Sony Can Update PS3 Firmware Without Permission 700
Stoobalou writes "Sony's latest firmware update comes with a revised End User License Agreement which allows the company to change any part of the console's operating system without notification or permission. You might think you own the console you paid for, but Sony has a very different idea."
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is that legal?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is that legal?
Sony: "I will make it legal"
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
<DmncAtrny> I will write on a huge cement block "BY ACCEPTING THIS BRICK THROUGH YOUR WINDOW, YOU ACCEPT IT AS IS AND AGREE TO MY DISCLAIMER OF ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS WELL AS DISCLAIMERS OF ALL LIABILITY, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL, THAT MAY ARISE FROM THE INSTALLATION OF THIS BRICK INTO YOUR BUILDING."
<DmncAtrny> And then hurl it through the window of a Sony officer
<DmncAtrny> and run like hell
http://bash.org/?577451 [bash.org]
.
.
.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
In general, no, you can't agree to a contract that says you will agree in the future to anything that one side proposes. A binding contract (which a EULA may or may not even be in the first place) certainly can't say you agree to anything the writer might propose in the future.
For starters, it violates the principle of Meeting of the Minds [wikipedia.org] - you can't have agreed to a principle in a contract that you haven't seen yet simply by having generally agreed to a term saying you will agree to whatever they say in the future.
Furthermore, it is on the face of it unconscionable, in any form of contract (adhesion, license or traditional contract) to agree to something that you aren't told at the time and that may be unilaterally changed to anything else in the future. As it is, many jurisdictions hold many EULA terms to be unconscionable - even the most egregiously pro-EULA jurisdictions won't enforce a term like this.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't know what kind of idiot lawyer would tell somebody to put stuff like this in a contract when he knows it's unenforceable. The problem is that even though it's entirely unenforceable, it's not actually illegal to sneak anything you want into a contract. It would be nice if there were some sort of penalties to discourage this kind of thing. Unfortunately, bad PR doesn't work because nobody outside of Slashdot geeks and IP lawyers cares about this sort of thing, so stories about EULA hijinks go nowhere in the mainstream press.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
EULAs come with a clause that prevents an invalid claim from invalidating the entire EULA so they throw as much bullshit in there as they can to intimidate any non-lawyers.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
EULAs come with a clause that prevents an invalid claim from invalidating the entire EULA so they throw as much bullshit in there as they can to intimidate any non-lawyers.
Mentioning that in a public forum is against the EULA.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this clause legal either?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I agreed to an EULA with a clause to remove my right of a 2 year warranty (I live in the EU), I would still have that right after I bought the thing.
EULAs can say a lot of things, but not all are legal. That's why I asked.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The worst part of these abusive EULAs is that they erode respect for the rule of law. You are consistently lying in a legal document every time you click the "I have read and agree" checkbox, and the presentation of the document does everything to promote this.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your approach is silly and untenable, and tech vendors bank on that fact.
Imagine how sales would soar if EB refused to sell you a product until you'd had the EULA explained to you in the store. If every customer actually practiced the "common sense" you're espousing, they would either spend all their time reading, or they would have to abstain from most of the tech market on principle.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
In California, several times - Unilateral contracts tend to go against the Consumer Protection laws we have here.
I kicked the shit out of EA by completely bypassing their EULA in court and making it a full property rights issue instead of a contractual one. I'm very sure the EXACT same methodology I used to break down EA can be used against Sony.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
"How exactly did you bypass EA's EULA? Sounds very interesting."
Their claim was that there was enough mention in the EULA of DRM to prevent liability, however, I made the case that because of the insufficient disclosure as to the nature of the DRM, I was not properly informed to make a decision and that decision caused damages to my computer. I then argued that at that point and time, their negligence to properly inform me of the potentially harmful software put this into the realm of property damages instead of a matter of EULA.
And a class-action suit for property damages is not what any company wants as that usually leads to far stiffer penalties.
Do the same thing to Sony - this modification of the EULA/contract causes damage to my system by impairing functions I paid for. It goes out of the realm of contract law and starts hitting property rights.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How many levels deep does it take to break slashdot's interface?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Geeknet reserves the right, at Geeknet's sole discretion, to change, modify, add or remove portions of these Terms periodically.
And that's in the first section of the TOS [geek.net].
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No Playstation Network also means no updates to games to fix critical bugs. It's not much of an option.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the trojan that Sony is able to use. They can't force you to accept a new hardware EULA, but they can require in their PSN EULA that all devices connected have the latest firmware. If you don't accept the new Hardware EULA they take away PSN access, then pester you to update (or do it surrepticiously through a game disc). Since a PS3 is mostly worthless without network access, this is a pretty effective strategy to get their way.
So the question is: will they automatically push this update along w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
*YANK*
Aaaand that was the sound of the network cable being unplugged from my PS3.
No more chance of my buying games from PSN (not like there were any good ones I don't have on a PS2 disc anyways), or bothering with their updates, or anything else. Fuck 'em. MS at least asks me up front to accept the update, and tells me point-blank that I can play as I will in the solo mode, just not on Xbox Live with a non-updated game. If Sony's going to pull this shit behind my back after bricking two loads of PS3's with
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Don't buy any new disc games, either. They could include the system update.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dammit, I was just about to upgrade to PS3 just for God of War 3, and Bioshock 2 as a second game.
Now I no longer care. I bought a PS2 when the hardware made Sony a profit, not during the loss-leader years. I now regret that, and now that the PS3 is profitable I'm not even buying the damned thing. PS2 emulation gone, linux gone, there's no incentive other than GOW3. I'll just play through it on my friend's box so I'm not missing anything. HTPC only, hopefully running a PS2 emulator and I can get rid of
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it strange that the maligned Microsoft (and for good reason), keeps taking steps to improve the 360 both in features and extending the warranty to take care of a common issue, while Sony, who started off with a decent system has been systematically removing features with little to no return.
What has been lost on the PS3:
- Emotion Engine (hardware)
- SACD playback (software)
- USB 2.0 ports (hardware)
- Full PS2 backwards compatibility (software)
- Other OS Linux (software): retroactively disabled on older hardware as well now with the new update
- SD and CF slots (hardware)
What has been gained:
- Media bar in-game
- Trophies
- Divx
- Anything else?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Under what has been lost: $300 in purchase price.
Under what has been gained: PS Home, PS Store video rental/purchase, & Netflix.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Let's have a close look at these claims of yours...
What has been lost on the PS3:
- Emotion Engine (hardware)
First gen PS3 was very expensive, people bitched about the price and Sony responded by removing the PS2 compatibility. Sony still sells the PS2 console so there was no need to punish people who wanted a PS3 by forcing them to subsidize the PS2 owners. Less hardware = cheaper console.
- SACD playback (software)
Did anyone actually want this? While it's likely that a PS3 owner would have an HDTV, it's u
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Summary: all the claims were true.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
- Anything else?
-Netflix(software)
-HDMI integration allowing control of PS3 from TV remote(hardware/software)
-3D games and movies(software)
-Move controller(software/hardware)
-Better power consumption/size(hardware)
-Reduced cost(hardware?)
-Rumble(hardware) -- which they should have had to start with
-PlayStation Home(software)
Sorry, that's all I can think of off the top of my head.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
That's the trojan that Sony is able to use.
Hey, at least Sony is considerate enough to use a trojan when fucking its customers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Conspiracy theories?
That a company that KNOWINGLY PUT ROOTKITS IN THEIR PRODUCT would try to recode their "update" software to be as difficult to firewall out as possible?
We have a word for entities like you - we call them "sheeple."
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
"I doubt you could even list 30 companies who have had their EULAs slapped down by a court."
Microsoft
EA
Ubisoft
Acclaim
Midway
Activision
Pioneer
Sharp
I could keep going on but I'm not allowed to talk about pending litigation. Way more than thirty on my list, pal. WAY MORE.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Read Khyber's reply, dumbass.
Wikipedia doesn't cite every single example. It's a lazy example to a well known/established scenario.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
What are the consequences of refusing this firmware update?
After awhile, it'll cease to have any networking support. Even the browser will turn off. Who knows -- it's proprietary. They might even have a logic bomb in there that after a year, it erases all your savegames, stomps on it's own dick, and declares war on Panama in your name, all while throwing the reds in with the whites and focusing microwave energies into your freezer to make your ice cream all melty.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see future products do a version check and declare incompatibility regardless if it is truthful. As in games that check let alone BR discs that invoke the drm scheme engineering fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be ridiculous! That ice cream thing would never work.
(joke)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
After seeing your porn I wouldn't be surprised.....
LOL! (Score:3, Funny)
LOL! What are you thinking? This is America, dammit. And in America, corporations are king. Corporations dictate the law. Corporations dictate how you can use their products, even when you've bought them outright. Corporations can change contracts whenever they want, however they want, and you just have to suck it up and enjoy it.
Shit, son, if you're saying that the terms of contracts have to be honored, and can't be changed unilaterally by corporations, then that sounds damn near like SOCIALISM.
Re:LOL! (Score:4, Informative)
Well, according to all world religions and spiritual philosophies, cooperation and taking care of the less fortunate are good things,
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Both of your questions are answered by staying offline. (Eventually new game discs will have a mandatory firmware update included as well.)
You agree to the EULA of the firmware version that you are using. There is no EULA for the hardware.
It's not much different than refusing a policy update from a web service like PayPal. The condition (or "price" if you prefer) of using a service is compliance with its rules.
You can do whatever you want with the hardware you bought. But you can't do it in Sony's yard.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
What are the consequences of refusing this firmware update?
You should have thought of the consequences of buying computer gear from a company who would put rootkits on music CDs before you bought it. Having XCP root my computer when my daughter ran the software on it, never dreaming that a big name like Sony would install malware, was the end of my Sony purchases. It's not a boycott, it's self-preservation. There's no way I'll ever trust them again, and neither will my daughter.
I have no sympathy for anybody who buys Sony, no matter how shoddily Sony treats them. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I thought it was: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, stay right there, I need to get my gun."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you don't, no problem, you're just excommunicated.
Please don't mix metaphors like that. This is war, so it should be "dishonorably discharged".
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
This is /. we use car analogies here. You have your license revoked.
GEOHOT! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:GEOHOT! (Score:5, Insightful)
Geohot is the one who caused this goddamn mess in the first place. If he hadn't decided to poke his nose where it didn't belong we wouldn't be having these problems.
Although I am pissed off that his actions are causing me problems, I don't blame him, I blame Sony. Geohot was doing something with his console, which he acquired legally. It's his right to do whatever he likes with his property, whether or not Sony approves of it.
Which is really the crux of this problem. I don't care what their EULA says, the PS3 promised the ability to both install an alternate OS and play games / connect to their network. Now they want to remove this functionality and make people choose which they want to do, and now they apparently want to avoid people holding back on the updates by automatically updating without asking the user first. They're clearly the ones to be angry at.
Re:GEOHOT! (Score:4, Informative)
If they don't want people repurposing the hardware they sell, they should quit selling them and offer leases instead. Then, they can do what they want without consequence. Right now Sony is just furthering their long string of evil, illegal deeds.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"And then released the hack into the wild."
You can't release a hardware modification into the wild. Software, yes. Hardware requires you to do it yourself, it can't just spread.
And the hack is a hardware one, pulsing overcurrent across a trace to futz memory access.
Sony . . . ? Rootkit . . . ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Kinda sorta sounds familiar . . . but I dunno . . .
Would a company like Sony rootkit their customers . . .?
Future of consoles (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is what differentiates appliances from a PC. What are people expecting? Why should Sony waste time and resources on optional firmware updates? Ultimately the additional cost would be passed on to consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.~ C.S. Lewis
Your sig would tend to disagree with you, apparently.
I'm just sayin'...
There's More (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds pretty reasonable. At least there's no mention of rootkits for now.
EULAs, again, disrespecting the customer. (Score:4, Interesting)
This pretty much disgusts me as a customer, because most likely it means I won't be able to play newer games on my PS3 without worrying that they might be messing around with my system and removing functions I enjoy using on my system. The summary fails to add that Sony also says it's not their fault if they end up bricking your PS3. So, besides having a new flash pushed down your throat, if it fails you have to pay to have it fixed.
No, thanks. I'll stick to my DS Lite and Wii (which is still running System Menu 4.0 and had the IOS files updated using DopIOSMod), where I actually do have enough freedom of what I can or cannot do with my BOUGHT hardware.
They can apply it retroactively (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Trouble is, you can only fight EULAs by starting expensive court cases.
EULAs are basically a catch-22 as far as the customer is concerned; screwed if you agree to it, screwed if you don't.
Surprised? (Score:2, Informative)
Big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
If Sony releases a firmware update that pisses off more than a tiny percentage of users, they will undoubtedly reverse it. And if that tiny percentage of modders/cheaters/hobbyists or whatever else are really hacked off by the update, then they should sell their PS3's on Ebay for 80% of what you paid for it and move on with their lives for God's sake.
Re: (Score:2)
All real estate loans since forever ago allow the bank to 'call' the entire loan amount at any time for any reason. But they never actually do. They just was you to know they can.
Citation, please. I'm fairly certain that practice was outlawed in the 1930's, so long as the borrower has not missed any payments.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like buying a book and, halfway through, the publisher comes around and rips out the last chapters.
People should just sell the rest of the book on Ebay and move on with their lives, right?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
False. Nearly all residential real-estate loans can be called only on sale or default. Call-on-demand got a very bad reputation when banks actually used it in the Great Depression. And mine cannot be declared in default because the value of the collateral went down, unless I _caused_ it to go down through action or neglect. Falling real-estate values don't do it.
Re:Big deal (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sony is forcing PS3 owners towards hacking/modding (Score:2, Insightful)
I know these recent steps by Sony are done with the aim to prevent modding of PS3s, but these moves will actually drive more PS3 owners to mod or hack their PS3s.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I remember, PS3s were for playing games.
Most PS3 owners won't be hacking their console, I'd imagine.
Still Disappointed (Score:2)
Sony's response to complaints about last update (Score:4, Insightful)
I haven't updated to the 3.21 firmware (the one that disables Other OS), and I suspect many others have ignored the update as well. I'm betting Sony sees this and in response has decided the best way to go is to force future updates down our throat, not giving us the option.
Hmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
this is very common (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure why Sony is taking the heat for it more than others. Maybe it's because the good guys like Valve wouldn't pull this crap on us!
http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/ [steampowered.com]
2.A. License Terms.
Face it, all EULAs are designed so that the seller (ha, I mean licensor of course!) can screw you all they want. You just have to hope they don't do it.
Curious (Score:3, Interesting)
A strange maxim to apply: the principles of capitalism say that if Sony decided to discontinue the PS3 and brick every system (say, directly after the release of the PS4), consumers would be free not to purchase Sony products anymore and a competitor would exploit the company's poor behavior and corrective action would naturally result. On the other hand, the principles of jurisprudence over property say that the same action would be trespass to chattels (i.e. something similar to destruction of property) without the normal coupling of aftermark modification. A party cannot interfere with the lawful possession of property by another.
But that argument returns to the client/server nature of the property in question: is it intentional conversion if your wireless company stopped accepting connections from your particular model of phone? The phone is clearly property that you own and free from restriction beyond the federal regulations regarding airborne communication, but so are the towers owned by the service provider.
These questions just go to show that a large portion of property law is theoretical and has not been litigated. Fascinating nonetheless.
Sony you are losing this customer (Score:5, Interesting)
You own the hardware, you license the software. (Score:5, Insightful)
You own the plastic and the metal of the console, and can do anything you want with it. You do not own the system software on the machine. This means no reverse engineering the system software, no editing the software, no reselling or redistribution of the software. This includes editing the software to circumvent encryption or DRM on any medium you play on the console, or editing it in any way to use the system software as a gateway to installing another OS or apps. The Other OS hack that is currently out now is in direct violation of the user's licensing agreement.
You can turn your PS3 into a doorstop, or you can run any OS or apps you want on it, AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT MESS WITH THE INCLUDED SYSTEM SOFTWARE. If you can code an entirely new system software to run the PS3 WITHOUT using any preexisting code from the system software included with the PS3, you are welcome to do so, and I encourage someone with the skills to do so to attempt this.
If you have ever pressed "Accept" while updating your system software, then you have agreed to play by Sony's rules, which is just fine for me and the other 95% of the people using the PS3 to play games and watch movies.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny 'cause it's true. Well, it's not that funny.
Re:New Overlords (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember kids: If you think that the government doesn't represent your interests, its just because you don't matter enough.
Devices with vs. without a leash (Score:3, Interesting)
How many devices are out now that give the manufacturer complete remote control of the device?
A lot, but most of them have an alternative without such a leash. Game consoles have PCs, iPod Touch has the Archos 5, iPhone has phones that run Android OS such as Nexus One, iPad has the Touch Book, and soon handheld game systems will have the Pandora PDA [wikipedia.org]. This leaves cable boxes, but those aren't tied to the manufacturer as much as to the MPAA-puppet cable companies.
Re:Devices with vs. without a leash (Score:4, Interesting)
With cable boxes in particular, I'm not surprised the hardware is locked down. Since it has exactly one legitimate use (watching cable from your provider), there's little need to hack it. But really, any limits on that hardware is really a limit on the service provided.
That said, it's interesting that Sony has chosen this method to counteract (I assume) hacking and piracy. Microsoft just kicks people off their network when they mod their 360, I'm surprised Sony cripples all use.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
The law is not catching up quickly enough.
What good is the law when it's not enforced? If you root Sony's computers, you'll go to prison. Nobody went to prison when Sony rooted me and lots of other people. It didn't even cost them much money.
Why haven't those in charge of the mining company that killed all those miners two weeks ago after being cited time after time for safety violations, including their methane detectors and ventilation systems not working properly, been charged with negligent homicide? If you negligently killed two dozen people how long would you be free?
More laws are not the answer until they start enforcing the ones already on the books. A law that isn't being enforced is hardly a law at all, and a law that is selectively enforced is just plain evil.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More laws are not the answer until they start enforcing the ones already on the books. A law that isn't being enforced is hardly a law at all, and a law that is selectively enforced is just plain evil.
It's not selectively enforced. It's quite logical. The company has more money than you do, so they don't get punished. See how easy that was?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
+1
Dumbest thread topic I have seen in a long time, and an insult to those who live/have lived under true totalitarian regimes. Waah, my video game system automatically updates! I'm so oppressed!
Like you would know (Score:3, Insightful)
People who have lived under totalitarian governments are speaking up about how parts of the West (esp. the English-speaking parts) have more surveillance than the Eastern Block ever had, and how saddened they are that the War On Drugs and War On Terrorism are being used to promote a cycle of maximum incarceration.
Oh, BTW, welcome to the War On Piracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it does [slashdot.org]. Now crawl back to your cave, troll.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I paid money based on the device having a certain functionality and the company takes that functionality away that is fraud. If I sold you an MP3 player and 60 days later it would no longer play MP3s would you say so what?
Re: (Score:2)
Now if Sony had a EULA that said some like 'this EULA is binding in perpetuity a
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
They marketed the PS2 as a system that could:
1) Play PS3 games, including games with online functionality.
2) Use linux, and other OSes.
It is a Playstation 3. As such, one has a realistic expectation that "Playstation 3 compatible" software will run on it. Unlike the PC, Sony controls the hardware and licenses the software specifically to ensure such compatibility.
It had Other OS support. It was marketed as supporting it. People (in some cases) bought it specifically as a result of such support.
Here's the crux of the problem: They have made it impossible to actually use the device as it was marketed.
I have games that boast they have online support. Sony says they are PS3-compatible, and support networking (subject to the terms of the Playstation Network). They then use the PSN to force an upgrade which would disable the very functionality they sold me.
So,
"Buy this PS3, get games, online functionality, and linux"
"Lose linux, or lose online functionality"
With forced firmware updates, it can get even worse. Newer PS3 games can require certain firmware versions to run.
"Buy this PS3 to get games, online functionality, and linux"
"Lose linux, or lose games, and online functionality"
Even if you accept the Playstation Network TOS changes, and feel that "it's their network, they can set whatever terms they want" - the PS3 was marketed as a dual-purpose device, and forced firmware changes would literally force you to choose between the two. That would be fine if it was sold that way, but it was not.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
And haven't software licences since the beginning of time stated that (I'm paraphrasing) this software is useless, not guaranteed to do anything useful, including function, noones responsible for losses and specifically, YOU DO NOT OWN THE SOFTWARE ?
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Funny)
This seems like such a huge deal when you put it that way, but really... so what?
Let's see how you feel after Sony's monitoring programs see how good you are at Starfighter and recruit you in their real world war against the Ko-Dan Empire. Meanwhile, your android replacement will be sleeping with your wife.
Re: (Score:2)
So what?
So what's next to go!
Are Sony going to remove the ability to play blu-ray movies? Are they going to block any games release over a year ago? Are they going to change the firmware to push advertising on your screen while you're gaming? Is the firmware going to demand you have their latest webcam or other add-on attached in order to boot? Sony can do all of that and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Then again; "so what?"
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't about linux. It never was. This is about getting what you paid for, and keeping it.
Let's say you bought a fairly expensive item - like a car. Let's also, for the sake of simplicity, say you paid for it in full. You are the owner of the car.
Included in the price you paid, there are a bunch of features - some you'll use, others you won't. Regardless of whether you use them, you paid for them. Moonroof, heated seats, air conditioning, etc...
Let's say one of those features is free maintenance every 6 months, at the manufacturer's dealership. You bring in the car, and they change the oil, fill the fluids, check the air in your tires, replace the windshield wipers, etc...
Now, a year after you bought the car, you bring it in for service. When you get it back, the heated seats have been replaced with physically-identical un-heated seats.
This may not upset you too much if you never actually used the heated seats. However, was it right for the manufacturer to remove them?
The next time you bring it in for maintenance, you ask what they plan to do. In addition to the usual stuff, they tell you they intend to remove your air conditioner - not because there's a problem with it, but because the manufacturer has decided they don't want to support air conditioners anymore. You protest - you paid for the air conditioner, and it's something you use. You don't want to lose it. The dealership says "OK, take the car and leave then. We're not working on it unless you let us remove the air conditioner. Oh, and you won't be able to play any new CDs in your CD player until you let us remove the AC."
This is what Sony's already done. This is what folks are complaining about - and what they have a right and duty to complain about.
What Sony's doing now is equivalent to the dealership saying: "We can come in the middle of the night and remove your AC if we so choose, without telling you or giving you the right to refuse".
Who owns that car again?
Who owns your PS3?
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of PS3 owners don't know or care about these things. They bought the console to play games and/or bluray movies and as long as it does that they are happy.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you read the Theft of Service page?
Exactly what service are the customers providing that Sony is not paying for?