Originally Posted by RagingCain
I am not sure how that falls under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, that usually protects Government (Fed and State) or Financial Related computers. I mean you are welcome to explain that one better to me.
I see what you meant about Microsoft, which in your case would violate anti-trust/anti-competitive business and I believe the First-Sale Doctrine (regarding unfair prices for similar products to different consumers.)
If Sony remove the Blu-Ray functionality, as this item is a key advertised feature that was fit for production, they would open themselves open to lawsuits left and right in order for consumers to get their money back. The OtherOS was an experimental feature/concept, its was never majorly advertised (don't let anyone lie to you, look it up for yourself), and it was removed to protect the functionality of all features on ALL consoles AND the integrity of online services as well as Firmware for ALL consumers. So even if what they did was some kind of violation to some consumer's rights (thereby all pre-3.21 firmware PS3 consumers) it will probably win the legal battle due to the reason it disabled such a feature. The evidence will be mandatory and made public however.
The update in question also was not mandatory. You are not mandatorily forced to buy games either, especially if you know they don't work on your old firmware. The example of MAG was brought up that it is an online only title, but if you are aware of this (which you are) and you know that by choosing not to upgrade, you forfeit your right for this online game, again its all your choice.
Had Sony FORCED the update, they would open themselves up to legal battle where they would have lost or settled out of court.
Many of you may not like this, but its legal. You can raise awareness, you can boycott products, and if you don't really like it, grow up or study for law, and make changes.
what is your defination of "optional"?
what if your ps3 suddenly kicked the bucket and you had to get it replaced? what then, would they send you one that allowed otherOS cause you had "chosen" to keep the old firmware? or would not upgrading to the latest firmware void your warranty?
one could argue that you could "re-enable" otheros feature on your own, but wouldn't you be committing a crime then? is it acceptable to allow some one to break their ethical or moral code, to allow a company to keep its "legal" right of control?
no the question isn't does sony have the legal right based on loose eula guidelines, to remove OtherOS, it is was it legal in the way they "forced" you into a "optional" update of firmware, to continue use once of the consoles "primary" features and have access to its secondary features.
it doesn't really matter either if it was directly advertised by sony that otheros was a feature, it is in the manual, you can google about it, and find hundreds, if not thousands of review sites talking about this ability. word of mouth advertising, from my days as a manager in fast food is just as powerful as tv, magazine, radio, etc, advertising.
i tell one friend, he tells 10 friends, each of those 10 tell 10 more....you get the idea.
i've also said this before, but i will say it again, it really isn't of any concern what sony says they can do, doesn't matter what courts decide either, in the court of public opinion this will be decided.
i'm sure the concern after this wont be they removed a "experimental/testing" feature that allowed linux, it will be, what features will they remove next.