when you install firmware 3.21, you then lose the OtherOS feature. So you must make a choice to either keep the OtherOS or conenct to PSN. (i know that there is a proxy hack or something that allows you to connect to PSN without firmware 3.21 though, but this hack isnt anything official from Sony themself).

About agreeing the the "terms of use", i agree with what you are saying. When you agree to something, then you have agreed, that is true. I guess that many people dont read the EULAs though (i never read them at least), but they still agree to what they say, at least i agree to them without reading them hehe But from a legal point of view, i think that it is a bit interesting to see if the PS3 EULA is 100% legal or not and if Sony were allowed to remove the OtherOS feature or not even if it says in their EULA that they are allowed to do it.

 

[jorma]

I wish i could remember in wich store i bought my PS3 :x

 

[iapetus]

But from a legal point of view, i think that it is a bit interesting to see if the PS3 EULA is 100% legal or not and if Sony were allowed to remove the OtherOS feature or not even if it says in their EULA that they are allowed to do it.

Bingo. The EU directives on these things (and in the UK the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations) mean that a one-sided contract such as these EULAs can't take certain rights away from the consumer.

 

[iapetus]

Holy crap, I'm front page news on Slashdot. :\

 

[toxicgonzo]

Holy crap, I'm front page news on Slashdot. :\

Holy crap, that's my submission!

Spoiler

I'm now 3 for 3. I've had a front page story on digg, reddit, and now slashdot. cool story bro, right?

 

[Trailblaster]

Something has changed though. To be able to use PSN, you must have firmware 3.21 installed. If you try to connect to PSN without having firmware 3.21 installed you will then be prompted that there is a new firmware version available. If you chose to not install this firmware update, then the connection to PSN will be canceled. But when you install firmware 3.21, you then lose the OtherOS feature. So you must make a choice to either keep the OtherOS or conenct to PSN. (i know that there is a proxy hack or something that allows you to connect to PSN without firmware 3.21 though, but this hack isnt anything official from Sony themself).
.

Ah, but that's always been that case. PS owners don't have any inalienable rights to PSN as a service , but they do have the right to PSN access and theres a big difference. Every PS3 owner can access PSN but the can only sign on and use Sony service it your agree to their terms of use. Sony is well within their rights to only allow access to those PS3 users that disable "Other OS". If a consumer dosen't want to disable "Other OS" Sony is not going to brick you system they just won't allow use to their online service.

On the flip side, could someone sue Sony for forcing, "In game" XMB, or 720p Blue ray play or cross game text chat or any of other improvements and additions that the Sony firmware "forced" upon them that wasn't there when they bought their system?  

 

[Zoe]

I guess that many people dont read the EULAs though (i never read them at least), but they still agree to what they say, at least i agree to them without reading them hehe

In this case though, they gave you an extra warning on top of the EULA during the upgrade.

 

[test_account]

Bingo. The EU directives on these things (and in the UK the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations) mean that a one-sided contract such as these EULAs can't take certain rights away from the consumer.

Ah ok, i see. What is a one-sided contract by the way? Is it a contract where the user/buyer have no influence at all to the terms that are written in a contract?

Holy crap, I'm front page news on Slashdot. :\

Ah, that was you? I read about that yesterday at Maxconsole.net (assuming that this articl wasnt about another guy who also got a refund). Cool that you got a refund

Ah, but that's always been that case. PS owners don't have any inalienable rights to PSN as a service , but they do have the right to PSN access and theres a big difference. Every PS3 owner can access PSN but the can only sign on and use Sony service it your agree to their terms of use. Sony is well within their rights to only allow access to those PS3 users that disable "Other OS". If a consumer dosen't want to disable "Other OS" Sony is not going to brick you system they just won't allow use to their online service.

Ye, that is true, people have to agree to the terms of use to access PSN as you say, but is all the stuff that is written in the terms of use legal? That is the question It also probably variates from country to country, maybe it is legal in some countries, but illegal in some other countries. I have no idea if Sony will face any legal action for removing the OtherOS though, i guess it depends on how many people that decide to go to court over it and/or if there will be a class-action lawsuit.

On the flip side, could someone sue Sony for forcing, "In game" XMB, or 720p Blue ray play or cross game text chat or any of other improvements and additions that the Sony firmware "forced" upon them that wasn't there when they bought their system?

I dont think that many people mind additional or improved features, so i dont think many people will sue Sony for this But from a legal point of view, i have no idea if it is possible to sue Sony (or someone else for that matter that also have mandatory updates etc.) because of mandatory updates etc., but i think that this is an interesting question at least

In this case though, they gave you an extra warning on top of the EULA during the upgrade.

Ah yes, that is true, i forgot about that. When you update the firmware, then you get prompted with an EULA indeed.

 

[snap0212]

Ah, but that's always been that case. PS owners don't have any inalienable rights to PSN as a service , but they do have the right to PSN access and theres a big difference. Every PS3 owner can access PSN but the can only sign on and use Sony service it your agree to their terms of use. Sony is well within their rights to only allow access to those PS3 users that disable "Other OS". If a consumer dosen't want to disable "Other OS" Sony is not going to brick you system they just won't allow use to their online service.

On the flip side, could someone sue Sony for forcing, "In game" XMB, or 720p Blue ray play or cross game text chat or any of other improvements and additions that the Sony firmware "forced" upon them that wasn't there when they bought their system?  

If games force you to install 3.21 in order to play them... then you have to decide between two advertised features. Sony must not disable any feature that was advertised. That's what EU Law says. Sony's EULA < EU Law.

If someone sign something that allowes me to kill him/her and I do so, it's still murder.

 

[charlequin]

But I disagree with you on the EULA. The EULA pops up before trying to get a PSN account and it is impossible to get one without agreeing to the EULA. If you don't get a PSN account, you can't upgrade the console and thus you can't get 3.21 and lose OtherOS.

This is true now but not going to be true when retail game discs ship with FW 3.21 on them.

 

[Morph-0]

Ah, but that's always been that case. PS owners don't have any inalienable rights to PSN as a service , but they do have the right to PSN access and theres a big difference. Every PS3 owner can access PSN but the can only sign on and use Sony service it your agree to their terms of use. Sony is well within their rights to only allow access to those PS3 users that disable "Other OS". If a consumer dosen't want to disable "Other OS" Sony is not going to brick you system they just won't allow use to their online service.

On the flip side, could someone sue Sony for forcing, "In game" XMB, or 720p Blue ray play or cross game text chat or any of other improvements and additions that the Sony firmware "forced" upon them that wasn't there when they bought their system?  

Not well within their rights at all, before I am able to play online and use Linux as advertised even the game boxes state that I can play online (Online enabled games of course no mention I must sacrifice Linux). Now if I want to use Linux I can't play online or if I want to play online I can't use Linux. Something has definitely changed in what people were promised and I reckon there must be something not legal here.

Sony are trying to get away with it, this is bullshit people and the more people make an issue of it the better.

 

[longdi]

Holy crap, I'm front page news on Slashdot. :\

why are you out to destroy sony hard work over the last 12 months.

Spoiler

fw 3.21 is lame, put it back sony!

 

[Zoe]

Ah yes, that is true, i forgot about that. When you update the firmware, then you get prompted with an EULA indeed.

No, I mean with this version there was a huge ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO DO THIS, THIS IS WHAT YOU WILL LOSE screen.

 

[Morph-0]

No, I mean with this version there was a huge ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO DO THIS, THIS IS WHAT YOU WILL LOSE screen.

But what's the point of an are you sure you want to this? suppose I say no because I don't want to do this and then I decide to play some Uncharted 2 multi-player and then realise I can't because I have in order to do so I must lose Linux. Its pretty much an undeclared ultimatum.

Not to gate crash your discussion Zoe but a lot of peeps are missing the issue.

 

[Zoe]

But what's the point of an are you sure you want to this? suppose I say no because I don't want to do this and then I decide to play some Uncharted 2 multi-player and then realise I can't because I have in order to do so I must lose Linux. Its pretty much an undeclared ultimatum.

I'm just saying that nobody can claim they didn't know what they were agreeing to because "many people dont read the EULAs." That's all I was going for off of his comment.

 

[SmokyDave]

Holy crap, I'm front page news on Slashdot. :\

That's great stuff. Even if Sony stamp their feet and Amazon clarify that they can't do that for anyone else it'll hopefully make manufacturers think twice before future firmware downgrades.

 

[Slavik81]

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.

That's unclear to me, but the legalese is certainly nicer than I'd been lead to believe. At a glance, that seems to be a rather broad exception.

 

[Mudkips]

Not only is the DMCA completely irrelevant in most of the world, you're mixing things up. The DMCA prohibits reverse engineering if it's done to enable piracy.

Dude. Go read the DMCA. You're simply wrong.

And the DMCA is irrelevant in most of the world? There's plenty of similar legislation in many western countries, and they keep trying to make it worse. See, ACTA.

 

[test_account]

No, I mean with this version there was a huge ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO DO THIS, THIS IS WHAT YOU WILL LOSE screen.

Ah ok, i missed that when i updated to firmware 3.21, i just clicked next without paying too much attention to the EULA and warning hehe. Thanks for the info!

But what's the point of an are you sure you want to this? suppose I say no because I don't want to do this and then I decide to play some Uncharted 2 multi-player and then realise I can't because I have in order to do so I must lose Linux. Its pretty much an undeclared ultimatum.

Not to gate crash your discussion Zoe but a lot of peeps are missing the issue.

I think that his comment was mostly a reply to what i said when many people didnt read the EULA, that people decides to agree to something that they might not know what the agree to because they dont read the EULA. But with the firmware 3.21 update there was an extra warning message in addition to the EULA, so it was harder to miss that the OtherOS feature was being removed from the firmware 3.21 update compared to if it was just the PS3 EULA that was being prompted.

EDIT: I see now that Zoe had already answered to this

 

[Mudkips]

That's unclear to me, but the legalese is certainly nicer than I'd been lead to believe. At a glance, that seems to be a rather broad exception.

Reading comprehension:

...and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

If you're enabling "interoperability" it has to be done in a manner that doesn't otherwise infringe on anything. They will always argue that your efforts have led to piracy, and a court will have to decide how much merit that claim has.

And it is only allowed if there's stuff you need access, had access to, and that you can't get access to anymore. For example, making a system run homebrew does not count as interoperability, because there is no existing official channel to get homebrew running.

This clause lets you reverse engineer a printer's firmware and drivers so you can produce compatible ink cartridges after the manufacturer has stopped doing so. This lets you hack about and set up a server for an MMORPG after the publisher has killed it off. This lets you reenable OtherOS because Sony had it and has ripped it out.

 

[AndyD]

This clause lets you reverse engineer a printer's firmware and drivers so you can produce compatible ink cartridges after the manufacturer has stopped doing so. This lets you hack about and set up a server for an MMORPG after the publisher has killed it off. This lets you reenable OtherOS because Sony had it and has ripped it out.

Actually this is not true. A similar idea would be Sony killed PSN so you "hack" to build your own.

In this case, PSN is an ongoing viable protected service and they can claim they remove features that make it insecure.

This is true now but not going to be true when retail game discs ship with FW 3.21 on them.

Nothing guarantees you being able to play all games. That's more an issue on the game developers than Sony. A EULA will pop up when you start the game and it wants to install the new firmware. You can accept or refuse right then. Classic EULA before access to software that has been upheld several times.

Game does not work? Take it back. That's going to be the line from Sony and unfortunately it may be a valid line. All this in the US of course, where consumer rights are weak. Euro is clearly a different animal.

 

[coopolon]

Game does not work? Take it back. That's going to be the line from Sony and unfortunately it may be a valid line. All this in the US of course, where consumer rights are weak. Euro is clearly a different animal.

Except you can't return open games in the US.

 

[capslock]

You're on Gizmodo too Iapetus, well done!

 

[LegoDad]

Glad i have two PS3's, the phat isn't updating until I see what happens with this on the consumer side, as this was a promised function when bought.

 

[Afrikan]

That's great stuff. Even if Sony stamp their feet and Amazon clarify that they can't do that for anyone else it'll hopefully make manufacturers think twice before future firmware downgrades.

or more realistically they will just give us less shit to downgrade from...

so I'm guessing the folks at Sony HQ who have pushed to be cheap and offer less shit in years past, will have reasons to get their way now.

 

[missile]

If PLAYSTATION.BLOG SHARE is worth anything, then please vote
over here; Dont remove ability of other OS in Future Update.

Current vote distribution; 515+ / 935.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

If PLAYSTATION.BLOG SHARE is worth anything, then please vote
over here; Dont remove ability of other OS in Future Update.

Current vote distribution; 515+ / 935.

Answering the title: they won't, because they already have.

 

[wsippel]

Dude. Go read the DMCA. You're simply wrong.

And the DMCA is irrelevant in most of the world? There's plenty of similar legislation in many western countries, and they keep trying to make it worse. See, ACTA.

See SCE vs. Connectix, Lexmark vs. SCC, DVDCCA vs. Jon Lech Johansen, Chamberlain Group vs. Skylink, Adobe vs. Dmitri Skljarow. In all those cases, courts ruled that reverse engineering was legal to enable interoperability. And interoperability is not about restoring features or fixing stuff that's out of service, it's also about enabling features. Developing and using DeCSS is legal (distributing the binary probably isn't, though), even though DVDs and DVD players are still manufactured.

 

[onken]

If PLAYSTATION.BLOG SHARE is worth anything,

lol

then please vote
over here; Dont remove ability of other OS in Future Update.

Current vote distribution; 515+ / 935.

Dude, they already did it.

 

[GSG Flash]

Holy crap, I'm front page news on Slashdot. :\

That's awesome!

As long as this issue stayed in the confines of forums and comment sections Sony wouldn't give two shits about this, but they have to atleast put out a response now. loosus must be having a miserable time right now :lol

Unfortunately for me, the government in Canada, like the government in the US, is more pro corporation than consumer, so I can't get a refund of this kind. However, the money doesn't matter to me, it's the whole principle of taking away features. If Sony gives me back the ability to install and access other OS AND let's me access PSN AND allows me to play unreleased games requiring a firmware update, then I'll gladly stop complaining, I'm not out here to screw over Sony, but it does seem like Sony is out to screw me over.