The legality of the April 1st, 3.21 PS3 update is being questioned and challenged hourly. Consumers are reporting that they should be able to take away a service already paid for. Debate topics are flooding multiple medias. A call to the Playstation Network (PSN) customer support service resulted in a statement referring to the PSN Terms of Service Agreement that is claimed to suggest that they reserve the right to remove functionality at any given moment. The representative also suggested that blog.us.playstation.com should resolve any further questions and refused to offer more information. (It’s odd they referred a blog rather than an FAQ.)
On the suggested website, another argument for its legality claims that PSN simply gives the option to install the update and in result remove the feature. While it is bad practice to provide a dilemma for an update, any one person reserves the right not to download the update.
Another idea suggests that people have a choice to update all kinds of softwares, but none of those softwares have the right to, or practice the ability to refuse access to already purchased material or services. In example, Itunes cannot restrict use of already purchased songs if the user chooses not to update. Similarly, Microsoft cannot restrict access to features already obtained by not upgrading.
While Sony cannot restrict access to features available on the PS3, they can restrict access to the PSN because the PSN is a service available with terms and conditions.
However, since the product was purchased with the claim that both the PSN and the Other OS features would be available, it is within the stipulations of the law for Sony to accept the return of the system for full retail value.
As a result, the most Sony can be charged with is false advertisement which is a class B misdemeanor in most states. Additionally, this scenario at its worst may only apply to people who have not accepted the PSN network agreement already. The leading question is: “If a user chooses not to accept terms and agreements for softwares, are the companies liable for letting them return the softwares?”