To Kyle Kulyk

 Read your article, and I would like to announce to the world some very good news.

 You have no idea what you're talking about.

 Now, before you start drooling in rage, let me rationally let you and the rest of the world know exactly what I mean by "good news". Owners of systems don't have to worry about their systems being broken, antiquated pieces of crap a week after release. If something is broken, Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft will fix it, and even better, they will keep adding to the pile of goodies that you can expect with your purchased consoles.

 What Mr. Kulyk is trying to say is that because the EULA, which is historically proven to mean very little when it comes to legally protecting anything, would become a one way street. Since you can't remove a feature, you couldn't possibly add one without suffering the same legal backlash. Well....no. That's not what it means at all.

 The EULA, TOS, or whatever you want to call it, is generally considered to be a "cover your ass" method of displaying the rules you intend to follow in relation to the law. If Sony were to include a paragraph prohibiting the use of pornographic images as avatars, they could do this. Their servers are a privilege, and for a person to get online flashing junk everywhere is in violation of the standards Sony would like to set for themselves. Legally, Sony may set standards above and beyond what is lawful in a public place, just like private property. If someone sues Sony to allow their junk to be an avatar, they can't cite free speech as a defense, and Sony wins easily.

 What those agreements can't do is break an already existing law. You may absolutely state that you have a higher expectation of a consumer than a law will allow, but you absolutely cannot break the law while doing so. Removal of a purchased feature is like an auto-maker saying that they have the right to come and strip the paint off your car. Certain things are illegal. Theft is illegal. Now, the question is whether or not Other OS was an advertised feature, and that argument is one that Sony is probably going to lose. The reason is that Sony made a profit using these unique feature to separate themselves from the XBox 360. If one person purchases a PS3 knowing that the Other OS was a feature, then Sony made money off that.

 What bothers me is that the suing seems amateur. I read the dates that someone wants compensation for, March 27th 2010, I think, was the closing date. Slim PS3's that have been on the shelf for months have never had the Other OS feature, and should not be a part of the lawsuit at all. Trying to make the argument that gamers are intelligent about their purchases while not being intelligent about what systems are in the mix doesn't sound like a great place to start building a reputation.

 So, Kyle Kulyk, you are wrong. The lawsuits are there to protect you, not take things away from you. The EULA is something that needs to be fought against. It's called precedent. If they take away features now and no one legally stops them, then they COULD, in theory, take away the Blu-Ray player that came with the system by locking it out. If there was a security hole in the Other OS, that's what needed to be fixed. The hole. An EULA can never, ever break an already existing law. Theft is against the law, and Sony is guilty of that. They are absolutely allowed to modify, add, and remove things, but a paid feature being removed is theft. If they took Facebook away, they are allowed to. If they add Twitter, they are allowed to. You're saying that if they can't remove Other OS then they can't add Twitter or update their Facebook functionality, and I'm sorry to say that you're completely mis-informed. Please don't post anything on this topic again. It's all wrong. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit