Mar 29, 2010 9:46 PM
FW 3.21 and Consumer Right's Law: No Conjecture, Just Facts
-
Like (108)
![]()
Get help with the latest PS3 system update and find out what’s in the firmware in the official PlayStation forum. This is the community to discuss what’s coming with the next PlayStation 3 system update.
Hello all,
,I noticed there was some consternation on this topic, so I thought I'd toss my hat in the ring. I apologize for creating yet another thread on the subject, but the others had grown trollish enough in tone and tenor that I felt a new one was merited.
,,
First and foremost, let me fully qualify my opinion on the matter:
,,
I'm not a PS3 user (in fact, I own a 360), so this change does not personally effect me. I actually created this account for the sole purpose of discussing this issue.
,,
I am, however, a Law Student and an ardent suporter of Consumer Rights (especially in the tech industry), FOSS, net neutrality and that ilk. As such, I have a very strong personal interest in the matter.
,,
That being said, after examining the relevant web content on Sony's website, as well as the FTC's website, I can say with a degree of certainty that the proposed Firmware update WOULD, in fact, violate US Consumer Protection Laws.
,,
My sources:
,http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/baitads-gd.htm
,http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps3/current/settings/osinstall.html
,,
The case is quite simple.
,,
The FTC defines "advertisement" as "any form of public notice however disseminated or utilized." In this case, the second Sony owned and maintained website, detailing how to install an alternate OS on a PS3. In a legal sense, Other OS is an advertisement feature of the applicable models of the Sony PS3.
,As such, Sony is legally obligated to honor that advertisement. Should they disable Other OS with the oncoming Firmware update, they would be committing an ex post facto "Bait and Switch", according to US Consumer Protection Laws.
,,
This being said, I highly encourage all PS3 users who feel jilted by this change to stick to your guns. Post in the forums, call their customer service hotline and, should the need arise, find a Class Action suit to join. Despite what the detractors may say, the law IS, in fact, on your side.
,,
Peace, Love and Empathy,
,,
Jaecyn42
,,
EDIT:
,,
I decided to add this information to the original post, as it may get lost in the body of the thread.
,,
The FTC's online complaint form:
,https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/
,,
The Canadian Office of Consumer Affairs' Cosumer Handbook:
,http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/oca-bc.nsf/eng/h_ca02349.html
,,
EDIT 2:
,,
Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread. I'm afraid my work here is done, I will be hanging up my PS3 forum account and returning home to my native Ubuntu forums. Remember what you've learned here. Read, write, call, file reports with your national consumer protection organization and, if necessary, pursue legal action. The law is in your side.
,,
Peace, Love and Empathy,
,Jaecyn42
,You don't have a Ps3 and just made an account to post this? -.-
Yes, I made an account just to post this. As I stated, Consumer Rights is kinda my thing. I read about this on the Ubuntu forums earlier today and immediately started digging a little deeper.
Things like this may seem kinda inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, but technology is the future frontier of Civil Liberties. We must keep our eyes peeled for shenanigans.
By the Federal Trade Commission's definition of "advertisement", the feature is indeed advertised. Please see OP for further details.
/unthread
@ Sir Trigalot: Intention does not a Bait and Switch make. Moreover, this firmware update will do nothing to curtial the efforts of hackers and pirates. GeoHot was using illegally modded firmware to begin with. This change will not affect hackers, only consumers who were using the Other OS feature legitimately.
Jaecyn42 wrote:Hello all,
I noticed there was some consternation on this topic, so I thought I'd toss my hat in the ring. I apologize for creating yet another thread on the subject, but the others had grown trollish enough in tone and tenor that I felt a new one was merited.
First and foremost, let me fully qualify my opinion on the matter:
I'm not a PS3 user (in fact, I own a 360), so this change does not personally effect me. I actually created this account for the sole purpose of discussing this issue.
I am, however, a Law Student and an ardent suporter of Consumer Rights (especially in the tech industry), FOSS, net neutrality and that ilk. As such, I have a very strong personal interest in the matter.
That being said, after examining the relevant web content on Sony's website, as well as the FTC's website, I can say with a degree of certainty that the proposed Firmware update WOULD, in fact, violate US Consumer Protection Laws.
My sources:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/baitads-gd.htm
http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps3/current/settings/osinstall.html
The case is quite simple.
The FTC defines "advertisement" as "any form of public notice however disseminated or utilized." In this case, the second Sony owned and maintained website, detailing how to install an alternate OS on a PS3. In a legal sense, Other OS is an advertisement feature of the applicable models of the Sony PS3.
As such, Sony is legally obligated to honor that advertisement. Should they disable Other OS with the oncoming Firmware update, they would be committing an ex post facto "Bait and Switch", according to US Consumer Protection Laws.
This being said, I highly encourage all PS3 users who feel jilted by this change to stick to your guns. Post in the forums, call their customer service hotline and, should the need arise, find a Class Action suit to join. Despite what the detractors may say, the law IS, in fact, on your side.
Peace, Love and Empathy,
Jaecyn42
nice try. they have never advertised the other OS as a core feature. doesn't count.
People aren't looking at this the way the court's will.
Sony isn't removing OtherOS, they are removing the Online Services of the Console if people decide to keep OtherOS which is their choice.
Sony can remove the online services at any time, for any reason. The only way for this to get anywhere in the courts is to start a Class Action started and get a Judge that is familiar with the Playstation to begin with so you can set a precedent.
Bait and Switch would only apply if Sony was removing the feature from every console (including current and past firmware updates)
As much as I want OtherOS to stay I really think the law is on Sony's side with this one, especially with the stupid DMCA protecting their intellectual rights.
From the FTC's website:
No practice should be pursued by an advertiser, in the event of sale of the advertised product, of "unselling" with the intent and purpose of selling other merchandise in its stead. Among acts or practices which will be considered in determining if the initial sale was in good faith, and not a stratagem to sell other merchandise, are:
(a) Accepting a deposit for the advertised product, then switching the purchaser to a higher-priced product,
(b) Failure to make delivery of the advertised product within a reasonable time or to make a refund,
(c) Disparagement by acts or words of the advertised product, or the disparagement of the guarantee, credit terms, availability of service, repairs, or in any other respect, in connection with it,
(d) The delivery of the advertised product which is defective, unusable or impractical for the purpose represented or implied in the advertisement. [Guide 4]
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/baitads-gd.htm
This situation verily does apply to the FTC's law on Bait and Switch, particularly the language in bullets (b) and (c).
Like it, or not, Sony is obligated by law to keep the Other OS function on models which it has advertised (according the FTC's definition of advertisement) as having that function. To do otherwise would be a failure to deliver the advertised product and a disparagement of the guarantee made by Sony in that advertisement.
Don't you think Sony, being a giant company, already have their own legal advisors to advice them on this matter?
And they went ahead with it anyway which means yes, they can actually do it.
Nice try but no, your trolling won't work.
Even geohotz had this to say
Legally, they may be within their right to do so, but we have to show them it's the wrong move for the future of the product and the company.
Ziggurcat, one picture of a PowerPoint slide at E3 does not encompass the entirety of Sony's advertisements. As I stated in the OP, the FTC defines advertisement as "any form of public notice however disseminated or utilized."
Under this definition, Sony's own website, which explains how to use the Other OS function, legally qualifies as advertisement.
Spider, chances are, Sony's legal department did some rough napkin math on how many users actually use the Other OS function, how many were likely to raise a fuss about it and determined that they probably could get away with doing it anyhow.
"They wouldn't do it if it was illegal." is not a valid argument. Businesses break the law constantly, not because they errantly though they were abiding by the law; but because they thought they could get away with it.
Jaecyn42 wrote:From the FTC's website:
No practice should be pursued by an advertiser, in the event of sale of the advertised product, of "unselling" with the intent and purpose of selling other merchandise in its stead. Among acts or practices which will be considered in determining if the initial sale was in good faith, and not a stratagem to sell other merchandise, are:
(a) Accepting a deposit for the advertised product, then switching the purchaser to a higher-priced product,
(b) Failure to make delivery of the advertised product within a reasonable time or to make a refund,
(c) Disparagement by acts or words of the advertised product, or the disparagement of the guarantee, credit terms, availability of service, repairs, or in any other respect, in connection with it,
(d) The delivery of the advertised product which is defective, unusable or impractical for the purpose represented or implied in the advertisement. [Guide 4]
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/baitads-gd.htm
This situation verily does apply to the FTC's law on Bait and Switch, particularly the language in bullets (b) and (c).
Like it, or not, Sony is obligated by law to keep the Other OS function on models which it has advertised (according the FTC's definition of advertisement) as having that function. To do otherwise would be a failure to deliver the advertised product and a disparagement of the guarantee made by Sony in that advertisement.
again, nice try. you're taking something that only applies to the initial sale of the product completely out of context.
Site Feedback |Where to Buy |Terms of Service |Privacy Policy |Country Selector