EFF Calls Sony's Lawsuit Against PS3 Hackers "Dangerous"

[Something Amyss]

Screw off EFF. I like my developers having money.

And since the only way for that to happen is crippling our rights....

 

[Firestorm65]

The chicken and the egg. Which came first?

Did Sony throw the first punch by removing Linux support?

Thing is, when billion dollar corporations start stepping on consumer toes, it's ok with many people here. When consumers step on the toes of billion dollar corporations, it's wrong.

Things are backwards here. Is there any consumer right that you are interested in keeping for consumers or do you really believe the billion dollar corporations know best?

But wait, what would happen if that billino dollar corporations suddenly decided they didn't want to deal with piracy anymore and quit video games?

What you rather be able to modify your console but have no more games being made?

Honestly, lots of time, I say: "Screw consumers." Because of us, DRMs were created. Because of US, not them, US.

DRM became mainstream when the courts ruled it was not illegal to make a copy of a record or tape you alread bought onto a VCR, DVD, or CD. Since then companies have been trying to make legal management of what you already bought harder than buying a second copy because of the unnecessary junk "protecting" it. Itunes went DRM free due to consumer pressure and Apple still sells more than anyone else. Because, as much as I hate the company, cater to their consumers first and foremost.

 

[JDKJ]

I'm not going to quote to reply, but notice how there are a lot of "for personal use" and "to the limits of the law"? Also note termination voids warranty and PSN access, but is not, in of itself, a crime. They reserve the right to sue you if you agree to it, but you didn't sign this if you used the console offline. I know neither one of us wants to let it go, but don't you realize you are saying your right to give up something you are not required to is more important than people exercising the rights they do have. Furthermore, the people they are suing aren't even US citizens, despite filing the claim in the US.

You don't have to sign it. In fact, they don't request your signature. Did you not read the part that says your use of the software implies consent? Consent by use is well-recognized under U.S. law. No signature required. It says (in all-caps):

ACCESS TO OR USE OF THE SYSTEM SOFTWARE IN THE SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC. ("SCE")'S PlayStation®3 COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM UNIT ("PS3? system") IS EXPRESSLY CONDITIONED UPON ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.

You can sue someone in a U.S. court under U.S. law despite the fact that they aren't a a U.S. citizen. Happens every day, all day.

 

[Dan Steele]

Call me crazy if you want, but i agree with Sony. Mainly because hackers ruin the gaming experiance for everyone and steal money from game developers who busted there ass to make the game. Seriously hackers, just because you suck at the games doesnt mean you have to ruin them for everyone.

 

[Deadcyde]

Screw off EFF. I like my developers having money.

You just don't get it do you?

Oh do tell

It wasn't about piracy. It was about the act of jailbreaking the PS3. Downloading games is still illegal.

For future reference, I don't like jailbreaking either for what it opens the doors to do.

We could apply that logic of "It allows people to do other stuff" to many other areas. For example: Should we ban people from modifying cars purely because they could plant a bomb in the car and use it for a suicide bomb?
Should we ban people from modifying computers because they could be used for illegal stuff?
Should we ban the use of proxies because people could use them to download child pornography and/or copyrighted material?
Should we ban the use of game mods because they could be used to train people to commit massacres?

The list goes on, most people will only hack the PS3 so that they can mess around with their own mods in single player.

1. Yes.
2. No, computers are much different.
3. Yes.
4. No, that's just a stretch.

Homebrew and jailbroke PS3s are more often used for piracy than not. Due to this fact, it is perfectly reasonable for Sony to rule against jailbreaking PS3s.

1. so home maintainence/upgrading should be illegal
2. yes, they have the ability to violate alot more peoples rights then anything else mentioned so far
3. so you should remove one of the most effective ways to prevent hackers from wrecking your shit?
4. mods are use of modified source code, a violation of intellectual property if anything.


basically, point i'm making is this is a crossroads here, but it is only a brick in a wall of possible future. Momentum of capitalism could still crush it even if it goes in the hackers favor or general disatisfaction from people due to stringent control of user options forcing them to go outside the legal avenues just so they can get the most out of something they paid a ridiculous amount for.

time will tell.. personally i hope sony and the hackers come to an agreement, perhaps with sony taking into account the hackers desires and integrating them to perhaps make hacking less appealing rather then just trying to squeeze every dollar from the consumer and the hacker getting uppity about it cause s/he's wiped out from buying the console alone that s/he can't afford the games. As well as it would make the potential hacker more invested in the console/whatever and so less likely to want to fuck it up as it reflects his needs.

but then again i dream of a day we all eat rainbows and shit butterflys so maybe i'm being overly optimistic

 

[Korten12]

The chicken and the egg. Which came first?

Did Sony throw the first punch by removing Linux support?

Thing is, when billion dollar corporations start stepping on consumer toes, it's ok with many people here. When consumers step on the toes of billion dollar corporations, it's wrong.

Things are backwards here. Is there any consumer right that you are interested in keeping for consumers or do you really believe the billion dollar corporations know best?

But wait, what would happen if that billino dollar corporations suddenly decided they didn't want to deal with piracy anymore and quit video games?

What you rather be able to modify your console but have no more games being made?

Honestly, lots of time, I say: "Screw consumers." Because of us, DRMs were created. Because of US, not them, US.

If Wal Mart closes it's doors, KMart and Target are still here and others will come to replace Wal Mart. So Wal Mart would be hurting itself, no one else.

What kind of an addict are you? You wanna give away all OUR consumer rights because you fear that might stop making video games? They are in business to make money, they aren't going to start pouting and close their doors because if they did that they would make no money.

Addict, wow, going to insults now? I wish for lots of consumers rights, but their are limits. Just like how their are laws still in free nations.

Also to make money, do you think they make money when they get the game for free?

Its shocks me how people on this site, seem to not think piracy is a problem and that they should be able to do it.

 

[Firestorm65]

I'm not going to quote to reply, but notice how there are a lot of "for personal use" and "to the limits of the law"? Also note termination voids warranty and PSN access, but is not, in of itself, a crime. They reserve the right to sue you if you agree to it, but you didn't sign this if you used the console offline. I know neither one of us wants to let it go, but don't you realize you are saying your right to give up something you are not required to is more important than people exercising the rights they do have. Furthermore, the people they are suing aren't even US citizens, despite filing the claim in the US.

You don't have to sign it. In fact, they don't request your signature. Did you not read the part that says your use of the software implies consent? Consent by use is well-recognized under U.S. law. No signature required.

You can sue someone in a U.S. court under U.S. law despite the fact that they aren't a a U.S. citizen. Happens every day, all day.

I must return to the fact that EULA's are not, in fact, a legal contract unless upheld by the court. And the courts have ruled again and again that software control does NOT extend to hardware. Apple and MS and a thousand other companies wish it were so but it's not the law. However, if Sony can sue people into silence, it becomes law de facto despite being wrong.

 

[JDKJ]

I'm not going to quote to reply, but notice how there are a lot of "for personal use" and "to the limits of the law"? Also note termination voids warranty and PSN access, but is not, in of itself, a crime. They reserve the right to sue you if you agree to it, but you didn't sign this if you used the console offline. I know neither one of us wants to let it go, but don't you realize you are saying your right to give up something you are not required to is more important than people exercising the rights they do have. Furthermore, the people they are suing aren't even US citizens, despite filing the claim in the US.

You don't have to sign it. In fact, they don't request your signature. Did you not read the part that says your use of the software implies consent? Consent by use is well-recognized under U.S. law. No signature required.

You can sue someone in a U.S. court under U.S. law despite the fact that they aren't a a U.S. citizen. Happens every day, all day.

It's not legally binding.

Let me ask you this. That EULA was dated 2009. What happens when the user of a launch PS3 doesn't agree to the 2009 EULA? He can't return the console, it's well past it's return date (usually 90 days) and likely past it's warranty.

Why did he sit on it for 90 days if he knew he wasn't going to agree to the EULA terms? That makes no sense. If he isn't going to agree, it shouldn't take him three months to figure that out and then seek a refund or credit. I would think ninety minutes should be more than enough time to decide that you're not in agreement.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

I concur with Sony in their feeling of the need to protect their own creations from hacking, but on the other hand, signing over our hardware doesn't really sound like a way to win any favors.

 

[JDKJ]

I'm not going to quote to reply, but notice how there are a lot of "for personal use" and "to the limits of the law"? Also note termination voids warranty and PSN access, but is not, in of itself, a crime. They reserve the right to sue you if you agree to it, but you didn't sign this if you used the console offline. I know neither one of us wants to let it go, but don't you realize you are saying your right to give up something you are not required to is more important than people exercising the rights they do have. Furthermore, the people they are suing aren't even US citizens, despite filing the claim in the US.

You don't have to sign it. In fact, they don't request your signature. Did you not read the part that says your use of the software implies consent? Consent by use is well-recognized under U.S. law. No signature required.

You can sue someone in a U.S. court under U.S. law despite the fact that they aren't a a U.S. citizen. Happens every day, all day.

I must return to the fact that EULA's are not, in fact, a legal contract unless upheld by the court. And the courts have ruled again and again that software control does NOT extend to hardware. Apple and MS and a thousand other companies wish it were so but it's not the law. However, if Sony can sue people into silence, it becomes law de facto despite being wrong.

Can you cite me those cases that you claim don't uphold EULAs? Because my recent review of the relevant precedents suggests to me that EULAs are more likely upheld than not. The recent case of Vernor v. Autodesk comes to mind (a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case).

 

[Andy Powell]

I am saying that if we bend consumer right for your precious trophies, then we may as well bend consumer rights for everything. Maybe Sony doesn't think you should watch porn on your Sony TV. Maybe Dell doesn't want you to change the video card unless you pay them to do it.

Consumers have bent over backwards to give special treatment to the software industry and it's about time that we stop. Buggy, unfinished software and poorly designed, fragile hardware but consumers put up with it. We wouldn't put it with it from any other industry.

It seems clear to me that if consumers don't put a stop to it, the software industry will take every consumer right we have, in the name of piracy or used sales or anything else they can pull out of their asses!

In short, your fuckin' trophies aren't worth more than my consumer rights.

Nobody held a gun to your head and told you to buy a PS3. You did so willingly, knowing exactly what it was and what it represented. You agreed to the EULA's. There's nobody hiding behind a curtain pretending that the PS3 was supposed to be this open source development environment. You bought it KNOWING that it was supposed to be a closed system. Going back to your motorcycle metaphor, that's like you buying a Harley then complaining that it's not making pancakes for you. Meanwhile everyone else just hops on and takes it on a road trip.

 

[Firestorm65]

A note to all alarmists. The Wii, XBOX360, iPhone, android, and countless other platforms have all been opened up to piracy. That has not stopped any of them from being profitable. Only Sony claims the sky is falling and developers will leave forever if 1% of the people who pirate of the 1% of the people who use this information of the 1% of the people who use the system are now a lost sale, as if they would buy it in the first place. It certainly doesn't make the other .99% criminals for the act of the .01%.

I want my linux back, I had both consoles in my had and chose the PS3 for it's dual use. I am not nearly the only one. But even leaving that out, what right do any of you have to say what I am allowed to do with my own hardware for personal use that will never affect you?

 

[JDKJ]

I'm not going to quote to reply, but notice how there are a lot of "for personal use" and "to the limits of the law"? Also note termination voids warranty and PSN access, but is not, in of itself, a crime. They reserve the right to sue you if you agree to it, but you didn't sign this if you used the console offline. I know neither one of us wants to let it go, but don't you realize you are saying your right to give up something you are not required to is more important than people exercising the rights they do have. Furthermore, the people they are suing aren't even US citizens, despite filing the claim in the US.

You don't have to sign it. In fact, they don't request your signature. Did you not read the part that says your use of the software implies consent? Consent by use is well-recognized under U.S. law. No signature required.

You can sue someone in a U.S. court under U.S. law despite the fact that they aren't a a U.S. citizen. Happens every day, all day.

It's not legally binding.

Let me ask you this. That EULA was dated 2009. What happens when the user of a launch PS3 doesn't agree to the 2009 EULA? He can't return the console, it's well past it's return date (usually 90 days) and likely past it's warranty.

Why did he sit on it for 90 days if he knew he wasn't going to agree to the EULA terms? That makes no sense. If he isn't going to agree, it shouldn't take him three months to figure that out and then seek a refund or credit. I would think ninety minutes should be more than enough time to decide that you're not in agreement.

You're missing the point.

The PS3 is a launch model - it was bought in 2006
The EULA is dated 2009 - 3 years after he bought his PS3

If he does not agree with the 2009 EULA, what is his recourse? The PS3 is out of warranty at that point and he certainly can't return it to the store. So, what should someone do?

I'd imagine that the EULA in force during that time was dated more in keeping with the time. I suspect that Sony periodically revises and re-dates them. I wouldn't get hung up on a date, if I were you.

 

[Firestorm65]

I'm not going to quote to reply, but notice how there are a lot of "for personal use" and "to the limits of the law"? Also note termination voids warranty and PSN access, but is not, in of itself, a crime. They reserve the right to sue you if you agree to it, but you didn't sign this if you used the console offline. I know neither one of us wants to let it go, but don't you realize you are saying your right to give up something you are not required to is more important than people exercising the rights they do have. Furthermore, the people they are suing aren't even US citizens, despite filing the claim in the US.

You don't have to sign it. In fact, they don't request your signature. Did you not read the part that says your use of the software implies consent? Consent by use is well-recognized under U.S. law. No signature required.

You can sue someone in a U.S. court under U.S. law despite the fact that they aren't a a U.S. citizen. Happens every day, all day.

I must return to the fact that EULA's are not, in fact, a legal contract unless upheld by the court. And the courts have ruled again and again that software control does NOT extend to hardware. Apple and MS and a thousand other companies wish it were so but it's not the law. However, if Sony can sue people into silence, it becomes law de facto despite being wrong.

Can you cite me those case that you claim don't uphold EULAs? Because my recent review of the relevant precedents suggests to me that EULAs are more likely upheld than not. The recent case of Vernor v. Autodesk comes to mind (a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case).

You are talking about software programs in that case, we are talking about physical consoles running code Sony didn't provide. There is no such thing as a EULA for purchased HARDWARE. Again, the EULA is for SONY SOFTWARE that is provided with the console. I don't even see how it's broken considering it's all legal personal use. No one is stealing Sony intellectual or monetary property or trademark.

Edit: I'm not ignoring your question, give me some time to dig them up again. It's been a while since I killed time debating on the internet.

 

[icame]

Screw off EFF. I like my developers having money.

And since the only way for that to happen is crippling our rights....

I've already posted about 10 times in this thread arguing with another escapist. Just look at those if you'd like a response.