Shirokurou said:
I'm on Sony's side on this one.
"could be a huge detriment to security research, because "legitimate researchers will be afraid to publish their results lest they be accused of circumventing a technological protection measure."
Well, duh... I mean if I found a way to sneak into your house and steal all your money from your credit cards, but I didn't actually do it yet. I'm a nice guy. That's OK, I guess. But telling everybody else how to do it is just inviting them to do it for you.
I study law and this is actually pretty simple.
Will Sony lose (risk losing) money if such hacks are openly revealed? - Yes.
It's their right to protect their assets. Sue away...
You study law? Then how has this man modifying his own hardware which Sony chose to sell him directly or indirectly breaking the law? If I bought a a impounded car that doesn't have a key that fits the ignition, am I somehow breaking the law by "overiding the built-in security features" on MY vehicle that I own by installing a new keyless ignition myself? What if I pay someone else to install it because I don't have the skills? Well the hackers are the mechanics, and Linux is the keyless ignition.
Perhaps more relevant, should we outlaw P2P technology since some of it's uses include pirating software? Nevermind the countless legal uses of this type of technology, but some people use it wrong so better make the technology itself illegal? This is the kind of argument that leads to objects or ideas being accountable instead of people for actions. Why not attack the pirates and criminals instead of the people who found a legal service to offer.
Some agencies have lockpicks that open car doors for people without breaking them LEGALLY. How is this not the same idea? Because Sony doesn't approve so it *must* be wrong?
Licences to use the network are irrelevant, because we aren't asking if it's still legal to drive. We are focusing on if modifying my own property is somehow illegal just because the original seller didn't intend the modification. I believe the ambiguity of the DMCA has led to this mess, because the companies are suing to try and make hardware an extension of the software "de facto" simply because the defendants can't afford the lawsuit, even though there is no merit.
Back to the vehicles again, Harley-Davidson couldn't sue someone for adding a side-cart to one of their cycles just because they believe it looks tacky and the consumer doesn't "need" it.