If I buy physical goods, I have an expectation that I completely own it and can do with it whatever I want, and can share my experience completely with others.
What Sony is trying to say is that when you buy a PS3 you are sort of renting it, and they still own what you can and can't do with it. Perhaps because they are selling it at a loss so they can make money when you buy games. I think that in this case they should NOT sell the device to consumers but lease/rent it, because that is the agreement they are really looking for.
It may seem like renting to you, but unfortunately those licensing terms you agree to when you open a package of new hardware or install a piece of software, are legal.
It is a shame, but if you don't agree to it, don't buy and use the product.
Sony, in this case, has strong reasons for wanting to protect their console. Namely because of the contracts they hold with certain chip makers, and because they are expecting profits from playstation games to offset production costs of the console, of which there are none if people are buying loads of them to run their clusters.
If we're only concerned about strict legality, EULAs are on very shaky legal ground. For example, EULAs that you don't sign _before_ buying the product have no legal standing at all in the EU. Sony has already tried suing PSJailbreak in Spain, they lost and had to pay damages.
What Sony is trying to say is that when you buy a PS3 you are sort of renting it, and they still own what you can and can't do with it. Perhaps because they are selling it at a loss so they can make money when you buy games. I think that in this case they should NOT sell the device to consumers but lease/rent it, because that is the agreement they are really looking for.