PS3 , Removal of other os . Mis- sold

keyfun

i checked my reciept and it was purchased 10-3-08 , so wasnt sure if this is covered under warenty or if this comes under some other legal terms ?

esuhl

dreamypuma wrote: »

How predictable... I don't think we need a swingometer.

Whilst their isn't any stats that I am aware of, I'd be confident that in a poll of PS3 users, my point would be proven.

Linux is hardly a mainstream OS in the consumer world despite the efforts of some of the more popular distros. The likelihood of your average PS3 user missing Linux is slim. Linux remains the domain of the geeky.

Another widely acknowledged fact is that when a Linux user feels that he / she doesn't like what is being said about Linux, they take a stance similar to an Apple user and behave like their mother has been disrespected.

Oh dear. The (still unsupported) ad hominen abuse directed at Linux users really makes your argument sound childish.

It is irrelevant how many people are affected by this. If ONE person was sold a PS3 as a device on which they could install and run Linux and that capability is being removed, then they should claim damagaes from the retailer (and sue them in the county court if necessary). That would be my approach.

esuhl

keyfun wrote: »

i checked my reciept and it was purchased 10-3-08 , so wasnt sure if this is covered under warenty or if this comes under some other legal terms ?

The warranty is usually with the manufacturer and exists in addition to your statutory rights. I suspect the warranty will have expired and probably wouldn't cover you for the fact that you won't be able to use Linux on your PS3 in future.

The Sale of Goods Act gives you rights with the retailer, such as that the product must be of "satisfactory quality". This is taken to mean "the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory" and includes "fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied" and durability.

If the PS3 was advertised as having the ability to install Linux, then I would say that the inability to do this makes it not fit for such a purpose. Also, if the buyer "expressly or by implication" makes known the fact that they want to be able to install Linux on the PS3, then "there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose".

If the seller is in breach of this contract, the buyer is entitled to claim damages. I'm not 100% sure how this works, but I believe that the damages you could reasonably claim would reduce the longer you own the PS3 - i.e. if you have already owned the PS3 for 4 years, and a reasonable person would expect it to work as advertised for 6 years, you could claim 2/6 of the purchase price in damages.

Disclaimer: I'm not entirely clear how the damages would be calculated and I'm not a legal expert, so consider everything above as just my opinion.

jamespir

keyfun wrote: »

i checked my reciept and it was purchased 10-3-08 , so wasnt sure if this is covered under warenty or if this comes under some other legal terms ?

juts checked sony's website it says the best thing to do is put it all in its box take it to blockbuster and then trade it in for a xbox 360 :rotfl:

keyfun

thanks eshul.
jamespir i already have a 360 bought it at launch , and bought a ps3 fat to do the things a 360 cant do , play blurays ,install linux . looks like i got shafted with a fat bluray player afterall

JUNIOR

jamespir wrote: »

juts checked sony's website it says the best thing to do is put it all in its box take it to blockbuster and then trade it in for a xbox 360 :rotfl:

Cant help but laugh :rotfl:
But when i do trade it in , i only get for 6 months before i get RROD and i have to send that back to M$ , for repair

On a serious note , complain to the retailer thats the advice i've been given . The big retailers wont be happy if thay have a flood of exchanges or refunds.
They might get a better response from sony ! they dont listen to us peasents :T


J

I_know_my_ABC_and_my_CMYK

Sony's copy protection on EA games screwed up loads of computers a couple of years back, to the point where some players lost everything and couldn't use their computers at all.

Arg

This problem affects me too. Aren't there any other laws outside the Sales of goods act which could apply to a company tampering with your property?

OlliesDad

Arg wrote: »

This problem affects me too. Aren't there any other laws outside the Sales of goods act which could apply to a company tampering with your property?

:rotfl::rotfl:

They aren't tampering with your property (unless they break into your home to uninstall the function). By this logic, all software should be supported forever and no updates should ever be released.

The update is optional, so by updating you are authorising the removal.

custardy

OlliesDad wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl:

They aren't tampering with your property (unless they break into your home to uninstall the function). By this logic, all software should be supported forever and no updates should ever be released.

The update is optional, so by updating you are authorising the removal.

its not optional,its optional if you want the operation of your console severely hampered