PlayStation®3 General Discussion

[Blasteroids]

---

andyrome64 wrote:

---

DirkPitt39 wrote:

---

You obviously weren't as it was the media that spun it as Sony's DRM scheme.  It was actually a bought in product from First4Internet, they did the dodgy stuff, and the bodged patch.

Of course that fact got lost in the mists of time, and everyone just remembers it as Sony Rootkit scandal, as that's more newsworthy.

I notice your rabid ranting has already got you banned from PS3forums today....

---

It was the Sony rootkit scandal because it was Sony software on Sony products. The fact that they had paid another company to develop the software is totally irrelevant. Obviously the software was developed accoding to specifications agreed with Sony.

According to your twisted logic if you bought a PS3 and the hard disk broke down then Sony could tell you that it's not their product because they sourced the disk from Samsung or another supplier.

---

Let us not forget the leap year bug. Oh how we could have all sued that undisclosed company who sold those rather dodgy chips to Sony because they needed to cut costs since the BD was hyper expensive at the time.

[TheDrift-]

Even if (and I dont think there is a serious threat) there is a threat to the PSN from other OS.

Why not just remove other OS temporarily, and say there is a serious threat to the PSN via a hack and until the vunrebility is patched then they are diabliling the option until a fix is found to protect the users of PSN.

I suspect people would have been a lot less upset by this, but surely sony could spare a few tec guys to find a fix?

[iapetus]

---

DANTE234 wrote:

People will not get any money compensation from this, also the judge will have to have evidence if you main priority was to use linux on the ps3

---

Wrong on both counts.

EU law clearly states that a product must operate as advertised for a period of 2-6 years (depending on member state). There's no requirement to have ever used Linux or even wanted to use it - the fact that the PS3 no longer operates as it was advertised and sold is sufficient.

As for money compensation, the relevant law is quite clear on that: either fix the device so it works as advertised (not possible, if Sony stick to this update) or provide a full refund of the purchase price (£425 in my case). The refund is paid by the vendor, who is then entitled to go after Sony for the money.

[tomboland]

ok, this is getting ridiculous now. people are starting to talk aboout sueing sony and saying what theyre gonna do is illegal. if it was illegal, then sony wouldnt be able to do it. someone, somewhere in the company would notice durig the planning stage of this "update" and would have stopped it.

stop crying over spilt milk and grow a pair!!!!!

[aaronsimo]

---

tomboland wrote:
grow a pair!!!!!

---

pair of socks? could do with some more tbf

[tomboland]

---

aaronsimo wrote:

---

tomboland wrote:
grow a pair!!!!!

---

pair of socks? could do with some more tbf

---

you dont grow socks

[TTDegs]

---

tomboland wrote:

ok, this is getting ridiculous now. people are starting to talk aboout sueing sony and saying what theyre gonna do is illegal. if it was illegal, then sony wouldnt be able to do it. someone, somewhere in the company would notice durig the planning stage of this "update" and would have stopped it.

---

I'm sorry, I thought we had this conversation!

A large company not doing something just because it was illegal?

I have no idea if what they are doing is illegal or not.  I'm not a lawyer.

Have you ever worked for a large corporation? 

They have teams of lawyer types for whom their SOLE purpose is to decide if an action is something which they can get away with.

If this were not the case, every single case that went to court would be decided in about 2 minutes flat.

Sony lawyers obviously believe that this is legal, or that they would stand a good chance of winning if taken to court.

Whether they are right or not is a completely different matter, and one which I am not qualified to even guess at.

[aaronsimo]

---

tomboland wrote:

---

aaronsimo wrote:

---

tomboland wrote:
grow a pair!!!!!

---

pair of socks? could do with some more tbf

---

you dont grow socks

---

oh thankyou, i never knew that...

[ProjectVRD]

Seriously, people having a go at Sony is laughable.

If you want to blame someone, then go blame the guy who illegally hacked the machine... he is a hacker called Geo who rides on a manufactured reputation that is very different to the reality.

This guy, who is responsible for Sony's decision to remove the Other OS feature from PS3, also claims to have hacked the iPhone... well no he didn't actually, it was an exploit at best.

So... While I and the "quiet majority" of PS3 users are happy with Sony for making the system far more secure, the "loud minority" should divert their intentions to the real problem... the people like Geo, not Sony!

If you disagree with me fine, but don't ever expect me to see your way of thinking, I choose to post here because this is NOT that joke of a site called N4G where the ones who are blaming Sony collect to spread thier dirt.

[DeathroW22]

Hacking the machine isn't illegal. I'm not too fussed, but i'm still annoyed at how it is being handled. It is no ones fault but sony's. It is their machine with the flaw, and their machine they are removing features consumers paid for from.