1) A company has a right to do pretty much anything with their own software, as long as it is documented in the software licensing agreement (which you agreed to when you first started the console). I can almost guarantee that the PS3 licensing agreement includes a clause that authorizes them to change the system unilaterally. It sucks, but ultimately it's their software, not yours -- all you are doing is licensing it according to specific terms. Personally, I hate it when PSN forces me to update my PSP firmware just to sign on and look at the store -- it's annoying and kind of abusive. But, according to the software license, it's certainly within their rights to do so. 2) I'm with you on this one. Regardless of whether they can or would do anything to folks who visited the jailbreaking website, it's still a Big Brother move. The thing to keep in mind is that, until very recently, Sony was selling PS3s at a serious loss. They don't want you to play homebrew games on it, they don't want you to run Linux on it: they want you to buy as many officially-licensed titles as possible, because that's how they make their money. Apple, on the other hand, makes the majority of its money on device sales; they may not like it when people jailbreak them (from a security and user experience perspective), but they come out golden either way. Sony claims that their goal is to sell NGPs at a profit. We'll see whether that changes their overall business model. One of the advantage of their current way of doing business is that it keeps them focused on the software side (which is why their consoles have such long lifespans). In any event, I agree that the IP thing is a scumbag move, but they certainly do have a legal right to enforce their software license agreement.
A 400 pound man has the legal right to walk around in public dressed as Sailor Moon and Amazon has the right to delete books off your kindle but I doubt most people would find ether practice acceptable. Sony might have legally been allowed to remove otheros under the EULA but they still damaged their credibility and public trust by doing so.
Meaning people will actually start to read the terms & agreement instead of just checking yes to buzz through the "set up" portion. However I doubt that most of those purchased devices or systems will be returned because it says "don't jailbreak our software or your device won't work". Mainly because most people don't buy systems and devices with the sole purpose of jail breaking. They buy it because they like they way it's designed originally. A few hackers get legal spotlight and all of a sudden everyones a hero on a crusade to save consumers from "the man"....the same "man" you willing gave your money to....the same "man" who's license you agreed to. The small narrow minded demographic that "boycot" based on these actions will never hurt a global company like Sony. Because chances are there TV is a Sony anyway.
Can't disagree with that. Often what is legal and what is right do not coincide. At the same time, the sentiment expressed in the OP ("I bought the console, so I get to do what I want with it") is more than a little naive. I should note that licensing can benefit individuals, too, not just big corporations. A quick example: a few years ago I designed the dustjacket of novel by a fairly well known writer. The work was made available to the publlisher under a license; they could print the image on the book, use it for the paperback, in advetisinf and in-store displays, etc. However, when an audio-book publisher bought the rights for the title, they had to pay me again to reproduce the cover on the packaging. The original publisher may have used my design, but I still owned it. I can tell you that getting a check for no work was pretty darn sweet.
This is definitely not true in a lot of countries. In most of europe consumer rights are stronger and more clearly defined by law. No EULA can trump the law. I believe it's a fairly strong argument that a sale has taken place the moment goods have been exchanged for cash. SONY's actions is being looked at in Europe as they have arguably changed the product to deliver less than it did when it was sold.
You are absolutely right: the US has some of the most rights-holder-biased laws in the world, and the situation in Europe is very different.
It might bend laws but if Sony are protecting their property and the user agreed to the terms they've got a good case. You're right that a EULA cannot trump the law but when it comes to court it's often a close battle.
I'm not suggesting that piracy is "good" or that it doesn't hurt smaller companies and individuals but to play devils advocate for a moment would the iPod and everything that's spawned from it exist today if not for rampant music piracy in the late 90's or would the current consoles be playing mp4 and avi files if it wasn't for xbmc? I certainly don't think so. I can't even play a freaking game of duck hunt on my wii unless it's softmodded and I would gladly pay Nintendo for the privilege.
