Reply
Apr 13 2010
By: SeBBall09 I Only Post Everything 1027 posts
Offline

For those threatening to sue over 3.21

32 replies 78 views Edited Apr 13, 2010

Read the Terms and Conditions that you have the option to Accept or Decline every time you update.  Something about Sony having the right to modify the PS3 and this condition has been part of the System Software Terms and Conditions since November 17, 2006. Agreeing (most ppl dont read it anyways but still, its there legally for a reason) to this means that you accept this and are aware of the conditions involved with updating. Not defending Sony, just stating facts. 

Please use plain text.
Message 1 of 33 (78 Views)
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 11/02/2004
Offline
351 posts
 

Re: For those threatening to sue over 3.21

Apr 13, 2010

Sony is not the US government. It does not decide what is or is not legal. EULAs can and have been ruled illegal before in court.

 

EFF vs Sony BMG

http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2005/11/21

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_CD_copy_prevention_scandal

 

Info about the enforceability of EULAs in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eula#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States

 

Step-Saver Data Systems Inc. vs Wyse Technology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step-Saver_Data_Systems,_Inc._v._Wyse_Technology

 

Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_Corp._v._Quaid_Software_Ltd.

 

SCEA's Better Business Bureau Rating: F
G.A.P. Member
Beta Tested: Battlefield: Modern Combat, Little Big Planet, Home (Closed Beta)
Please use plain text.
Message 2 of 33 (78 Views)
Sackboy
Registered: 07/17/2008
Offline
652 posts
 

Re: For those threatening to sue over 3.21

Apr 13, 2010

 


EdrickV wrote:

Sony is not the US government. It does not decide what is or is not legal. EULAs can and have been ruled illegal before in court.

 

EFF vs Sony BMG

http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2005/11/21

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_CD_copy_prevention_scandal

 

Info about the enforceability of EULAs in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eula#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States

 

Step-Saver Data Systems Inc. vs Wyse Technology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step-Saver_Data_Systems,_Inc._v._Wyse_Technology

 

Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_Corp._v._Quaid_Software_Ltd.

 


 

If I had kudos, you sir would get one.

 

 





Please use plain text.
Message 3 of 33 (78 Views)
First Son
Registered: 04/12/2010
Offline
4 posts
 

Re: For those threatening to sue over 3.21

Apr 13, 2010

I want to sue over 3.21 bricking my PS3, and then Sony having the audacity to charge to fix it. Imagine if your HD tv or computer did the same thing.  

Please use plain text.
Message 4 of 33 (78 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 06/20/2009
Offline
4175 posts
 

Re: For those threatening to sue over 3.21

Apr 13, 2010

 


Madscy wrote:

I want to sue over 3.21 bricking my PS3, and then Sony having the audacity to charge to fix it. Imagine if your HD tv or computer did the same thing.  


 

you've already stated that you purchased your PS3 in JANUARY.  it is still under warranty, don't be a fool.

 

Please use plain text.
Message 5 of 33 (78 Views)
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 11/02/2004
Offline
351 posts
 

Re: For those threatening to sue over 3.21

Apr 13, 2010

 


ziggurcat wrote:

 

you've already stated that you purchased your PS3 in JANUARY.  it is still under warranty, don't be a fool.

 


 

If he does not have his store receipt, Sony may not honor the warranty unless ordered to by the courts. (I know at least one person has apparently had that problem and posted here about it.) Of course, it might be possible to get a copy of the receipt by contacting the store it was bought from. (Or, if bought online, you ought to be able to print out the info.)

 

SCEA's Better Business Bureau Rating: F
G.A.P. Member
Beta Tested: Battlefield: Modern Combat, Little Big Planet, Home (Closed Beta)
Please use plain text.
Message 6 of 33 (78 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 06/20/2009
Offline
4175 posts
 

Re: For those threatening to sue over 3.21

Apr 13, 2010

 


EdrickV wrote:

 


ziggurcat wrote:

 

you've already stated that you purchased your PS3 in JANUARY.  it is still under warranty, don't be a fool.

 


 

If he does not have his store receipt, Sony may not honor the warranty unless ordered to by the courts. (I know at least one person has apparently had that problem and posted here about it.) Of course, it might be possible to get a copy of the receipt by contacting the store it was bought from. (Or, if bought online, you ought to be able to print out the info.)

 


 

if he does not have his receipt, it's his own damned fault and they have every right to not honour the warranty in that case.  if he still has the receipt, he has even less of an excuse.  

 

what in the world is wrong with people suing for repair costs on a product that is already well within its warranty period? 

 

Please use plain text.
Message 7 of 33 (78 Views)
Wastelander
Registered: 05/08/2007
Offline
870 posts
 

Re: For those threatening to sue over 3.21

Apr 13, 2010

these cases are quite unfair and are irrelevant compared to the PS3 issue.

 

EFF vs Sony BMG - Rootkit Fiasco.  Here is a quote from your linked page. 

 

He also mentioned that the XCP software installed silently before the EULA appeared, that the EULA does not mention the XCP software, and that there was no uninstaller, all of which are illegal in various ways in various jurisdictions.

 

This was obviously illegal.  They didn't even have an EULA to back them up and there were no indications that XCP was even on the disc.  For the PS3 Other OS issue, the EULA explicitly states that they have the right to remove the feature if it leads to unauthorized access or content.

 

Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology -

 

The reason why Step-Saver won this dispute was because the EULA on the box itself were made to preempt first sale doctorine using contract law. The only reason why they made this EULA, and it's sole purpose was to essentially say "once you buy this it's yours, and if it doesn't work, tough". 

 

With the PS3 EULA, that is not the case. Everything is right there, outlined for you in black and white.  They had a clause in the EULA that if there were any security issues they could revise the setting at any time.  They chose to enforce the clause. 

 

Users had a chance to agree to it or disagree to it.  You still have the capability to use your linux system if you so choose, but if you do, you may not be authorized to access it's PSN service.  All the current games and movies still work. 

 

I know what people are gonna say, what about newer games and movies? Well each new game that you buy comes with a new EULA.  Part of that EULA will tell you that it requires an update in order to play the game.  All of the PSP games that require an update shows you the EULA and you can agree to it or disagree to it.  The game actually does NOT HAVE to work on your pre 3.21 console.  Let me reiterate that your console still works as advertised (fit for purpose, in legal terms).  You can still go on the internet, you can play movies and games before the new 3.21 required firmware, you can still use your Linux system and so on, so forth.

 

Okay, so lets look at a relevent case where the EULA's were enforced and protected under US law:

 

Davidson & Associates, Inc vs Internet Gateway

 

In this case, Blizzard made games with Battle.net capability.  Starcraft, Diablo, Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3.  Their EULA explicity stated

 

The EULA further states "subject to the grant of license hereinabove, you may not, in whole or in part, copy, photocopy, reproduce, translate, reverse engineer , derive source code , modify, disassemble, decompile, create derivative works based on the Program

 

The defendent, Internet Gateway, developed a program called BnetD, which bypasses Blizzard's Battle.net to provide their own server for multiplayer.  The underlined part is where it applies to this program.  They reverse engineered these games and created a program based on it.

 

Defendant Combs installed one Blizzard game, StarCraft, and clicked on the "I Agree" button after the EULA was displayed. Defendant Crittenden installed Blizzard games and clicked on the "I Agree" button after the EULAs were displayed. Defendant Jung installed three Blizzard games, Diablo, Diablo II, and Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, and clicked on the "I Agree" button after the EULAs were displayed. Crittenden and Jung logged onto the Battle.net service and clicked on the "Agree" button after the TOUs were displayed.

 

Reverse engineering was necessary in order for the defendants to learn Blizzard's protocol language and to ensure that bnetd worked with Blizzard games.

 

This case is a lot closer to the PS3 issue because the EULA states that you cannot modify their program in any way and in the case of a security issue, they have a right to revise the PS3 setting.  Sony showed you the EULA and you have an option to click Agree or Disagree.  The security of the PS3 was compromised, allowing them to use their clause in the EULA.  Not only that, but Geohot and crew are in direct violation of the EULA/ToU by reverse engineering the Hypervisor and anything else they got their hands on.

 

In the Davidson vs Internet Gateway case, Davidson (Blizzard) won the case and thus the EULA was enforced and protected.  It shows you that not all EULAs can be beaten just because you think you can, or because you want it to.  This is how it will be in the PS3 case if it ever goes to court. 

 

In my opinion, none of it violates any consumer laws.  The section that we are concerned about, which is the part where it says they have the right to revise the PS3 settings in an event of security breach, are completely fair.  I agreed to this.  So did everybody else when you first bought your PS3.  The moment you turned it on, and set it up, you accepted that Sony can revise your settings in an event of security concerns.

 

Sony wins. Thank you for your time.

Please use plain text.
Message 8 of 33 (78 Views)
Wastelander
Registered: 07/05/2008
Offline
898 posts
 

Re: For those threatening to sue over 3.21

Apr 13, 2010

Excellent examples, coffeerox, and it definitely seems that the Blizzard case is most relevant here.  The EULA is quite clear about Sony's rights to change features and it doesn't try to hide this fact at all.  In fact, if you update through the PS3 it even reminds you of this and makes you agree again before the user can proceed with the update.

 

The sooner people realize this, the sooner the pointless march of the penguins going on around here can finally end.





My RockBand DLC (Now over 1100 tracks!): http://www.myrockbandsongs.com/War_Lord/
Please use plain text.
Message 9 of 33 (78 Views)
Splicer
Registered: 11/09/2007
Offline
73 posts
 

Re: For those threatening to sue over 3.21

Apr 13, 2010

sony owns the software and they have the right to modify and or delete at any time they wish. you have the option to update or not, and if you did you are agreeing to the term of service. i hate to say it but if you lost Other OS though **bleep**, it's gone and wont be coming back. also, if you are perusing to file charges against sony good luck, you wont win.

Please use plain text.
Message 10 of 33 (78 Views)