Support NeoGAF

[ReyBrujo]

Actually, that's not entirely true. There are still federal and state guidelines you need have in place. I imagine it would be illegal to remove the brake lights and seat belt. I'm sure there are others too.

Of course, I was thinking about modifications that would not break laws imposed on cars. Point taken, though.

 

[charlequin]

Actually, that's not entirely true. There are still federal and state guidelines you need have in place. I imagine it would be illegal to remove the brake lights and seat belt. I'm sure there are others too.

You can absolutely remove components such as brake lights and seatbelts from a car that you own and leave it without said components for any length of time, from a legal standpoint. And although sources seem (understandably) reticent to come clear about it, I suspect that under most or all US jurisdictions you can also legally operate said vehicle without said components as long as you do so only on your own private land or on that of other individuals who have allowed you to do so, and not on public roads.

 

[missile]

Wow, this thread keeps on giving.

No game show megaton can beat this, well maybe if this turns out to be an elaborate April Fools'. :lol :lol

If this turns out to an April Fools' joke, I will shit bricks.

Well, it isn't. Even the gcc-spu maintainer said otherwise.

 

[JambiBum]

I just wanted to get you clearly and officially on record as saying that Benjamin Heckendorn was unambiguously in the wrong morally for building a one-handed controller so that an injured Iraq war vet could continue to game after losing the use of his right hand.

Bravo to you good sir. Bravo.

 

[vag 2.0]

PPC linux distros are so neglected I don't know why anyone would use it anyway.

 

[Raist]

I just wanted to get you clearly and officially on record as saying that Benjamin Heckendorn was unambiguously in the wrong morally for building a one-handed controller so that an injured Iraq war vet could continue to game after losing the use of his right hand.

Yeah, that's taking very specific, heart-warming examples to justify a potentially harmful practice JUST BECAUSE it can have good applications. It's not black or white and that kind of justification is kind of calling for the biggest rolleyes in the world, honestly.
Feels a bit like saying "hey there shouldn't be any speed limitations because you know, there's a dude who drove at 160mph to save his friend's life". Extreme and irrelevant example, but you get the point.

 

[charlequin]

Yeah, that's taking very specific, heart-warming examples to justify a potentially harmful practice JUST BECAUSE it can have good applications. It's not black or white

And yet you're the one who came in here making absolutist statements like (and I quote)

There's no such thing as "hacking done right", that's BS.

If you're going to assert that the rights of corporations who sell consumer products should be absolute, you have to live with the consequences of that (like your position putting you in opposition to people doing things that technically violate the express positions of said corporations but which are themselves relatively harmless or even actively beneficial in some way.)

Once you accept that absolutist control of the products one has sold is not in fact an absolute, unquestioned truth, you're stuck with actually having to argue a position like this on its individual merits (which are not, in this particular case, all that favorable to Sony's action) rather than just waving your hands and dismissing something using an absolute position as you've done.

 

[tombstone]

It can be argued that the GameOS is a service and all you purchased was the HyperVisor.

No it can't. Well, it can, but you'll lose.

The fat PS3 was advertised with several specific features, including the ability to play games, the ability to watch Blu-Rays, and the ability to install Linux. If these any of these functions are removed post-sale with no prior notice and with no compensation, and if you will have to allow these features to be removed in order to continue using the system in its intended fashion, then you have been dealt continuing, material harm. It's not that difficult, really.

There are several updates that require you to install them to enable content and features. If you were right Sony, Panasonic, Philips, Samsung et al have violated the law numerous times.

If this was a feature that had been enabled by a previous software update, then yes, it would be a case of Sony giveth and Sony taketh away. But it's a day one feature with significant and persuasive use, and they're disabling it because they believe their rights are more important than yours.

Of course, it seems like you agree on that point...

Dare you find a greater legal precendent than Sony-Universal when it comes to fair use. You will struggle.

This has nothing to do with fair use. That's why I said "So wrong." You've personified this company and are defending it when it cares nothing for you -- or anyone. It's an amoral legal fiction that wants your money. Why do you believe differently?

Security is achieved by closing exploits as they highlighted. Not after they have been used. Sony can claim that this is an exploit. They are well within their rights to do what they did. If they weren't where are the lawsuits? Oh wait there are none..

No one is allowed to close "exploits" at the expense of causing continuing harm to others. To paraphrase a well-known quote, Sony's right to control their software ends at my right to control my hardware.

It's kind of hard to file a lawsuit when the firmware hasn't been released yet. But trust me, it's coming.

Firmware and hardware are not the same thing. Sony is not preventing you from putting your own stuff on there. You can do that if you want. If you have the resources and you know the security. They just stopped you from doing that with their software, which you agreed to.

Breaking the security would violate the DMCA, as I assume you know. The only legal way to run anything but the GameOS is the OtherOS function.

At no time did I ever agree that Sony could remove features from my PS3. Setting aside the dubious nature and enforcibilities of EULAs, at no time, from purchase to now, did I implicitly or explicitly allow Sony to remove the OtherOS function at their discretion.

When the new firmware drops, I won't install it. At that time, I'll lose access to PSN, a continuing service. When I am unable to play a new Blu-Ray release, one way or another I will have lost a core function of the device. And that's unacceptable.

Some car manufacturers WILL void your warranty if an aftermarket part caused "genuine" part failure. Not an uncommon practice.

Again, a warranty is a continuing service. There's a difference between a car's warranty and buying the car itself. Not to mention the fact that you agree to the terms of the warranty when the car is purchased. You're always free to decline the warranty or pay extra for an aftermarket warranty that will cover said loss. This is analogous to Mitsubishi forcing you to replace your manual transmission with an automatic, otherwise you won't be able to put gas in it anymore.

Protecting their intellectual property is different than limiting your use of licensed content.

In this case, it's not. You need the latest firmware to play the latest games and watch the latest Blu-Rays. My use of that content has been arbitrarily and unnecessary limited.

No, it's not the same. You may own the hardware, but you are receiving a user license for the software that the PS3 needs to boot. No different than the cable company not allowing you to access the firmware on your set-top-box so that new features can be added by the consumer.

You don't own your set-top box. The cable company does; you just rent it from them. I own my PS3. So yes, totally different. That's a major reason why cable companies won't sell you boxes or allow you to purchase boxes from a third party and use them with their service, btw.

But that wasn't the argument. The argument was that the hardware was his. If Sony releases a game that carries their requirement of running a specific version of firmware to play it, that does not change the question of ownership. It is now a user licensing issue. You don't HAVE to play any future games and keep your Linux system in tact. It is completely your choice.

BUT ONE OF THE CORE SYSTEM FUNCTIONS IS TO PLAY GAMES. To continue my earlier analogy, Mitsubishi says that you don't HAVE to drive your car, you can put it up in blocks and live in it. Or use it as a paperweight.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

We need more charlequins on the forum.

 

[Raist]

And yet you're the one who came in here making absolutist statements like (and I quote)



If you're going to assert that the rights of corporations who sell consumer products should be absolute, you have to live with the consequences of that (like your position putting you in opposition to people doing things that technically violate the express positions of said corporations but which are themselves relatively harmless or even actively beneficial in some way.)

Once you accept that absolutist control of the products one has sold is not in fact an absolute, unquestioned truth, you're stuck with actually having to argue a position like this on its individual merits (which are not, in this particular case, all that favorable to Sony's action) rather than just waving your hands and dismissing something using an absolute position as you've done.

Oh god. I was talking about hackings that threatens the security of a whole system and the fact that saying "but what if I only use it to play back up versions and never ever use that to pirate games" is obviously, willingly ignoring the fact that it can ALSO lead to software piracy. Not controller modding for a harmed Iraq vet.
As I said, it's a double edged sword, and it depends on the circumstances and the potential fallout and drawbacks for both the company and the consumer.

I don't know whether you didn't even take the time to read my whole posts or if you purposedly, selectively, and out-of-context quoted me, but I've made my point pretty clear twice.

 

[itxaka]

We need more charlequins on the forum.

Hell yes we do. People that know what they are talking about on GAF? Incredible!

 

[A Twisty Fluken]

And yet you're the one who came in here making absolutist statements like (and I quote)



If you're going to assert that the rights of corporations who sell consumer products should be absolute, you have to live with the consequences of that (like your position putting you in opposition to people doing things that technically violate the express positions of said corporations but which are themselves relatively harmless or even actively beneficial in some way.)

Once you accept that absolutist control of the products one has sold is not in fact an absolute, unquestioned truth, you're stuck with actually having to argue a position like this on its individual merits (which are not, in this particular case, all that favorable to Sony's action) rather than just waving your hands and dismissing something using an absolute position as you've done.

charlequin
all out of bubblegum
(Today, 07:16 PM)
Reply | Quote

 

[Truespeed]

Hey, there's always Net Yaroze.

 

[patsu]

BUT ONE OF THE CORE SYSTEM FUNCTIONS IS TO PLAY GAMES. To continue my earlier analogy, Mitsubishi says that you don't HAVE to drive your car, you can put it up in blocks and live in it. Or use it as a paperweight.

The firmware doesn't prevent you to play games. It forces you to choose. For most people, it prevents them from using Linux instead.

Despite all these legalese, the bottomline is: Is it worth keeping PS3 Linux, given the risk and cost (to both Sony and us) ?

I don't see this as a sweeping/general corporate move. This type of issue has to be taken case by case. I do not believe for a split second that Sony will attempt to generalize/reapply this incident in the future.

 

[tombstone]

The firmware doesn't prevent you to play games. It forces you to choose. For most people, it prevents them from using Linux.

Despite all these legalese, the bottomline is: Is it worth keeping PS3 Linux, given the risk and cost (to both Sony and us) ?

What the hell.

There's no potential risk or cost to you by keeping OtherOS. NONE.

Sony wants to abrogate your rights as a consumer and you're worried about their risk and cost? Sony's got multiple firms of lawyers watching out for them; you need to watch out for you.

I do not believe for a split second that Sony will attempt to generalize/reapply this incident in the future.

*clenching teeth, trying very very hard to not call you stupid*

 

[patsu]

There's no potential risk or cost to you by keeping OtherOS. NONE.

Yes, there is. Once someone gets into the system via OtherOS. It changed the picture.

You can call me stupid alright. Doesn't mean it has to be true though.

 

[charlequin]

Oh god. I was talking about hackings that threatens the security of a whole system

We're not actually looking at a real hack here -- we're looking at a fairly limited proof-of-concept hack (that was widely derided as unimportant and useless in the first thread devoted to it, I'll note.) And we're not looking at a patch which just removes the opportunity to take advantage of this vulnerability (as we've seen on, say, the PSP or 360) -- we're looking at an entire slice of functionality being removed in order to defeat it.

Essentially, I don't disagree that there's a range of possible responses to a "threat" of this sort that are within the bounds of reason. I believe companies tend to significantly overestimate the damage caused to their underlying business by piracy, but it really does come down to an estimate and so some level of care in preventing it is certainly reasonable. In this case, however, much like the many complaints throughout the years of aggressive DRM on PC games, the company is overstepping their bounds by acting as if they have some innate right to remove or alter core functionality of a system that is no longer (or never was) their property.

When you get down to it, the only real defense for this sort of thing is "oh, well, piracy is SO BAD that ANY steps are worthwhile to defeat it" and that just leads to remote brickings and Sony-BMG rootkits and PC DRM and all other kinds of horrid things that screw people out of reasonable functionality (playing games offline, running Linux on a system that was promised to run Linux out of the box) and harm legit users under the guise of chasing down (in this particular case, still entirely mythical) pirates.

 

[patsu]

I don't think it's piracy alone. Cheating, stability issues may arise too -- if we are talking about OtherOS + hypervisor compromises.

We will need to look at their internal records to know if these have happened.

It's a painful process for Sony. Someone will probably file a suit against Sony. Then we get to see what's behind the scene.

 

[JudgeN]

We're not actually looking at a real hack here -- we're looking at a fairly limited proof-of-concept hack (that was widely derided as unimportant and useless in the first thread devoted to it, I'll note.) And we're not looking at a patch which just removes the opportunity to take advantage of this vulnerability (as we've seen on, say, the PSP or 360) -- we're looking at an entire slice of functionality being removed in order to defeat it.

Essentially, I don't disagree that there's a range of possible responses to a "threat" of this sort that are within the bounds of reason. I believe companies tend to significantly overestimate the damage caused to their underlying business by piracy, but it really does come down to an estimate and so some level of care in preventing it is certainly reasonable. In this case, however, much like the many complaints throughout the years of aggressive DRM on PC games, the company is overstepping their bounds by acting as if they have some innate right to remove or alter core functionality of a system that is no longer (or never was) their property.

When you get down to it, the only real defense for this sort of thing is "oh, well, piracy is SO BAD that ANY steps are worthwhile to defeat it" and that just leads to remote brickings and Sony-BMG rootkits and PC DRM and all other kinds of horrid things that screw people out of reasonable functionality (playing games offline, running Linux on a system that was promised to run Linux out of the box) and harm legit users under the guise of chasing down (in this particular case, still entirely mythical) pirates.

Exactly, based on the other thread and this guy post

http://streetskaterfu.blogspot.com/2010/01/ps3-is-hacked-urban-legend-continues.html

Geo got nothing and from what we seen so far he's still got nothing. Sony is just shooting the gun to early here, I can understand them being worried after the PSP but they didn't need to take it this far. Hell If I remember correctly his hack did allow access to the RSX in linux but the problem was there was no driver for the RSX, writing a driver for the thing was suppose to be a nightmare.


Its was a bad move on Sony part but outside of Neogaf rage for anything Sony related, I don't see to many people caring.

 

[spwolf]

Exactly, based on the other thread and this guy post

http://streetskaterfu.blogspot.com/2010/01/ps3-is-hacked-urban-legend-continues.html

Geo got nothing and from what we seen so far he's still got nothing. Sony is just shooting the gun to early here, I can understand them being worried after the PSP but they didn't need to take it this far. Hell If I remember correctly his hack did allow access to the RSX in linux but the problem was there was no driver for the RSX, righting a driver for the thing was suppose to be a nightmare.


Its was a bad move on Sony part but outside of Neogaf rage for anything Sony related, I don't see to many people caring.

I would guess this is based on Sony's own investigations of PS3 "security" and not some external ones.

 

[Raist]

We're not actually looking at a real hack here -- we're looking at a fairly limited proof-of-concept hack (that was widely derided as unimportant and useless in the first thread devoted to it, I'll note.) And we're not looking at a patch which just removes the opportunity to take advantage of this vulnerability (as we've seen on, say, the PSP or 360) -- we're looking at an entire slice of functionality being removed in order to defeat it.

Well, we actually don't really know whether this is a response to geohotz messing around with the hypervisor and OtherOS (although I'm sure he'd love it to be the case). I mean it seems in line with the removal of that feature from the Slim, which happened way before we ever heard anything from the guy.

Essentially, I don't disagree that there's a range of possible responses to a "threat" of this sort that are within the bounds of reason. I believe companies tend to significantly overestimate the damage caused to their underlying business by piracy, but it really does come down to an estimate and so some level of care in preventing it is certainly reasonable. In this case, however, much like the many complaints throughout the years of aggressive DRM on PC games, the company is overstepping their bounds by acting as if they have some innate right to remove or alter core functionality of a system that is no longer (or never was) their property.

When you get down to it, the only real defense for this sort of thing is "oh, well, piracy is SO BAD that ANY steps are worthwhile to defeat it" and that just leads to remote brickings and Sony-BMG rootkits and PC DRM and all other kinds of horrid things that screw people out of reasonable functionality (playing games offline, running Linux on a system that was promised to run Linux out of the box) and harm legit users under the guise of chasing down (in this particular case, still entirely mythical) pirates.

While I don't necessarily disagree, again, it's a question of context. It's a minor function used by a tiny fraction of the userbase which is still software and thus, rightfully under their control. It's not like they're releasing a FW update that kills the BD drive because it's a potential backdoor, and will ask devs to release games on DVDs from now on and tell you to not update if you want to use your old games.

I understand the whole "well if they can do that, they might do worse next time" point, I don't necessarily agree with it. This decision doesn't affect me at all therefore I don't give a shit, and I don't really see it as a potential way to any kind of bullshit abuse a company can potentially do with their HW. I'm not that paranoid.

 

[Dead Man]

"Intellectual property" is an extralegal fiction invented for the express purpose of extending a well-defined series of government-granted limited-monopoly privileges into all-encompassing legal control in perpetuity.

I think I'm in love... Greatest sentence ever.

/hyperbole

 

[racerx]

Exactly, based on the other thread and this guy post

http://streetskaterfu.blogspot.com/2010/01/ps3-is-hacked-urban-legend-continues.html

Geo got nothing and from what we seen so far he's still got nothing. Sony is just shooting the gun to early here, I can understand them being worried after the PSP but they didn't need to take it this far. Hell If I remember correctly his hack did allow access to the RSX in linux but the problem was there was no driver for the RSX, righting a driver for the thing was suppose to be a nightmare.


Its was a bad move on Sony part but outside of Neogaf rage for anything Sony related, I don't see to many people caring.

Yes, I agree with this. It does seem like Sony is pulling the trigger a little to early. But as mentioned on beyond3d, some speculate that there are other reasons why Sony is getting rid of the OtherOS. I don't know how much, but I would imagine that it does take resources away from the engineers to make sure that the OtherOS and associated drivers are still working after each release of an update.

 

[patsu]

"Intellectual property" is an extralegal fiction invented for the express purpose of extending a well-defined series of government-granted limited-monopoly privileges into all-encompassing legal control in perpetuity.

I think I'm in love... Greatest sentence ever.

/hyperbole

Go to China. Companies may see their Intellectual Property rights "compromised".

An employee from my friend's company stole the source and set up a competing company. They tried to go to court but ha ha... IP laws were not that clear cut there. This is like 5 years back.

He's not the only one.

 

[charlequin]

It's a minor function used by a tiny fraction of the userbase which is still software and thus, rightfully under their control.

No, it really isn't "rightfully" in their control at all. That's precisely why you're seeing so much pushback on an extremely minor feature.

Again, the car analogy that's been brought up so many times already is instructive here. A car company absolutely cannot make a patch to their cars' onboard computers that disables your stereo if it detects any aftermarket components present and have their dealerships install this patch when they perform service on your vehicle. It's not really relevant that "software" (in a certain narrow sense) is what's at stake; software in the broader sense of "guiding electronic logic" is actually responsible for 100% of the functionality of any electronic device.

It's not like they're releasing a FW update that kills the BD drive because it's a potential backdoor

But it's very much like that, differing only in what specific feature is being removed.

This decision doesn't affect me at all therefore I don't give a shit

And there we go.

 

[jonabbey]

I'm finding I'm really pissed at this move on Sony's part, though I understand the threat to Sony's peaceful sleep from GeoHotz's hardware hackery.

I haven't used Linux on my PS3 in a couple of years, but it feels like a kick in the gut for Sony to do this. I think it's probably due to the fact that I paid Sony $600 back in the day for my classic 60GB unit, on the understanding that it wasn't just a game console but could also be a software development platform for Cell, could run Linux, Firefox / XBMC / OpenOffice, etc.

Now I have to choose between which feature I want to give up.. the Linux support or the PSN support.

And what am I getting in return? Jack shit, apparently. After four months of no firmware updating, the big exciting new firmware release is finally out and I get less than nothing with it.

I'm actually half considering going out and buying a Slim so that I can keep my original PS3 in Linux-running shape.

But now that Linux can't be run on any PS3 except those few whose owners do the same, there'll be no software development for Cell Linux to speak of, so no fancy media processing, no SPU-accelerated anything, and even if *I* decided to write something, there'd be almost no one else who could take advantage of it, making it pointless.

So I guess I'd have to use the Linux support for playing with GeoHotz's cracking approach.. at least then the feature I paid for would have some use for me.

Damn it, Sony.

I ought to call their Customer Support line and ask them how much they're going to pay me to compensate me if I go and buy a new Slim.

 

[racerx]

No, it really isn't "rightfully" in their control at all. That's precisely why you're seeing so much pushback on an extremely minor feature.

Again, the car analogy that's been brought up so many times already is instructive here. A car company absolutely cannot make a patch to their cars' onboard computers that disables your stereo if it detects any aftermarket components present and have their dealerships install this patch when they perform service on your vehicle. It's not really relevant that "software" (in a certain narrow sense) is what's at stake; software in the broader sense of "guiding electronic logic" is actually responsible for 100% of the functionality of any electronic device.



But it's very much like that, differing only in what specific feature is being removed.



And there we go.

But that analogy doesn't work. Sony is letting you choose between updating or not.

 

[maniac-kun]

realy you people shouldnt get to much into this. just look at the date its close to april 1.st. now look at your watch and realize how much time you wasted with this stupid joke from sony.

 

[Marty Chinn]

The simple fact is, removing Other OS is the same as removing Blu Ray movie playback functionality because a potential exploit might allow piracy. Not all of you use it and I'm sure some of you wouldn't care if it affected you since you don't use it at all. However, it is removing a piece of functionality and that is the simple break down of the whole thing. The only difference between the two, is the number of people who use it. If this was the removal of Blu Ray movie playback, you can bet there would be many more people complaining including people who are arguing in favor of the removal of Other OS.

 

[mclem]

Until the point where consumers will have to pay for firmware updates (sounds ridiculous? So did payed DLC 10 years ago aswell), Sony will always act out of self-interest first, and cool features for the people 629th.

I dispute the bolded:

http://www.mobygames.com/game/wing-commander-the-secret-missions
http://www.mobygames.com/game/gauntlet-the-deeper-dungeons
http://www.mobygames.com/game/mercenary-escape-from-targ-the-second-city

Sure, it's no longer (usually) distributed in a physical form, but paid-for expansion content has existed for decades.

 

[Riskbreaker23]

You know why this thread is so big? Because of posts like your's. Apparently people who don't care love telling everyone just how much they don't care about it. What else don't you care about? It's really fascinating to read!

you know i really dont care too much for spinach. how about you?

 

[charlequin]

Go to China.

I... don't think you really understood my post, which was about how "intellectual property" isn't actually something that's protected under the law. There's no such thing as "intellectual property," an idea equivalent of physical objects that can be owned -- all three of the concepts that are lumped together under that name have in common the fact that they're government-granted (rather than innate), have explicit limits on how they can be applied, and have inbuilt non-permanent durations (explicit lengths of time for copyright and patents, or "as long as you're using it according to the rules" for trademarks.)

What prevents someone from engaging in industrial espionage for profit isn't "IP laws," it's a variety of specific laws -- patent protections, trade secret protections, and NDA and non-compete contracts, primarily. It is indeed true that China is extremely lax in enforcing these and other related laws (such as those governing copyrights) but that's not really relevant to what we're talking about here.

 

[Marty Chinn]

But that analogy doesn't work. Sony is letting you choose between updating or not.

No they aren't. They are giving you the "choice" of keeping Other OS or being allowed to go online and play future games. That's not really a choice of removing the feature or not. It's more like an ultimatum of saying update or you lose all this other functionality.

 

[itxaka]

I understand the whole "well if they can do that, they might do worse next time" point, I don't necessarily agree with it.

This is the same company that put a rootkit on my computer just because I wanted to listen to an ORIGINAL cd that I bought.

This decision doesn't affect me at all therefore I don't give a shit

:lol

Oh wait, are you serious? Then I'll laugh harder

:lol :lol

 

[charlequin]

But that analogy doesn't work. Sony is letting you choose between updating or not.

Except they're not really, since future game releases will require you to update to function, and they're therefore taking a system that was sold to you with two specific functions (OtherOS and gaming) and forcing you to choose between them.

(In my analogy you would have a choice too -- you could always refuse to take your car to official dealerships and only get it serviced at unofficial mechanics. I maintain that even in such a situation you would see significant uproar, and most likely legal action, were a car company to enact such a policy.)

 

[Dead Man]

Go to China. Companies may see their Intellectual Property rights "compromised".

An employee from my friend's company stole the source and set up a competing company. They tried to go to court but ha ha... IP laws were not that clear cut there. This is like 5 years back.

He's not the only one.

Yes, clearly because I am in favour of consumers owning what they paid for I am also in favour of theft.

 

[racerx]

No they aren't. They are giving you the "choice" of keeping Other OS or being allowed to go online and play future games. That's not really a choice of removing the feature or not. It's more like an ultimatum of saying update or you lose all this other functionality.

It certainly is a choice. No one is forcing you to update. How can you not understand that?

Going online is not a right, it's a privilege. If going online was a right, then consumer would be able to appeal bans from psn or xbox live. That doesn't happen.

 

[TTP]

The simple fact is, removing Other OS is the same as removing Blu Ray movie playback functionality because a potential exploit might allow piracy. Not all of you use it and I'm sure some of you wouldn't care if it affected you since you don't use it at all. However, it is removing a piece of functionality and that is the simple break down of the whole thing. The only difference between the two, is the number of people who use it. If this was the removal of Blu Ray movie playback, you can bet there would be many more people complaining including people who are arguing in favor of the removal of Other OS.

All true, but I don't think Sony would ever remove whatever feature to grant security. I sure hope they don't treat every feature as equal. I mean, removing Blu-Ray movie playback would jeopardize the whole PS3 business for good as well as every future Sony hardware/service endeavour (I wouldn't buy ANY Sony stuff if *important* features are bound to be removed).

 

[Ninja-Matic]

WOW!

*shovels popcorn in mouth*

This is REALLY good!

I don't think you guys get it yet, hahahaha. There's more to the blog post than just the date of the firmware's release.

None of you are looking in the right place. I mean... it's so obvious.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[Marty Chinn]

It certainly is a choice. No one is forcing you to update. How can you not understand that?

Going online is not a right, it's a privilege. If going online was a right, then consumer would be able to appeal bans from psn or xbox live. That doesn't happen.

Is playing games a right or a privelage when you buy the system? Future games require a minimum firmware installed in order to play them. So not upgrading means you are choosing to not play future games.

 

[Raist]

No, it really isn't "rightfully" in their control at all. That's precisely why you're seeing so much pushback on an extremely minor feature.

Yes it is. Unless I've been mistaken and the whole "I bought it, it's a piece of hardware that doesn't fall under these kind of rules" argument is no longer in question.

Again, the car analogy that's been brought up so many times already is instructive here. A car company absolutely cannot make a patch to their cars' onboard computers that disables your stereo if it detects any aftermarket components present and have their dealerships install this patch when they perform service on your vehicle. It's not really relevant that "software" (in a certain narrow sense) is what's at stake; software in the broader sense of "guiding electronic logic" is actually responsible for 100% of the functionality of any electronic device.

But it's very much like that, differing only in what specific feature is being removed.

It's an extremely bad analogy because you're talking about software that controls a hardware function. Disabling the OtherOS function has NOTHING to do with any part of the hardware functions. It doesn't kill your BD drive, HDD or ethernet port. It only prevents you from installing another OS (software) which is apparently a potential way to completely hack the system. Removing it does not disable any hardware-related functions at all.

And there we go.

And? IF at some point in the future Sony strips away a hardware-related feature and IF you can prove that they could get away with it because not enough people bitched about that OtherOS thing, you might have a point.
Until then, I don't see how my point (as a whole, once again you seem to quote selective parts) is so wrong, especially since it's how I judge a decision made by a company whom I bought something from.
The day Sony kills the GS in my PS3 with a FW update, you'll see me complain a lot.

 

[badcrumble]

WOW!

*shovels popcorn in mouth*

This is REALLY good!

I don't think you guys get it yet, hahahaha. There's more to the blog post than just the date of the firmware's release.

None of you are looking in the right place. I mean... it's so obvious.

That's all I'm saying.

If you mean:


Ability to sign in to PlayStation Network and use network features that require signing in to PlayStation Network, such as online features of PS3 games and chat



then that could mean something, but it could just as easily refer to the already-existing text chat.

 

[Marty Chinn]

All true, but I don't think Sony would ever remove whatever feature to grant security. I sure hope they don't treat every feature as equal. I mean, removing Blu-Ray movie playback would jeopardize the whole PS3 business for good as well as every future Sony hardware/service endeavour (I wouldn't buy ANY Sony stuff if *important* features are bound to be removed).

I don't think they would ever do that either and would try to do whatever they can to keep the feature there. However, the simple point is the core principle is the same and if you see removing the feature as nothing wrong, you simply need to replace Other OS with Blu Ray movie playback so you can understand why people are mad and how the end user is being hurt by this. The only difference is scale.

 

[cRIPticon]

Again, a warranty is a continuing service. There's a difference between a car's warranty and buying the car itself. Not to mention the fact that you agree to the terms of the warranty when the car is purchased. You're always free to decline the warranty or pay extra for an aftermarket warranty that will cover said loss. This is analogous to Mitsubishi forcing you to replace your manual transmission with an automatic, otherwise you won't be able to put gas in it anymore.

You mean just like the EULA you agreed to when you purchased the PS3? got it.

In this case, it's not. You need the latest firmware to play the latest games and watch the latest Blu-Rays. My use of that content has been arbitrarily and unnecessary limited.

Nothing prevents you from using any of the content, apart from the PSN service, that you have purchased up to now. If you want to use future software from Sony, and the use of that software requires specific firmware, that is their decision as the content creator. You have every right to refuse to use it or accept their EULA. And they have the right to not extend a license to you unless you accept their terms. Period.

You don't own your set-top box. The cable company does; you just rent it from them. I own my PS3. So yes, totally different. That's a major reason why cable companies won't sell you boxes or allow you to purchase boxes from a third party and use them with their service, btw.

Really? I guess I don't own my DirecTV TiVO that I purchased from BestBuy and not from DirecTV themselves. I should let them know that.

BUT ONE OF THE CORE SYSTEM FUNCTIONS IS TO PLAY GAMES. To continue my earlier analogy, Mitsubishi says that you don't HAVE to drive your car, you can put it up in blocks and live in it. Or use it as a paperweight.

Correct. And running an alternate OS is not a core system function. Choose.

 

[racerx]

Except they're not really, since future game releases will require you to update to function, and they're therefore taking a system that was sold to you with two specific functions (OtherOS and gaming) and forcing you to choose between them.

(In my analogy you would have a choice too -- you could always refuse to take your car to official dealerships and only get it serviced at unofficial mechanics. I maintain that even in such a situation you would see significant uproar, and most likely legal action, were a car company to enact such a policy.)

Yes, but is there any law that says the software always has to be compatible? I mean, if a software was given a patch, and lets say it broke things for xp but fixed things for vista and the software company said that xp is not supported anymore, can people sue the company?

I don't think so.

 

[charlequin]

It certainly is a choice. No one is forcing you to update.

As has been eloquently explained by others (and apparently ignored by you) earlier in the thread, locking you out of PSN (an ongoing service) would be acceptable while locking you out of playing new games (which will, in fact, also happen to people who refuse this firmware update) is not.

It's an extremely bad analogy because you're talking about software that controls a hardware function.

There is no such distinction. If you believe there is such a distinction, you are mistaken. Every single thing that any electronic device does is a function of hardware and software working in concert. You can frame this change in exactly the same way: it reduces the functionality of your CELL processor (hardware) by preventing it from being used for one of its out-of-the-box functions (running Linux).

The day Sony kills the GS in my PS3 with a FW update, you'll see me complain a lot.

I do not think it is going to tremendously help your argument to repeatedly admit that you're willing to side with the manufacturer over your fellow consumers just because you happen to not be inconvenienced this time around in particular.

 

[cRIPticon]

No, it really isn't "rightfully" in their control at all. That's precisely why you're seeing so much pushback on an extremely minor feature.

Fine. But it within their rights to prevent from any Linux enabled PS3 from connecting to their service, right?

EDIT: Ah, saw you answered above. As for not playing new games without updating, is it withing Sony's rights to demand that their software (new games) not be playable on any Linux enabled PS3's?

 

[Alex]

:lol @ EULA meaning anything outside of a small, petty enforcement. Usually on the software side.

Most of those things are filled with batshit insane passages that often flat out break the law. Do any of you people spouting this actually read them yourself? A lot of them are quite interesting (and hilarious)

Console warriors are seriously scary folks.

Buy something else

Seems to be heartily taken advice, this generation!

 

[Marty Chinn]

Yes, but is there any law that says the software always has to be compatible? I mean, if a software was given a patch, and lets say it broke things for xp but fixed things for vista and the software company said that xp is not supported anymore, can people sue the company?

I don't think so.

Not the same thing on so many levels. You bought the software as is and any updates are optional and won't break using the software. Typically, they don't cut out an OS midway through the product life of software. If anything they would do that in the next version like going from Photoshop CS3 to Photoshop CS4 in which you are required to buy the newer product if you want to move on. At that point you would know that there is an OS issue and are given the choice to move up or not. Your analogy is way off but if they did what you just said, you can be sure the company could be sued.

 

[Dragona Akehi]

I really need to make a programme or a game and have part of the EULA state that whomever buys the game agrees to the EULA and that they are my personal slaves, and they are under a legal contract for them to forward their banking information to me so I can withdraw all of their (my) money.