You dont own anything you buy. You are renting it. It never belongs for you, you have no right to do with it as you please. You must obey/use it as instructed. Welcome to 1984.Echo136 said:
Anonymous Splinter Group Targeting Sony Executives
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I know, im not forced to buy it. But if i do buy it, it is mine. Its a trade. The foundation of all civilisation for thousands of years. Suddenly companies think they can change this definition to mean i dont own things i trade for. I think that before this becomes Ok we need to grab it by the balls and let them know that actually it ISNT. Other companies may try this. I can damn well own things i pay for. Christ, im not pirating, im purchasing and im PUNISHED. I dont support piracy, but hell i can see where the temptation is. Its a message. A message you cannot decide we dont own things we pay for. You ignored my examples, dont you agree they are unfair? They are similar. The 1984 thing was rather theatrical, more than it was a proper comparison.Echo136 said:
As I said when I edited the post, if Hotz had just modified his PS3 he would have gone unnoticed, but its the fact that he published how he did it along with source code (or whatever the code was) to the public on the internet, which was then virally sent around the internet is what brought this whole thing to a boil.Agayek said:
Its becoming increasingly clear that software, which is an intangible thing, cant follow those same guidelines of ownership. Intellectual Property Rights are muddled when it comes to software. Think for a second about the OS you are using right now. Unless you are using Linux, which you probably are according to your previous post, you dont own the OS. You are buying the rights to use it, not own it.BiscuitTrouser said:
I have no intention to get into an intellectual argument about EULAs. My position about them is that yes they are flawed but they serve a purpose which shortsighted people seem to forget. To protect the person/company that made it from having it being abused. I have never felt that by signing a EULA, which I've done countless times, I was signing away my soul or shoving a red hot poker up my ass. I feel people are just having an attitude of "if a company makes something, it shouldnt belong to them" and acting like babies.
Not surprising.
The more known an organization becomes, the larger it becomes.
The larger an organization becomes, the more likely certain elements will enter the organization.
As more of that element enters the organization, the likelihood of internal strife and discord increases.
If measures aren't taken to keep things under control, well shit happens. [see OP]
Of course this all assumes that the original Anon group is aware and responsible for this and that they are not "merely" the acts of either a) imitators or b)a dissident faction within Anon. Either way assuming that this isn't all merely so much smoke, I'm guessing that Anon will act fast to either disprove or confirm that this "splinter group" is operating under official "Anon sanction". Where it goes from there is grim business at best.
The more known an organization becomes, the larger it becomes.
The larger an organization becomes, the more likely certain elements will enter the organization.
As more of that element enters the organization, the likelihood of internal strife and discord increases.
If measures aren't taken to keep things under control, well shit happens. [see OP]
Of course this all assumes that the original Anon group is aware and responsible for this and that they are not "merely" the acts of either a) imitators or b)a dissident faction within Anon. Either way assuming that this isn't all merely so much smoke, I'm guessing that Anon will act fast to either disprove or confirm that this "splinter group" is operating under official "Anon sanction". Where it goes from there is grim business at best.
Except the fact that he distributed it is irrelevant. What you're saying is the equivalent of someone posting a step-by-step instruction guide to replacing their carburetor with a non-factory standard one. It's literally exactly the same.Echo136 said:
Hotz went online and said "Use this to modify your console to do X". Any of a billion car part guides on the internet do the same thing, literally "Do this to make your car do X". Why the hell isn't Joe the Mechanic being sued by GM? The logic is the same. Either it's permissible to modify all of your property, or none of it. And I know which one I'd rather have.
No you can't. I can't hack my direct tv satellite dish to allow me to beam broadcasts to televisions around the world. I can't use my cctv cameras in my store to make voyeur videos of women in the bathroom. There's a ton of things out there that I can't just use my products for. They supposed to be used as intended. And Sony's issue HERE is not people modding their PS3's for their own purposes... Again, nobody is trying to mod their ps3 to make spreadsheets or to run their home security system. They are doing it with the motivation of playing games they did not buy, and I don't care how many excuses people make at the end of the day THIS is the ultimate goal of Ps3 modders by and large. To claim anything else is not only being dishonest, it's being ignorant.Agayek said:
So yeah, for the one or two guys out there who were hoping to use the PS3 linux to run the millions of scenarios on their dna research project, it's a tough loss. But that isn't what most people want it for. If you want to do that, there are more powerful and elegant computer systems available than a blu-ray playing HOME GAMING CONSOLE. Most people want to play pirated games. You won't ever convince me otherwise. All the proof you need is to take a look at any PS3 hacking/modding website and its forums and you'll see EXACTLY what everyone is looking to "do" with their system.
Disagree. The only thing the company can do is decide to SELL it or NOT.HyenaThePirate said:
Companies do not have a right to dictate how people can use their products once those products become the personal property of the customer. The only way that they can prevent that is if they're renting or leasing the product. And I mean, like, actually renting the product where the company retains ownership of the product; like you rent a car from Hertz at the airport, or a movie from a rental store (why does that comparison make me feel old?). Sony does not rent or lease PS3 systems. If I wanted to take my PS3 apart and use its parts as the base for a battle-robot, Sony couldn't tell me, "That's not what our device is to be used for."
This is more of a hardware thing. You sell me a rock? I can draw on my rock. You sell me a machine that COULD run linux but is made not to for no apparent reason? Im gonna draw on my rock! If something can do something, and i want it to, and this was something i was told the product can do, im going to do it. Its more about being able to use the capabilities you have paid for. Its why i dislike on disc DLC, youve sold me something that CAN have feature X but you dont get to because we say so. I own it, and if its within my power to give it feature X why the hell not? This is more of an EULA debate though. I dislike piracy. I hate to think people will abuse the linux running to pirate things. I dislike these people. I just dont want to be punished as one massive group/Echo136 said:
If the lawsuit is over pirating games, then that's what he should be being sued for. Not for modifying his property.HyenaThePirate said:
I'm well aware that the people with modded consoles do very little aside from pirate games. That's not the point though. The fact of the matter is, Sony is targeting Hotz because he modified his property and showed other people how to. If he was being sued for pirating their software, I'd be all for slapping him in irons or whatever, but that's not what they're doing. He's being sued, almost certainly for more money than he'll ever have, simply because he modified something he bought and paid for.
Yes the only reason some one would want to run linux is to pirate games. Dirty United States Air Force.HyenaThePirate said:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/13/air-force-feels-afterburned-as-sony-clips-the-ps3s-linux-wings/
I never understand the level of trepidation the average internet user feels about Anonymous.
As a corporation, Sony has a history of pulling some seriously amoral shit; the legal team they can afford is capable of serious chilling effect. Realistically what they go to court over is never more than a fraction of what their lawyer's work on.
As for going after the families of Sony employees? Considering the financial hardship the corporation has been prepared to inflict on Geohot, I don't feel especially sympathetic.
Ultimately Sony, like any corporation enjoys the legal rights of an individual without ever having to morally justify its actions. The legal department sleep soundly knowing that they're only doing what the execs decided. The execs decide they're only good guys trying to keep the company afloat, so that everyone still has a job tomorrow. The customers never feel any responsibility for suing Geohot, even though from a financial point of view they're the ones funding the same lawyers suing a Geohot - who is a fellow Sony customer.
A corporation never can lose a nights sleep; I don't think they're immoral, but I do think they are amoral.
As a corporation, Sony has a history of pulling some seriously amoral shit; the legal team they can afford is capable of serious chilling effect. Realistically what they go to court over is never more than a fraction of what their lawyer's work on.
As for going after the families of Sony employees? Considering the financial hardship the corporation has been prepared to inflict on Geohot, I don't feel especially sympathetic.
Ultimately Sony, like any corporation enjoys the legal rights of an individual without ever having to morally justify its actions. The legal department sleep soundly knowing that they're only doing what the execs decided. The execs decide they're only good guys trying to keep the company afloat, so that everyone still has a job tomorrow. The customers never feel any responsibility for suing Geohot, even though from a financial point of view they're the ones funding the same lawyers suing a Geohot - who is a fellow Sony customer.
A corporation never can lose a nights sleep; I don't think they're immoral, but I do think they are amoral.
So ... how constitutional would it be if, say, Sony started up an IRC channel an offered $5000 to anybody with infomation that will directly lead to an arrest of key members of people seeking to assail them?
Not very?
Damn ....
It's alright to have an opinion, and certainly it's alright to broadcast those opinions (as long as it isn't used to fuel hate, incite violence or damage to property) ... but to actively target people's personal property simply because they can?
Sorry, but vigilante justice isn't justice at all.
Not very?
Damn ....
It's alright to have an opinion, and certainly it's alright to broadcast those opinions (as long as it isn't used to fuel hate, incite violence or damage to property) ... but to actively target people's personal property simply because they can?
Sorry, but vigilante justice isn't justice at all.
DMCAEcho136 said:
"A review of the four factors enumerated in Section 107 leads to the conclusion that making minor alterations in the firmware of an iPhone (or any smartphone) in order to permit independently created software applications to run on the iPhone is a fair use.
...
In this case, it appears fair to say that the purpose and character of the modification of the operating system is to engage in a private, noncommercial use intended to add functionality to a device owned by the person making the modification, albeit beyond what Apple has determined to be acceptable. The user is not engaging in any commercial exploitation of the firmware, at least not when the jailbreaking is done for the user's own private use of the device, in the situation under consideration by the Register.
The fact that the person engaging in jailbreaking is doing so in order to use Apple's firmware on the device that it was designed to operate, which the jailbreaking user owns, and to use it in precisely the purpose for which it was designed (but for the fact that it has been modified to run applications not approved by Apple) favors a finding that the purpose and character of the use is innocuous at worst and beneficial at best. As discussed below,317 Apple's objections to the installation and use of "unapproved" applications appears to have nothing to do with its interests as the owner of copyrights in the computer programs embodied in the iPhone, and running the unapproved applications has no adverse effect on those interests. Rather, its objections relate to its interests as a manufacturer and distributor of a device, the iPhone."
Emphasis mine.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/07/dmcaexemps.pdf
Relevant case text start around page 77.