What is happening here is the buyer is altering the item in a way that will cause financial harm to the seller-not might, but WILL cause financial harm to the seller. i don't see how you can justify this, really.
And why does this cause harm to the seller? Because, as I argued in an earlier post, Sony's business model is flawed. They're subsidizing the cost of their hardware with software. That was their decision, and the market is proving it to be a bad one. Technically, if I bought a PS3 and dumped it straight in the trash I'd be causing them the same financial harm, but no one would give me flak for that.
Once a product is out on the market, people will use it how they wish, EULAs be damned. It's where innovation comes from - repurposing and improving existing ideas. Look at this
camera stabilizer made from pipes. That's not how the pipe manufacturer intended their pipes to be used, but do you think they're furious about it? No, they'd probably be delighted because it means more sales to consumers who might not ordinarily buy pipes - a new market segment. And it's instant profit, because their overhead costs are built into the price of their pipes.
In fact, take a look at just about anything at
http://makezine.com. Or, closer to home, look at the Natami, which was derrived from a C-One board. These are all hacked and modified devices that most likely brought a little extra cash to the parts suppliers that might otherwise not have made those sales.
So if Sony is locking themselves out of this market - the market for hardware hackers, open-source enthusiasts, university researchers, cluster computing datacenters, governments - by failing to cost-reduce their hardware or to subsidize it from a less volatile corporate division, then it's their own damn fault for reaping the financial consequences when the market self-corrects to compensate for their shortsightedness.
And the piracy angle? Yeah, this might result in a bunch of 14-year-olds getting free games, but Sony really should have seen it coming; it's a fact of life. Pretty much every copy protection scheme ever designed has been cracked, so they need to be approaching anti-piracy the same way they'd approach poor sales - better marketing, lower software prices, better supply chain and stock management, promotions, and, dare I say it, better software products that people want to buy.
Do they "deserve" it? No, but they made a business decision and now they have to live with the consequences.
