Level 2
BR26354 wrote:
viperveteran wrote:
the problem with this is that the contract has already been finalised by the time the license agreement is presented. the individual already legally owns the hardware in question should he choose not to agree to the license which applies to the service and software nor return it to the shop should that individual not be able to write is own program or OS for the hardware he legally owns?
So, you think it would be better to draw up a contract at the point of sale, have both parties present plus witnesses to verify that both parties have signed the contract. Not a realistic prospect is it? Or how about, that the seller refuses to hand over the said hardware unless the buyer reads and signs the t&cs? That wouldn't work either.
No, this whole t&c argument is smoke screen. The PS3 is a locked down piece of hardware designed to run Sony's firmware - if it doesn't fit your requirements then don't buy it.
But it doesn't really matter what we think is more convenient the law states that terms of the contract can't be added after the the contract is finalised. In addition to this if the terms attempted to be used contain exclusion/exemption clauses etc. they can't be relied upon unless they satisfy the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which require significant attention to be bought to the said clauses which the EULA contains many exclusion of liability clauses etc. The point being if these terms are to be relied upon companies should make these terms accessible before purchase to have them included in the contract because there is a significant amount of consumer protection law available and certain terms seek to limit those rights.
Its like the say the law is an a$$ but the law is also law 
But again this whole argument is bigger than just hackers and sony it regards consumer, company and the fight for rights. On one hand the company tries to limit consumer rights to the bear necessities while excluding liability for damage etc and on the other hand consumers (some) try to gain more rights. That is why the law is necessary.
Level 1
viperveteran wrote:
BR26354 wrote:
viperveteran wrote:
the problem with this is that the contract has already been finalised by the time the license agreement is presented. the individual already legally owns the hardware in question should he choose not to agree to the license which applies to the service and software nor return it to the shop should that individual not be able to write is own program or OS for the hardware he legally owns?
So, you think it would be better to draw up a contract at the point of sale, have both parties present plus witnesses to verify that both parties have signed the contract. Not a realistic prospect is it? Or how about, that the seller refuses to hand over the said hardware unless the buyer reads and signs the t&cs? That wouldn't work either.
No, this whole t&c argument is smoke screen. The PS3 is a locked down piece of hardware designed to run Sony's firmware - if it doesn't fit your requirements then don't buy it.
But it doesn't really matter what we think is more convenient the law states that terms of the contract can't be added after the the contract is finalised. In addition to this if the terms attempted to be used contain exclusion/exemption clauses etc. they can't be relied upon unless they satisfy the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which require significant attention to be bought to the said clauses which the EULA contains many exclusion of liability clauses etc. The point being if these terms are to be relied upon companies should make these terms accessible before purchase to have them included in the contract because there is a significant amount of consumer protection law available and certain terms seek to limit those rights.
Its like the say the law is an a$$ but the law is also law
But again this whole argument is bigger than just hackers and sony it regards consumer, company and the fight for rights. On one hand the company tries to limit consumer rights to the bear necessities while excluding liability for damage etc and on the other hand consumers (some) try to gain more rights. That is why the law is necessary.
Do I have to say this again? Okay, I will. If you think Sony have broken a contract between you and them, then there are legal routes for you to pursue your issue. The likely outcome will be that you can return your hardware and get a full refund.
Do you think Sony would be allowed to sell the PS3 if the t&c's contravened the local trading laws? If the answer to that is 'yes', then instead of throwing your rattle out of your pram and unleashing an attack against legitimate and satifisfied PS3 owners, you should seek legal advice. That is how we operate in a civilised society. That's why we have laws to protect both consumers and businesses.
If we choose to take matters into our own hands, then anarchy will reign supreme.
Level 2
BR26354 wrote:
PlayerUMD wrote:Sony could've avoided this if they didn't remove OtherOS from the PS3.
We've already had discussions about this earlier in the thread, so I'm not going to rake over it all again.
But, if Sony do make a PS4, I predict that it won't have an OtherOS feature and the homebrew crowd will still try to put Linux on it.
Would that be next to impossible as it would have to have it included into the design of the PS4? If the PS3 did not have it as an original option no one would of wanted to put anything else on it would they
Level 3
To quote him,
"If you can work out how to install linux without circumventing any of the devices security features go for it, but it must be done without altering the original software on the PS3. You have every right to try and write programs that work with the original Sony software and you also have the right to examine the code running on the machine to do so, what you don't have the right to do is alter that code so your program will work, it must work natively."
And THAT is exactly what having the keys GeoHot published does. There is no circumvention of security as you are using Sony's own methods, homebrew signed with that key no more circumvents anything than an official game does.
As for getting that key, you said that "you have to right to examine the code running on the machine to do so" This is what fail0verflow and GeoHot did to get the key.
Neither of them have modified any Sony code, neither of them have distributed any Sony code. The key itself is NOT Sony code, its just a number. A number reached by doing complex math. It was not held inside the PS3 and it was reached entirely by examining code legitimately as you said was ok.
So, in your own words you just agreed with everything I was arguing for, and said you agree with me.
Thanks.
Level 3
on - last edited on by
bambaroo
Playing games online with altered [Language] on your PS3 still breaches the agreement needed for PSN .
Found an excuse to get round that one yet PYRO ?
Seriously few legitimate users if any agree with your stance on this subject - but keep going by all means
Level 3
Pyrofer wrote:
@micksmith
Thanks for the second post, much more constructive and less personally attacking. I wish your first one had been that.
To address it,
"If the console no longer has a feature you think you paid for - Take it back where you bought it.
That's the adult course of action , not defend hacking as a means or reason for getting it back."
This is always the answer given, but to be honest its not a good one, what happens if I want to play games and play online games too?
Its like somebody scratching your car, you don't sell the car and buy a new one, you just live with the scratch, but it bugs the HECK out of you every time you see it.
The PS3 has enough things I want to keep it, that doesn't mean I am not upset about losing one of them.
Also, its not always feasible to just return it. My console is a launch unit, I was one of the first people in England to have one. It was a long time after I bought it that OtherOS was removed. Returning the console was not an option by that time.
Seriously, can you imagine taking back a heavily used console to the shop for a full refund because years after you bought it Sony changed a feature? You know as well as I do the shop keeper would laugh in your face, so its not actually an option.
As for the "you can always not update the firmware, its your choice", my argument has been that its NOT a choice, new games force firmware updates on you. So now if I want to play PS3 games on my PS3 I need to update to the latest FW, this removes OtherOS. So its a choice where you don't really have a choice.
As for "defending hacking as a way of getting it back", I am not doing that. I made it clear I was drawing a line under those arguments, we all discussed it and moved on. Tonight, what I have been doing is asking for some consideration for those that are suffering from the loss of the feature, from those who originally laughed at them.
Your repetition of the same arguments shows that you don't understand this point at all.
As far as I'm aware, OtherOS wasn't even about when the PS3 launched, it came shortly after, so it was an ADDED feature.
Website ©2013 Sony Computer Entertainment Europe
All content, game titles, trade names and/or trade dress, trademarks, artwork and associated imagery are trademarks and/or copyright material of their respective owners. All rights reserved. [more info]
