News Anonymous threatens Sony

No, because "hand over" does not necessarily mean "transfer rights of ownership to". A contract may stipulate limitations of use. You either agree to them or not and, if not, the owner and you go your separate ways. That's how moral people conduct themselves.

Yes, that's right. Context is important.

 

And how about software EULAs where you cannot see the terms of the contract until you purchase (and try installing) the software - and where you cannot obtain a refund if you disagree with the EULA since the retailer will not accept the return of opened items? (in Europe, the Distance Selling Regulations, which provide a "right to cancel" for mail, telephone and online purchases specifically exempt video, music and software when the seals have been broken).

In the case of the PS3 (and other consoles), that EULA can change as highlighted here, so even if someone was able to view it before purchase, that would not prevent the vendor from adding "unacceptable" provisions later on (and refusing to accept those changes means losing the ability to play online). Where is the morality in this?

 

That would be a reasonable concern if it weren't for the ubiquitous nature of the internet where all this information is readily available. These days it's a sad excuse.

Whoa... big earthquake here in Christchurch, New Zealand. Ken friggin' Ring didn't predict ~this~ one.

Later....

Mag 5.3, 11Km deep, epicentre about 12km from where I live. It felt bigger.

To continue: In regards to music, software, and videos. These days finding ways to feign ignorance is so much harder given that for many years the gist of any copyrighted stuff is "Don't steal it nor make copies of it to give to others". You don't have to scrutinize every EULA in all its detail and from every angle to know this is true of a great deal of music, videos and software.

They'd be absent were in fact these "unacceptable" provisions in breach of the EULA that came with the product when it was purchased. You'd have a legal case against Sony and have the moral high-ground. If you have neither I guess you could always don a black robe and mask and disguise your vocal threats using a monotone computer voice.

 

So all those people who buy on the day of release - before anyone will have seen the EULA or it will have been published anywhere - have no leg to stand on?

And all those people who bought PS3's solely because it had the OtherOS feature should've known that Sony would remove that feature a couple years down the line?

 

Anonymous is great. Direct action as a means of protest is surprisingly effective (which is why you don't hear much about it, because if people knew it worked we'd all be at it). I mean if you look at the Anonymous campaign against Scientology that was incredibly damaging, cost the organisation millions in lost revenue and legal costs, as well as destroying any crumbs of credibility the group had in the wider world and emboldening others to take on the group. Scientology is now dramatically waning, and that is in no small part due to Anonymous.

So, in short, their methods work. The question is will they have the attention span to work over Sony like they did Scientology, because the Scientology campaign has lasted years.

 

Yes, and everyone has Internet access when they're in a shop browsing the games shelves. And of course every EULA is available online...

What? Didn't you read the article about the Playstation EULA change giving Sony the right to modify your PS3 at any time? Or the part where they claim ownership of all content sent across the PS3 network?

To take another topical example you have Steam's EULA which gives Valve the right to charge your credit card as it pleases (section 4B), disable your account (subsequently removing access to all purchased content) for anything which "...negatively affects the enjoyment of Steam by other Subscribers." (section 5) and avoid any liability for damage should their system infect you with malware (section 9C).

The "don't copy" is an obvious condition, but very much a starting point for any EULA produced during the last decade. So yes, customers DO need to scrutinise EULAs carefully - and even then the conditions can change. That means the only way to be "moral and legal" by your stipulations is either to forfeit all rights as a consumer - or to boycott the software industry entirely.

Given that the US Ninth Circuit court has recently upheld that EULAs can override the First Sale Doctrine (Vernor vs Autodesk Inc) and thereby most other consumer protection legislation (see the EFF's commentary on this), I take it that you then agree with such protests within the US at least. And in the case of Steam (where Valve can only be sued in a US court) by anyone globally.

 

I've always wondered about this: would Steam be able to do that? Surely because the purchase was in another country, such as the UK, and charged in GBP with prices not only converted but adapted for the market, then it would fall under consumer purchasing rights and those would trump the EULA. As far as I understand it, there's no precedent in the UK that says the EULA terms are necessarily legally binding and/or excluded from consumer proctection acts.

 

You're almost certainly right - EULAs wouldn't be able to trump consumer protection legislation. So anyone falling foul of "EULA abuse" by Valve should have no problem securing a judgement in a UK (or EU) court.

The problem is enforcing any such judgment - Valve have no EU presence so there's nothing for such a court to act against (the EU Competition Commission note this in their response (PDF) to a complaint about Valve's European pricing). In contrast, Valve can (and frequently do) block access to customers' entire Steam collection at whim.

 

I've a good friend who works in a Sony store... they don't sell PS3's.

 

Meh, piracy. face it do you really want the device for "backup" purposes?

When you buy a digital disc of any sort, treat it with respect, if it gets scratched then you were not treating it with respect, your foul your loss, the need to back up a disk is trivial and a BS answer for saying you want pirated games.

If you bought a brand new car, and crashed it, were you able to back it up? so you could drive it again?

Sony are protecting their investors, and their gaming software companies, against piracy to prevent game software companies from receiving the appropriate sales for the games they developed. undoubtably sony gets a cut from all sales of games, but unless soley written by sony, then the cut, mould be minor. IS the overall gaming industry, preventing them from moving forward. The games and hardware don't just create themselves, they dont make invisible money to feed their employees.

I recall the PS1 go chiped, religiously around the world, and cost the industry millions, and there was also a sega saturn (i think it was called), that also suffered at the hand of microchipping, and the nintendo wii, all it does is provent the next big system to become availible quicker.Or in Sega's case, basically brankrupted their failing console industry.

There may have been a time in my life where as a child, i was unable to purchase software, now i purchase everything. Why? cause a few hours working saves me a few hours trying to get it for free. The quality is unmatched also, and comes with far less viruses.

Anoyomouses actions is purely ignorant and petty, the kids hacking the ps3, knew what they were doing, knew they shouldn't of been doing it, knew their would be consequences, just didn't think they would get caught.

 

What Sony doesn't understand is that it's impossible to stop pirating or modding, there's always gonna be a hacker out there that's better than the last one so they can break the code again. The only thing Sony is doing by banning people is to alienate them from Sony's products. I got so tired of the crappy (in my opinin) products that i haven't even used anything made by Sony since the 360 came out. Now i'm not agreeing with Anonymous, i think that pirating a game that people spent time and money to create and the depriving these same people of the money the worked for is wrong, plain and simple.