News Amazon gives PS3 refunds for Linux removal

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 9 Apr 2010.

  1. CardJoe

    CardJoe Freelance Journalist

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    11,343
    Likes Received:
    292
  2. sotu1

    sotu1 Ex-Modder

    Joined:
    24 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    2,877
    Likes Received:
    26
    Anyone know if we can use this for other retailers? ie, play, game, gamestation etc?
     
  3. Freedom

    Freedom Member

    Joined:
    27 Oct 2004
    Posts:
    794
    Likes Received:
    16
    Well if your in the Uk the European act over ridden by Sales of Goods act.
     
  4. will.

    will. A motorbike of jealousy!

    Joined:
    2 Mar 2005
    Posts:
    4,461
    Likes Received:
    20
    Hmm... maybe give back my PS3 Fat and get a slim?
     
  5. theflatworm

    theflatworm Gordon Freeman's Crowbar

    Joined:
    22 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    99
    Likes Received:
    1
    I though European law trumped UK law anyway? I know the government have been forced to change a fair few things when they conflicted. In any case, the SoGA has the same 'fit for intended purpose' bit...

    It's probably worth it just take back your X year old PS3 and get a brand spanking new one. If enough people do this it could cause real problems for Sony, possibly forcing them to put Linux support back...
     
  6. whisperwolf

    whisperwolf New Member

    Joined:
    1 Sep 2004
    Posts:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    50
    It would be very amusing if everyone with 1 or 2 year old system suddenly demanded a full refund for the old system and then bought a new one with the cash. Of course Sony Marketing would release a PR note about the sudden unprecedented demand for their system.
     
  7. do_it_anyway

    do_it_anyway New Member

    Joined:
    24 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    260
    Likes Received:
    8
    I wonder if I could contact my broadband supplier from 3 years ago and tell them the free PS3 they sent me isn't as advertised??
     
  8. eddtox

    eddtox Homo Interneticus

    Joined:
    7 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    15
    I don't think that's how it works. I don't think you would be able to complain about the lost functionality and then request a replacement which also misses said functionality. In the article it says the customer only got 20% back, which is probably more like compensation for the loss of advertised features.

    I think you would still end up footing most of the bill for the new system.
     
  9. scawp

    scawp New Member

    Joined:
    8 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    91
    Likes Received:
    4
    surely Sony put in some sort of "we can take out what the f*ck we want" clause into the EULA
     
  10. whisperwolf

    whisperwolf New Member

    Joined:
    1 Sep 2004
    Posts:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    50
    Depends, this was a 20% refund without returning the console as compensation for the lost features. who knows if they'd give the full amount for returning it. Cost of the console has dropped in the last couple of years i think, so you in theory you could come out with new console and cash. Hey, even if thats out the window, If I had a fat PS3 and and could get back £80 just by sending an email, I'd be all over it.
     
  11. julianmartin

    julianmartin resident cyborg.

    Joined:
    25 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    3,532
    Likes Received:
    119
    Pretty harsh on Amazon, imo. Fair play to them for coughing up but it should hardly be their responsibility should it?!
     
  12. eddtox

    eddtox Homo Interneticus

    Joined:
    7 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    15
    I'm sure amazon will be looking to recover these costs from sony.
     
  13. Instagib

    Instagib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    12 Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,415
    Likes Received:
    57
    Doesn't that directive then apply to old telivision sets? With ,the switch over to digital, have they not "through no fault of the user, lost features and no longer operates as advertised"?
     
  14. Shagbag

    Shagbag All glory to the Hypnotoad!

    Joined:
    9 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    320
    Likes Received:
    4
    No. European Law always overrides the laws of a Member State. If a Member State passes a law that is found to be in contravention of European Law, then that law if void ab initio (ie. it is void right from the start - it effectively never existed).

    The consumer in this case accepted 20% as damages for a partial loss. He may have got more if he had taken this to Court (perhaps even a full refund). However, now that he has accepted the offer from Amazon, he is precluded from going through the Courts - he has accepted compensation for his loss. In contractual terms, the breach has been remedied.

    On a technical point, the consumer in this case relied on an EU Directive. An EU Directive is not law. An EU Directive simply requires a Member State to enact laws that comply with the Directive within the time scale stated in the Directive (typically 2 years). If a Member State fails to enact such legislation within that time scale, then it (the Member State) and its institutions are bound by (ie. can be sued under) that Directive. EU Directives are not binding upon private citizens and institutions such as Amazon, only Member State laws are binding on those institutions (ie. Amazon is not bound by the Directive but will be bound by any UK legislation that subsequently enacts that Directive). Therefore, from the facts set out in the article, it appears Amazon has either (a) made a commercial decision to refund, or (b) has recognised that existing UK Sale of Goods legislation would more than likely be interpreted by a UK Court in accordance with the EU Directive, ie. the EU Directive would have an 'indirect effect' through the UK Sale of Goods Act, or (c) the existing UK Sale of Goods Act already covers the point adequately.

    I don't think Amazon are being hard done by. They sold the PS3 to the consumer and, in doing so, fully represented to him that the PS3 was capable of running Linux. They are more than likely within their rights to sue to Sony for Sony's misrepresentation to them. As the consumer who bought the PS3 has no contractual recourse to Sony (since the contract of sale was between him and Amazon and not him and Sony) it would be wholly unfair to him if Amazon weren't held liable - for he would then be left with no-one to claim against. Furthermore, it would be unfair to Sony to be liable for the consumer's contract with Amazon as Sony was not a party to that contract and had no say, whatsoever, in the terms that were negotiated under that contract. This is how contracts are enforced under the laws of England and Wales.

    The end result here is a victory for the consumer and consumer rights. Sony shamefacedly dropped linux support despite enticing people to buy the PS3 in the first place because it ran linux.

    Finally, please stop banging on about EULAs. EULAs only stipulate some of the terms in a contract and it is impossible for them to dispense with your statutory rights (eg. Sale of Goods Act legislation). Too many people think the EULA is the be-all and end-all of the law. It is not, and the sooner this is understood, the sooner you will stop having to drop your trousers and bend over to the likes of Sony, et. al.
     
    Last edited: 9 Apr 2010
    Bindibadgi, Measter and eddtox like this.
  15. eddtox

    eddtox Homo Interneticus

    Joined:
    7 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    15
    That's +1 rep to you for a very well written and informative post. I especially like the final paragraphs about EULA's and I think this point applies to most contracts.

    I.e: if a point in a contract is in breach of the country's laws that point is null and void. E.g: apple might put in their EULA and/or contract of sale for the iPad that you must use it to batter anyone who speaks ill of Steve Jobs, but, as that is against the laws of the land you are a) not bound to comply with that part of the contract and b) liable for prosecution if you do comply.

    Note, however, that in most cases, contracts contain a clause which stipulates that should any clause in the contract be found unlawful, the other clauses still stand valid. I.e: you can't rip up the whole contract just because of one clause being wrong.
     
  16. glaeken

    glaeken Freeeeeeeze! I'm a cawp!

    Joined:
    1 Jan 2005
    Posts:
    2,041
    Likes Received:
    50
    A friend of mine started a complaint thread on the sony developer forums and this is exactly what they said. They don't care about their users. When he asked sony what he should do, they recommend he either stop updating his ps3 or buy a new additional slim.

    Sony is only shooting themselves in the foot. Many programmers in college could gain experience with SPU programming through linux. Now they've just removed this ability to become experienced in SPU programming without a devkit.
     
  17. paisa666

    paisa666 I WILL END YOU!!!

    Joined:
    4 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    809
    Likes Received:
    42
    What features have they lost with new technology?? the old Tv's still work as they were advertised, you need a cable operator to suply the signal, if the operator stops providing the signal, is not the Tv's manufacturer fault, get a new cable operator.
     
  18. sotu1

    sotu1 Ex-Modder

    Joined:
    24 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    2,877
    Likes Received:
    26
    Where exactly was it written that the PS3 is capable of running linux? Was this on the product description on the website or on the product description on the box?
     
  19. Shagbag

    Shagbag All glory to the Hypnotoad!

    Joined:
    9 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    320
    Likes Received:
    4
    Not at all. The 'switch to digital' relates to the change in the way media content is broadcast, not received. The old TV will still pick up analogue signals should anyone transmit them. Its functionality remains the same.

    lol. Did he honestly expect them to say anything else? Why people believe the manufacturer is going to give them a straight answer, is beyond me. Take Microsoft as another example. With every new security patch of Internet Explorer they always recommend that 'you update your version of IE'. They never recommend that you simply switch your web browser. This sort of behaviour from manufacturers is par for the course and people continue to fall for it... just like the EULA point.

    It's the 'OtherOS' feature in the PS3 that's being removed, not an ability to (solely) run linux. It just so happens that linux is the most popular 'OtherOS' that people have been installing. You'll find the 'OtherOS' feature in the PS3's menus when you switch it on.
     
    Last edited: 9 Apr 2010
  20. speedfreek

    speedfreek New Member

    Joined:
    9 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    1,453
    Likes Received:
    1
    I just checked, its not on the box but its in the documentation that came with mine(fat). Plus it was advertised under features almost wherever the system was sold and on mine it still shows up as an option in my settings menu.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page