GeoHot and Sony Settle PS3 Jailbreak Case

[Arehexes]

Ok then give us all a master key to your house and see how you feel if we have free access to your stuff

Not that I couldn't care less - but it's more like publishing a recipe for piecing together copper, zinc and steel into particular patterns, with particular pressure and composition - that may possibly be used to build keys that can be used to open Sony locks. You're no more going to be able to open up and rummage around with Sony's property with the "keys" here, than you are able to drive to Mars by stealing the solar panel designs on the Rover.

I'm sure it may be illegal, and Geohot really does have the political awareness of some.. 20-year old privileged brat - I mean, how did that happen? But the entire thing is not quite as spectacular as it sounds like from the news-blurbs.

While you are right about the rummaging around with Sony's stuff the company does have a right to protect those keys, because to my knowledge they can't just "patch" that like psp firmware. But I'm on the side of the consumer when it's about just OtherOS and it being removed, that should not have happened (even though I own a slim I would have loved a phat to get OtherOS). But GeoHot bugs me because

A)He acts like he is in the right when to be honest he gave a copy of sony's master key and gave to everyone

B)He acts like he is the hotness(even if he deserves it), and brags all the time. Now I have a modded psp and I only hear of Dark_Alex when he releases a new Custom Firmware, and in psp circles he is the big guy on campus in psp hacking (I miss his lovely and perfect M33 firmware T_T, I'm to used to using backups now to go back to UMDs). Difference is Dark_Alex doesn't brag about his work everywhere, we ended up bragging about how M33 is the best...but the point is he feels he is in the right just because he is in the news and spot light.

C)The final reason, he seems to feel he is in the right by fighting for the consumer. Fighting for what I want to ask, the use of otherOS which to be honest outside of tech people no one will use more then once or twice. If he wants to fight for consumer rights he should do something about how game publishers use tactics to withhold in game content for buying a game used(Mass Effect 2, but if it's on the disc or not I don't remember); I mean hell even sony lets you use a used ps3 with all the features. Charging for DLC that's on the disc (Soul Calibur 4 is a nasty offender in this in my book, Capcom is guilty also). Having digital distributed games cost the SAME as the physical copies makes no since outside of having to pay for server space.

Soooooo comparing Sony to what other companies do to consumers I think Sony is more on the ball. Now if we are talking about hackers which I fill geohot is fighting for (not the common joe) then yeah sony is a dick, but so is Nintendo. It's kinda annoying knowing Nintendo's Wii updates can destroy the access to the homebrew channel and disable the homebrew by seeking out the tickets or what ever they were called (it's been a while since I bothered) to run the homebrew. And Nintendo is adamant in stopping flash carts from being sold which was ment to run homebrew (they were never made to run roms, in fact when I got my first flash cart it could barely even run a rom and you had to run it through a converter.). Sorry that was a rant, I just get sick of people attacking one company for doing X when other companies do it too but they just aren't in the spot light as much

 

[Sikratua]

The root key which allows full access to the hardware.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

The root key gives access to the software. This case had precisely ZERO to do with the Playstation 3 hardware. To be frank, if you can't tell the difference between hardware and software, then you really have no place in this discussion.

I would go a lot further than this, but I've already given the particulars in my first post. Suffice to say, you could not possibly be more incorrect on this subject, without making a concerted effort to be so.

 

[Jazoni89]

Absolutely nothing was gained in this whole mess, except the now public knowledge that the ps3 is extremely easy to hack, and that can only be a bad thing for consumers, and for Sony especially.

We can only expect more anon DDOS attacks on PSN in the near future. Thank you so very much Geohot, us ps3 owners really appreciate that. [/sarcasm]

 

[JDKJ]

Well if you don't connect to PSN and accept the user agreement then brodcast to everyone over the internet about your hacking I'm pretty sure you can do what you want with your PS3

Why shouldn't I be allowed to tell others how to hack their systems? Our society is built on exchange of information after all.

Don't all companies do that already?

Not really, you won't see, for example, HP or Dell sue your ass because you swapped your GPU for a non-OEM one.

it's not the hardware... it was an intellectual property. the root key, do you realize that they have to protect that shit to protect their investment, this isn't some big conspiracy, it's a company trying to make money from it's investment.

The root key which allows full access to the hardware. And frankly, I *don't* see how they need to "protect" that to make money, as long as they're selling consoles and games, they should be able to make money, no?

No "free" is ever absolutely "free." There are numerous varieties of information that you are not "free" to disclose. Get a hold of the secret formula for Coca-Cola (which is a "trade secret"), post it to the internet, and see how fast Coca-Cola's attorneys sue you for every penny in your pockets and the lint, too. And that "our society is built on the free exchange of information" argument won't do a thing to help you. A trade secret is protected by law from public disclosure.

Your GPU analogy doesn't hold water. Nowhere does HP or DELL attempt to prohibit you beforehand from swapping out their GPU for a non-OEM GPU. But most all software licensors do prohibit you beforehand from modifying their software. Apples and oranges.

A root key doesn't "allow access to hardware." Technically, it allows access to software. And game console licensors need to protect their software code against root keys that can circumvent anti-piracy mechanisms in their consoles because very few game publishers will want to pay a console maker license fees to have their games compatible with a console on which their games can be easily pirated. And that's where the bulk of a console maker's profit is made. It's in the licensing fees. The consoles are often sold at a loss. The console makers are willing to sell a console at a loss because they can make up that loss on the license fees they charge the game publishers. But if the game publishers aren't inclined to do business with a console maker who's console is susceptible to piracy, then that business model fails and the console maker will suffer lost profits as a result.

It's the very same rationale for blocking unlicensed peripherals from a console. Why would I ever pay a console maker good money in license fees to have my peripheral work with their console when the other guy's unlicensed peripheral will work just as well with the console as mine? That wouldn't make a lick o' sense.

 

[Arachon]

Because PSN has a userbase full of legitimate customers, why should they have to suffer cheating hackers just because 1 guy wasn't happy with just having a normal PS3, or just happy hacking his own PS3, plus wether Geohot likes it or not, people will us this to pirate games, which is a crime, crime is bad remember?

Didn't we say that hacked systems would not gain access to PSN?

And yes, it can be used for piracy, but let me put it in an analogy: A hammer can be used to bash someone's skull in, but should we outlaw hammers? No, we outlaw bashing skulls, and the purchase of the hammer, by the murderer, may be used as evidence to prove that they did bash someone's skull in.

 

[Macrobstar]

Because PSN has a userbase full of legitimate customers, why should they have to suffer cheating hackers just because 1 guy wasn't happy with just having a normal PS3, or just happy hacking his own PS3, plus wether Geohot likes it or not, people will us this to pirate games, which is a crime, crime is bad remember?

Didn't we say that hacked systems would not gain access to PSN?

And yes, it can be used for piracy, but let me put it in an analogy: A hammer can be used to bash someone's skull in, but should we outlaw hammers? No, we outlaw bashing skulls, and the purchase of the hammer, by the murderer, may be used as evidence to prove that they did bash someone's skull in.

No because hammers have other useful purposes, hacking is just used for illegal activities

 

[JDKJ]

What I don't understand is why are a lot of people are saying it's a "tie"? To me it looks like Sony won.

..they threaten to sue the guy, put him in jail for 20 years, and make him pay a fine with the kind of figure you see on the national budget of small nations. They claim they own your console, that they can alter it at their whim, and that any wish to thwart their "legally operative" eula constitutes a crime so serious that Sony should be granted surveillance-powers at the level of some sort of secret totalitarian state. They also intended to sue anyone connected to a global linux conspiracy aimed at bringing Sony down. Never mind the entire "protecting our property" by calling down injunctions against mod-chips in all nations, and trying to link them to geodot releasing the hack.

And geohot gets off with a note to his mother insisting he should behave more nicely from now on. Doesn't sound like what Sony wanted, does it?

I can't and won't dispute all that. But, as I said, those who "purchased PS3s to use them exclusively as computers [in the sense that the Air Force and the FBI both have bought and ganged a couple thousand of them together and then use them, running Linux, for the raw computing power that results] rather than game consoles" wouldn't be installing a game that requires later firmwares or want Blu-ray with 3D, or online connectivity, or any of those kinds of things, would they?

..I suppose not?

That doesn't help me as a customer who lost a significant part of the product I bought, though. I lost my data as well, without warning. Either of which Sony retroactively claims isn't a problem for them, since they added a reservation to it after the fact, in a later version of their weekly changing eula. Which now actually reads: product /and services/ may change for any reason at any time. Whether it is from patch or simply changed services online - to the point where it's degraded or removed altogether. Or if Sony suddenly insists on taking money for online play, in spite of selling the box on free online, etc - it's all great, and I should take it up the rear because Sony say so in their eula.

Isn't unexplored cyber-law great? If we had something like this for any other product, what would that be like? Razors that - after they unfortunately happened to decapitate people once in a while after try out the "fusion-cell cutter", as seen on TV - get a clause on the back of the box saying: "may decapitate you for no reason". And the manufacturer goes: "phew, dodged the bullet! No lawsuits for us, or need to fix the product - thanks to our now legally operative eula insulating us from everything bad. I'm sure our customers are happy as well, because they clearly are idiots, and/or evil people who will abuse our product the wrong way!".

I mean.. sorry, but that the Airforce may not have a problem with the change doesn't mean anything to me. And if Sony wants to claim that it does in the court, they're not going to get anywhere. "So, I lost such and such, and...". And the Sony-lawyer goes: "But THE AIRFORCE DOESN'T NEED blu-ray and games, your honor!".

I'll be the first one to admit that the way Sony does business isn't cricket. Particularly the part were they maintain that "we can change the EULA terms at any time we see fit, post the new EULA to our website, and it's your responsibility to periodically check that website for changes to our EULA, and the mere fact that you continue to use or access the software in your PS3 is all it takes to signify your assent to the changes that we've made." That ain't cricket, if you ask me. But, unfortunately, just because it ain't cricket, don't mean it ain't perfectly legal to do so. Which suggest to me that an entirely appropriate response to that kinda nonsense when it is discovered in the EULA (but, unfortunately, it is hardly ever discovered because I'm convinced that more than half of all PS3 licensees have never bothered to read their EULAs) is to say to Sony and all the other console makers who pull that crap, "Are you kidding me?! Get the fuck outta here! I look like I'm a sucker to you?!" and then to not do business with a company that thinks you are a chump. But if you either (a) didn't read the EULA or (b) read it and still agreed to the obvious sucker play, then you willingly got on the train to Screwville and ain't gots no one but yourself to blame when it pulls into the final stop on the line.

 

[JDKJ]

Because PSN has a userbase full of legitimate customers, why should they have to suffer cheating hackers just because 1 guy wasn't happy with just having a normal PS3, or just happy hacking his own PS3, plus wether Geohot likes it or not, people will us this to pirate games, which is a crime, crime is bad remember?

Didn't we say that hacked systems would not gain access to PSN?

And yes, it can be used for piracy, but let me put it in an analogy: A hammer can be used to bash someone's skull in, but should we outlaw hammers? No, we outlaw bashing skulls, and the purchase of the hammer, by the murderer, may be used as evidence to prove that they did bash someone's skull in.

Your analogies aren't anywhere near actual analogies. They're comparisons of apples to oranges.

 

[nipsen]

Sorry that was a rant, I just get sick of people attacking one company for doing X when other companies do it too but they just aren't in the spot light as much

No, you're right. And good points.

The.. problem is that the keys can't truly be used to cause Sony damages. That's unlike custom firmware on the psp (which they can't really patch, because of the way the system is designed), or mod-chips on the ps2. Which both have very obvious use of pirated disk-images before extra or custom-made programs. The hack doesn't provide that. It barely provides anything practical for using the low-level functions - and it doesn't expose the program-level logic. So it's not as simple as with cfw on, say, the Wii, the ds, the psp, etc. In fact, the hack and the "keys" can only be used to eventually, if you're extremely dedicated, figure out how to write your own interfaces for the hardware. This isn't done easily when you don't actually know what the architecture is like. And no one writes an OS from scratch in a weekend, to put it like that..

So there's two things - from a somewhat objective point of view, publishing the hack doesn't actually encourage piracy, or allow it, nowhere near the degree posting a cfw for the psp does. In fact, the backup solution that exists right now is not based on the hack. It's based on leaked sdk-info along with service-mode switches - which again is code that Sony owns and has constructed themselves (no doubt on a separate outsourced project from the rest of the system..).

Meanwhile, Sony doesn't actually try to protect their users from exploits, they simply remove functionality because it's expensive for them to satisfy their own paranoia. Obviously, it always is - and all content providers and publishers happily therefore spend money on fighting ghosts by sponsoring extra-legal "anti-piracy" outfits.

But this is of course a normal thing to do in software-development - but only Sony actually asks you to like it. That's probably what rubs some of us the wrong way.

Other than that, I agree Hotz appears to have blurted out a lot of stuff. I'm sure he did as well. But the point is that from "our" point of view, exposing the inner workings of the system like this isn't cause for concern. It's not breaking in, it's not creating keys or lock-pick sets. Instead it's creating a schema of a building in order to highlight fantastic security-solutions, and what parts of the building we want to go to.

Obviously - from Sony's perspective, that is dangerous. Since it means they lose control over how the system is used. On the other hand, legislation prevents anyone from using that knowledge in commercial products. And everyone, regardless of technical know-how, understands that if you are not actually able to pick the strong-boxes in the attic (the blu-ray encryption schemes, or the level 2 protection on the ps3) - then reverse-engineering in this case isn't conceivable to see turn up in a, say, Chinese copy, or anything like that. It's simply not going to happen.

The same is what happened with the iPhone jailbreak. Here that "product" isn't going to be possible to use with anything else. And it only exposes one particular system to user-level exploits that you have to install yourself. That's the limitation of a hack that actually is much more dangerous than "most hacks", because it allows rfid hacks on the low-level (thanks to Apple's abysmal security abstraction).

The difference is that Sony is not interested in having people fiddle around with the system, or figure out how to create interesting things with it. That's the issue we've been having from the beginning - it wasn't impossible for Sony to sponsor a gpu-array implementation in linux (and we did get access to map the graphics-ram, which helped a lot). But they didn't care for it. Same with linux and clever heads creating neat spu-code - they don't see the point. And I think they were just looking for an excuse to pull the plug on the project to save internal/close ps3 project costs. And that the linux-project was on the top of the list.

We have a similar proposition with the move-controller - it's an interesting kit. It's actually this 3d mouse pointer that lots and lots of people have tried to create before but failed at. I can instantly see a 3d desktop interface forming very quickly, and I hope that Anton and the rest at the development labs are serious about making a PC kit for the move one day.

But if all of that was possible to fiddle around with on the actual ps3 itself instead? That would be useful, as well as promote the system. But Sony doesn't want that. Instead, Sony is happy to remove functions, and expect their buyers to like them for it.

So those are the two problems here:
1. technically, the hack isn't as useful as advertised. Specially when it comes to piracy.
2. removing functions and services you thought you had paid for - and then expecting customers to take it up the rear afterwards no matter what - isn't how you sell or profile a product if you want to earn money (unless you sell crack, I guess).

 

[nipsen]

But, unfortunately, just because it ain't cricket, don't mean it ain't perfectly legal to do so.

..poor choice of words. I think we can all agree that it's "not illegal" to use the EULA in this way. But the idea that it has operative legal weight is arguable.

 

[loremazd]

Smart move, Georgie Boy. 'Cause you were most certainly on your way to getting about 12 inches of Sony penis up your rectum.

And if you don't immediately return the money that was donated your Legal Defense Fund, I just might class-action your ass for fraud, false pretenses, theft, and any other claims I might be able to cook up against you.

You do realize he has paid his lawyers up till now right? And he said he would donate whatever is left over when he accepted the donations.

As long as the money is used to pay his lawyers up till now, and the rest is donated like he claimed up front, there is no fraud. And he sure as hell shouldn't pay it ALL back, it's not like the lawyers worked for free up till now.

Honestly, this seems like somewhat of a victory for GeoHotz, think about it, the root key got out, and he didn't go to jail or owe Sony millions of dollars, sounds like a victory to me at least.

Wrong. If tell you I want your money because I'm going to use it to wage a legal battle that will benefit you also by setting a legal precedent when I prevail before the Court and then I bail out on my promised legal battle long before the point of ever prevailing, then, my friend, that is most certainly fraud and obtaining property under false pretenses.

Actually no. Under that pretense, he would have to fight and -win- or you could sue him for fraud. He asked for donations to pay for his lawyers in this lawsuit, no matter the end result, and would donate the rest. You inserted your definition of what he asked in place of what he actually asked.

 

[JDKJ]

Sorry that was a rant, I just get sick of people attacking one company for doing X when other companies do it too but they just aren't in the spot light as much

No, you're right. And good points.

The.. problem is that the keys can't truly be used to cause Sony damages. That's unlike custom firmware on the psp (which they can't really patch, because of the way the system is designed), or mod-chips on the ps2. Which both have very obvious use of pirated disk-images before extra or custom-made programs. The hack doesn't provide that. It barely provides anything practical for using the low-level functions - and it doesn't expose the program-level logic. So it's not as simple as with cfw on, say, the Wii, the ds, the psp, etc. In fact, the hack and the "keys" can only be used to eventually, if you're extremely dedicated, figure out how to write your own interfaces for the hardware. This isn't done easily when you don't actually know what the architecture is like. And no one writes an OS from scratch in a weekend, to put it like that..

So there's two things - from a somewhat objective point of view, publishing the hack doesn't actually encourage piracy, or allow it, nowhere near the degree posting a cfw for the psp does. In fact, the backup solution that exists right now is not based on the hack. It's based on leaked sdk-info along with service-mode switches - which again is code that Sony owns and has constructed themselves (no doubt on a separate outsourced project from the rest of the system..).

Meanwhile, Sony doesn't actually try to protect their users from exploits, they simply remove functionality because it's expensive for them to satisfy their own paranoia. Obviously, it always is - and all content providers and publishers happily therefore spend money on fighting ghosts by sponsoring extra-legal "anti-piracy" outfits.

But this is of course a normal thing to do in software-development - but only Sony actually asks you to like it. That's probably what rubs some of us the wrong way.

Other than that, I agree Hotz appears to have blurted out a lot of stuff. I'm sure he did as well. But the point is that from "our" point of view, exposing the inner workings of the system like this isn't cause for concern. It's not breaking in, it's not creating keys or lock-pick sets. Instead it's creating a schema of a building in order to highlight fantastic security-solutions, and what parts of the building we want to go to.

Obviously - from Sony's perspective, that is dangerous. Since it means they lose control over how the system is used. On the other hand, legislation prevents anyone from using that knowledge in commercial products. And everyone, regardless of technical know-how, understands that if you are not actually able to pick the strong-boxes in the attic (the blu-ray encryption schemes, or the level 2 protection on the ps3) - then reverse-engineering in this case isn't conceivable to see turn up in a, say, Chinese copy, or anything like that. It's simply not going to happen.

The same is what happened with the iPhone jailbreak. Here that "product" isn't going to be possible to use with anything else. And it only exposes one particular system to user-level exploits that you have to install yourself. That's the limitation of a hack that actually is much more dangerous than "most hacks", because it allows rfid hacks on the low-level (thanks to Apple's abysmal security abstraction).

The difference is that Sony is not interested in having people fiddle around with the system, or figure out how to create interesting things with it. That's the issue we've been having from the beginning - it wasn't impossible for Sony to sponsor a gpu-array implementation in linux (and we did get access to map the graphics-ram, which helped a lot). But they didn't care for it. Same with linux and clever heads creating neat spu-code - they don't see the point. And I think they were just looking for an excuse to pull the plug on the project to save internal/close ps3 project costs. And that the linux-project was on the top of the list.

We have a similar proposition with the move-controller - it's an interesting kit. It's actually this 3d mouse pointer that lots and lots of people have tried to create before but failed at. I can instantly see a 3d desktop interface forming very quickly, and I hope that Anton and the rest at the development labs are serious about making a PC kit for the move one day.

But if all of that was possible to fiddle around with on the actual ps3 itself instead? That would be useful, as well as promote the system. But Sony doesn't want that. Instead, Sony is happy to remove functions, and expect their buyers to like them for it.

So those are the two problems here:
1. technically, the hack isn't as useful as advertised. Specially when it comes to piracy.
2. removing functions and services you thought you had paid for - and then expecting customers to take it up the rear afterwards no matter what - isn't how you sell or profile a product if you want to earn money (unless you sell crack, I guess).

You sound as if you're up on the whole hacking thing (which I'll confess to knowing precious little about) so maybe you can explain this to me (and I'm asking outta curiosity, not trying to make some rhetorical point):

If Georgie Boy's hack wasn't that useful in allowing someone to pirate games, then why were literally tens of thousands of people flocking to his weblog and downloading his hack? I don't know for certain, but my common sense tells me that tens of thousands of people ain't interested in running Linux on a PS3. I almost have to assume that more of those people than not were downloading the hack so they could pirate games. Were they victims of Georgie Boy's false advertising?

 

[Misho-]

GeoHot and Sony Settle PS3 Jailbreak Case

So you'll be retiring that picture, right?

In my mind, this was the outcome Sony was always hoping to reach. Out-of-court settlements usually go much better in relatively untested legal ground like this, and this decreases the chances of Sony somehow losing the case on a technicality.

In the end, a lot of folks are going to hold this as another example of "big company scaring little person into settling," but I really have to wonder if there's any other way for things like this to end. Sometimes the "underdog" is actually wrong, and a company shouldn't have to use kid gloves to give someone a "fair chance" when they're in the right.

I'm glad it's done, though. Sony got what it wanted, and no one is a gajillion dollars in the hole. Sony hasn't outlawed hacking of the PS3, they've just made it illegal to publicly post the root key. The sky isn't falling.

Thank you! Someone finally posted using some common sense...

What really got affected on a way here (in a small way) it's the public's view of GeoHotz... He's not the freedom fighter gamers will rally behind from now on... I mean, nice intentions are, well, nice, but at the end, what matters at the end are you actions.

I don't think he'll be able to get so many donations in the future after his performance now. (Not that it wasn't bad, is that it wasn't the climatic fiery showdown people were looking for).

 

[Arachon]

No because hammers have other useful purposes, hacking is just used for illegal activities

That's bollocks. Remember how the Kinect was hacked? Would you call all that "illegal activities"?

Your analogies aren't anywhere near actual analogies. They're comparisons of apples to oranges.

Care to explain why?

 

[JDKJ]

Smart move, Georgie Boy. 'Cause you were most certainly on your way to getting about 12 inches of Sony penis up your rectum.

And if you don't immediately return the money that was donated your Legal Defense Fund, I just might class-action your ass for fraud, false pretenses, theft, and any other claims I might be able to cook up against you.

You do realize he has paid his lawyers up till now right? And he said he would donate whatever is left over when he accepted the donations.

As long as the money is used to pay his lawyers up till now, and the rest is donated like he claimed up front, there is no fraud. And he sure as hell shouldn't pay it ALL back, it's not like the lawyers worked for free up till now.

Honestly, this seems like somewhat of a victory for GeoHotz, think about it, the root key got out, and he didn't go to jail or owe Sony millions of dollars, sounds like a victory to me at least.

Wrong. If tell you I want your money because I'm going to use it to wage a legal battle that will benefit you also by setting a legal precedent when I prevail before the Court and then I bail out on my promised legal battle long before the point of ever prevailing, then, my friend, that is most certainly fraud and obtaining property under false pretenses.

Actually no. Under that pretense, he would have to fight and -win- or you could sue him for fraud. He asked for donations to pay for his lawyers in this lawsuit, no matter the end result, and would donate the rest. You inserted your definition of what he asked in place of what he actually asked.

But there is the point in time at which he says -- or, at least, there's an argument to be made that he says -- in connection to the solicitation that he will not settle with Sony unless Sony agrees to his terms of X and Y. Then he proceeds to shortly thereafter settle with Sony on terms that don't at all include terms X or Y. That statement arguably constitutes the false statement required by a claim of fraud. That it does may not be as clear as the Montana sky, but I'm prepared to bet that a claim for fraud brought on that basis will at least withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

 

[JDKJ]

No because hammers have other useful purposes, hacking is just used for illegal activities

That's bollocks. Remember how the Kinect was hacked? Would you call all that "illegal activities"?

Your analogies aren't anywhere near actual analogies. They're comparisons of apples to oranges.

Care to explain why?

See my response above to your GPU "analogy."

 

[loremazd]

No because hammers have other useful purposes, hacking is just used for illegal activities

That's bollocks. Remember how the Kinect was hacked? Would you call all that "illegal activities"?

Your analogies aren't anywhere near actual analogies. They're comparisons of apples to oranges.

Care to explain why?

The Kinect being hacked has actually given the company an edge on the competition through innovation on the motion capture technology. Essentially, Microsoft can steal every idea that anyone has come up with using their product and sell it, completely legally, too.

So the Kinect Hack is pretty much good for both parties.

 

[Macrobstar]

No because hammers have other useful purposes, hacking is just used for illegal activities

That's bollocks. Remember how the Kinect was hacked? Would you call all that "illegal activities"?

Thats unimprtant, the banning hammers analogy is stupid as no one in there right mind is going to murder another person, whereas pirating games for free is an inviting prospect for anyone willing to hack there PS£, I think sony was right to protect there business by taking these precautions

 

[Low Key]

The settlement was Sony's doing. They saw what was coming if it got dragged through the court system, and that was full ownership of consoles allowing anyone to do anything to them. I guarantee it. I'd be willing to put money down on it I am so confident.

 

[JDKJ]

The settlement was Sony's doing. They saw what was coming if it got dragged through the court system, and that was full ownership of consoles allowing anyone to do anything to them. I guarantee it. I'd be willing to put money down on it I am so confident.

There's a forum rule against posting a "LOL" and nothing more, but if ever there was a post that deserved a "LOL" and nothing more in response, this is it. LOL!!