You don't get it..
Because you possibly haven't thought about it?
You sound like the kind of person who is all for the extension of copyright (because, like, dude, it's all about the IP man). Despite the fact that this is actual theft from the public domain (getting it legally sanctioned is a tactic worthy of the robber barons of old).
Realistically, Sony aren't protecting their IP (nobody is copying it, nobody is repackaging it and claiming it as their own). What they're trying to do is make your purchase of an item an effective lease (which they don't really push home in consumer friendly bites, probably because most people aren't really interested), where they try and dictate what you can do with what you've bought.
Want to hit it with a hammer? Fine. Want to place a bit of solder in it? Not fine.
Advertise something (I bought a PS3 because it supported Linux/other OS, which I thought was a great idea, so purchased by putting my money where my beliefs are), and then remove the functionality later? Now that's making a mockery of consumer relations, and fair dealing.
When you look at this dispassionately, a company has sold an item, on the merit of performing tasks A and B.
The company then decides it doesn't want you to do A anymore, so removes that functionality from the device, allowing you to do either A or B (and if you do B, you'll never be able to do A again). This reduces the value of the item to everybody affected. Company does not offer restitution for the devaluing of the product, and the reduction of functionality.
Now, a person comes along, and says "This is unfair. I bought to do A and B, and I will find a way to do A and B". This person works out how to do both A and B again, restoring functionality to that initial agreement you made when you purchased the item.
This restoration to the original terms of the deal lands the person in court with life destroying fines and a criminal record.
What's to get?