Hackers Release PlayStation 3 "LV0 Decryption Keys"

[weirdee]

I have completely forgotten what it is that this page is trying to prove just by scrolling down these posts

safe to say that perhaps it would be best to move on

the personal modification of these devices is legal, to the point where it does not affect sony's distribution/control of the components that it owns (online features, direct sale of licenses/property or in other words both digital and physical games) but as soon as somebody breaches the agreement to which users may not interfere with those matters, then it is open season

the distinction we are trying to make here is whether or not merely possessing the tools to breach the agreement already constitutes endangerment of control

 

[Toby Kitching]

This "permanent rental" stuff is some stupid shit.

Its also the sad truth.

It is also the world we're moving into with downloadable content. Really, the only way to prevent a lot of it is by going to a brick and mortar store and buying a physical copy of the game, vs using convenient methods such as Steam/uhh... whatever EA calls their store/etc.

However, it can be useful for things outside software. As a photographer, owning my photo (even though one may purchase a copy) is one of my forms of income, I also choose to make sure they are never used in a political way. So... yeah, its a mixed bag.

Wait, is it the current truth or is it the direction we are moving in? It can't be both because if we are already there then we can't be moving towards it.

Anyway, it isn't the truth and the only way it will be the truth is if consumers accept it and consumers should not accept it. How is it good for consumers to pay more for games and have less ownership of them?

Games going digital is irrelevant to ownership too, you can BUY something from Steam and still own it if consumers demand that. In other words, DD doesn't make ownership impossible. It just means that you own a product key which gives you access to the data. No different than owning a disc that gives you access to the data (ie, console games).

What I am really trying to say here is that the future is up to consumers. Smart consumers will say NO to this "you don't own your games" bullshit.

Gah, so many inaccuracies.

The phrase 'Intellectual property' refers to a property which has no physical presence. A piece of software counts as an Intellectual Property. If you purchased the software, you are purchasing the IP, which would give you the right to copy and resell it. Games would sell for hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars. If steam were to scrap the licensing concept, then you would have complete watertight legal protection to make and sell copies of everything you downloaded. This would overwrite international copyright law.

If you buy, say, a TV, you are buying a physical property. That is a discrete entity, and is therefore governed by a completely different set of laws. You can dick around with the TV (or the hardware of the PS3) to whatever extent you please. Microsoft and Sony can exclude you from things like online services, but that's as much as they can do (as they can do theoretically with ANY customer). However, once you start to dick around with the intellectual property, and violate the TOS, you have also lost the right to have any access to the software you have 'rented'.

This Intellectual Property law goes for EVERY form of data purchase. CDs, VHS, 8-track, Digital Downloads etc. Unless you are a corporation, you have almost certainly NEVER bought a piece of software for anything. You have only purchased a permanent license to use it assuming you abide by the TOS.

 

[Epona]

This "permanent rental" stuff is some stupid shit.

Its also the sad truth.

It is also the world we're moving into with downloadable content. Really, the only way to prevent a lot of it is by going to a brick and mortar store and buying a physical copy of the game, vs using convenient methods such as Steam/uhh... whatever EA calls their store/etc.

However, it can be useful for things outside software. As a photographer, owning my photo (even though one may purchase a copy) is one of my forms of income, I also choose to make sure they are never used in a political way. So... yeah, its a mixed bag.

Wait, is it the current truth or is it the direction we are moving in? It can't be both because if we are already there then we can't be moving towards it.

Anyway, it isn't the truth and the only way it will be the truth is if consumers accept it and consumers should not accept it. How is it good for consumers to pay more for games and have less ownership of them?

Games going digital is irrelevant to ownership too, you can BUY something from Steam and still own it if consumers demand that. In other words, DD doesn't make ownership impossible. It just means that you own a product key which gives you access to the data. No different than owning a disc that gives you access to the data (ie, console games).

What I am really trying to say here is that the future is up to consumers. Smart consumers will say NO to this "you don't own your games" bullshit.

Gah, so many inaccuracies.

The phrase 'Intellectual property' refers to a property which has no physical presence. A piece of software counts as an Intellectual Property. If you purchased the software, you are purchasing the IP, which would give you the right to copy and resell it. Games would sell for hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars. If steam were to scrap the licensing concept, then you would have complete watertight legal protection to make and sell copies of everything you downloaded. This would overwrite international copyright law.

If you buy, say, a TV, you are buying a physical property. That is a discrete entity, and is therefore governed by a completely different set of laws. You can dick around with the TV (or the hardware of the PS3) to whatever extent you please. Microsoft and Sony can exclude you from things like online services, but that's as much as they can do (as they can do theoretically with ANY customer). However, once you start to dick around with the intellectual property, and violate the TOS, you have also lost the right to have any access to the software you have 'rented'.

This Intellectual Property law goes for EVERY form of data purchase. CDs, VHS, 8-track, Digital Downloads etc. Unless you are a corporation, you have almost certainly NEVER bought a piece of software for anything. You have only purchased a permanent license to use it assuming you abide by the TOS.

Buying a Mario game doesn't mean I can sell the Mario IP. It means that I bought a copy of a Mario game and with that copy I can do anything I like except make illegal copies. How many god damn times does this have to be said.

When a Mario game is put on the shelf, it is a copy of the game and not the Mario IP. I can and DO own that copy. I just don't how much clearer I can be here.

The main point is that not owning the copyright does not prevent you from owning a copy of a game. You don't have the right to duplicate your Sony television either but you do still own it.

 

[Toby Kitching]

Buying a Mario game doesn't mean I can sell the Mario IP. It means that I bought a copy of a Mario game and with that copy I can do anything I like except make illegal copies. How many god damn times does this have to be said.

When a Mario game is put on the shelf, it is a copy of the game and not the Mario IP. I can and DO own that copy. I just don't how much clearer I can be here.

The main point is that not owning the copyright does not prevent you from owning a copy of a game. You don't have the right to duplicate your Sony television either but you do still own it.

No, the reason that you get a license to rent when you buy a game is specifically because no legal provision exists for you to buy a copy of the game and be able to fool around with it.

If you buy a sony TV, you have a physical TV. You own that, because it's a tangible thing. You don't own the copyrights/patents to the TV, and you don't own the firmware. You only own that which has a physical presence. This is why you can resell the TV. When all is said and done, a game is basically an idea: it has no tangible physical presence.

To put it another way, you own the disk, manual, case etc. but the contents still belongs to the publisher/developer (depending on how they've worked things out on their end). This licensing idea is not just video game companies trying to screw everyone: it's the way international law already works: games/films/music tracks are classified as Intellectual properties and have laws that dictate their sale accordingly. You can't just say that consumers should demand an exception because you really want to.

 

[Okulossos]

Sony has earned what they got... actually to be honest after the DRM-Scandal Sony earned much MUCH MUCH!! worse. In fact: this is not even bad, because it makes the console interesting again, since you can now install Linux on it again and have yourself a very cheap PC with a BluRay player. I know Sony does not want this, because they do not want to appeal to a market beyond their initial fans, they have proven that more than just once and we will not have to wait for them to prove it again.

BUT I have been Boycotting Sony since the DRM so I don't care what happens to them or their products. So I keep cheering for the hackers to take down Sony bit by bit until they get what they deserve for putting rootkits which hide Spyware on their Music CDs and later saying that it's OK since nobody knows what rootkits are anyway.
On a truly consumer-driven market something like that should end the lifespan of a company and that is what Sony deserves!

 

[direkiller]

Let me put it this way you buy a book
you own ever molecule attached to that book including the ink
but you don't own the words because there the non-physical portion
restrictions are place on what you can do with the words but not anything to do with the book


the same rule apply to video games and these restrictions do not incuded those under consumer rights or fair use.

like with the book
you own a physical piece of plastic and a licence to the game.
These can be sold
but you do not own The game that always has and always will be owned by the IP holder.

You do know you just disproved your own argument, right? You just admitted that you own the physical disc (and, using your own response, does not restrict consumer rights i.e. personal modding or reselling), and not the IP (which is what people were saying all along).

Why do I even bother with roundabout arguments?

No I haven't disprived my own argument.
I have said all along you own a physical hunk of plastic
and all along I said you own a licence to the game
you don't own the game itself.

Im trying to point out the diffidence between the non-physical idea of a game and the hunk of plastic.
because when it comes digitial terms you still own something.
I think everyone is getting
"You own a licence to the game" confused with "You don't own anything"

You own your copy of an NES game and can do anything you like with it except make illegal copies. You can't make illegal copies because you don't own the copyright. On the other hand, Nintendo has no control over a legal copy of an NES games once it's been sold. Licensed by Nintendo doesn't mean they are licensing the game to you, it means that they have tested the game and given it their seal of approval:

http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/licensed.jsp

Non Licensed products mean Nintendo never approved them. Has nothing to do with the consumer.

that's a quality assurance seal
it has nothing to do with what we were talking about

here is one on a book
http://ebookarchitects.com/images/about/QEDchaos.jpg (notice the QED mark)
http://ebookarchitects.com/images/about/QEDseal.png

 

[direkiller]

Buying a Mario game doesn't mean I can sell the Mario IP. It means that I bought a copy of a Mario game and with that copy I can do anything I like except make illegal copies. How many god damn times does this have to be said.

When a Mario game is put on the shelf, it is a copy of the game and not the Mario IP. I can and DO own that copy. I just don't how much clearer I can be here.

The main point is that not owning the copyright does not prevent you from owning a copy of a game. You don't have the right to duplicate your Sony television either but you do still own it.

No, the reason that you get a license to rent when you buy a game is specifically because no legal provision exists for you to buy a copy of the game and be able to fool around with it.

If you buy a sony TV, you have a physical TV. You own that, because it's a tangible thing. You don't own the copyrights/patents to the TV, and you don't own the firmware. You only own that which has a physical presence. This is why you can resell the TV. When all is said and done, a game is basically an idea: it has no tangible physical presence.

To put it another way, you own the disk, manual, case etc. but the contents still belongs to the publisher/developer (depending on how they've worked things out on their end). This licensing idea is not just video game companies trying to screw everyone: it's the way international law already works: games/films/music tracks are classified as Intellectual properties and have laws that dictate their sale accordingly. You can't just say that consumers should demand an exception because you really want to.

I should probably point out depending on where in the world you live
the right to resell the licence of a game may exist depending on the laws on the area as consumer rights vary from place to place. As you own the licence to the game and are not simply renting it.



all ICRL covers is who owns the Idea. Who owns the Licence. and what you can do with the licence.

 

[Epona]

I give up! Maybe someone else wants to come in and show you that you do own your games but I am tired of this.

 

[Strazdas]

no it's like saying you own the ford station wagon but not the software on it's the computer

Semantics. We're not talking about IP law here, but physical ownership. If I wanted to go into my car's onboard system and modify it to give me a better performance boost, it's my right as a consumer to do that.

except that with current laws that would be illegal.

To a point, that is true, and I will concede part of that point. Within existing federal laws, the act of simply installing a new system or modifying the old one is not enforced. If the change causes problems with carbon emissions or fuel mileage that falls outside legal guidelines, that's illegal. Onboard vehicle computers usually aren't optimized for the best performance (focusing instead on conserving mileage), so there is that.

It is true that it is not enforced. but many laws arent. there is an active law in france that forbids women to wear pants. of course noone follows it, but it is there and they could enforce it if they chose so. copyright laws also do not get enforced a lot of time. but they are there. not that long ago, two years infact, our country had a copyright law "pushed" in by a certain person that makes lending your dvds to a friend illegal. of course noone follows that, but its there.

 

[Strazdas]

Hasn't the 360 and Wii been 'easily to hack', for like...ever now?

Never really saw NEAR the level of stories on TE when that was happening...

Maybe it's cause the PSP got so screwed by CFW?

Yes, PS3 is less popular by pirates because it is harder to hack and blueray discs cost A LOT. you can buy 10 dual layer dvds for the cost of 1 blueray disc.
then again this was only hard for people who didnt knew how ofc, but there are many such in the world.
what can i say, sony - 0, humanity - 1. locking users out of costum software should be criminal offence, but now its copyright.

Actualy, you are wrong. To hack PS3 you only need a USB drive. Piracy on PS3 does not use bluray discs, it uses the internal or external hardrives.

that is a fairly new thing. it used to be blueray or bust.

Fairly new? It can be done for the last 2 years! And it was the first thing you could do btw. As in, Blu-ray discs were never, ever needed for piracy.

you are aware that PS3 existed for more than 2 years?
Back when current gen consoles started, noone used internal HDDs. Bluerays were the way to do it. 2 years is not a long time. maybe to a gamer that will get depressed for not palying a game on launch-day it would be, but not for a sane person.

 

[BernardoOne]

Hasn't the 360 and Wii been 'easily to hack', for like...ever now?

Never really saw NEAR the level of stories on TE when that was happening...

Maybe it's cause the PSP got so screwed by CFW?

Yes, PS3 is less popular by pirates because it is harder to hack and blueray discs cost A LOT. you can buy 10 dual layer dvds for the cost of 1 blueray disc.
then again this was only hard for people who didnt knew how ofc, but there are many such in the world.
what can i say, sony - 0, humanity - 1. locking users out of costum software should be criminal offence, but now its copyright.

Actualy, you are wrong. To hack PS3 you only need a USB drive. Piracy on PS3 does not use bluray discs, it uses the internal or external hardrives.

that is a fairly new thing. it used to be blueray or bust.

Fairly new? It can be done for the last 2 years! And it was the first thing you could do btw. As in, Blu-ray discs were never, ever needed for piracy.

you are aware that PS3 existed for more than 2 years?
Back when current gen consoles started, noone used internal HDDs. Bluerays were the way to do it. 2 years is not a long time. maybe to a gamer that will get depressed for not palying a game on launch-day it would be, but not for a sane person.

Are you aware that piracy on PS3 started 2 years ago? There was NO WAY to play pirated games before that, not even with blurays!

 

[Strazdas]

Hasn't the 360 and Wii been 'easily to hack', for like...ever now?

Never really saw NEAR the level of stories on TE when that was happening...

Maybe it's cause the PSP got so screwed by CFW?

Yes, PS3 is less popular by pirates because it is harder to hack and blueray discs cost A LOT. you can buy 10 dual layer dvds for the cost of 1 blueray disc.
then again this was only hard for people who didnt knew how ofc, but there are many such in the world.
what can i say, sony - 0, humanity - 1. locking users out of costum software should be criminal offence, but now its copyright.

Actualy, you are wrong. To hack PS3 you only need a USB drive. Piracy on PS3 does not use bluray discs, it uses the internal or external hardrives.

that is a fairly new thing. it used to be blueray or bust.

Fairly new? It can be done for the last 2 years! And it was the first thing you could do btw. As in, Blu-ray discs were never, ever needed for piracy.

you are aware that PS3 existed for more than 2 years?
Back when current gen consoles started, noone used internal HDDs. Bluerays were the way to do it. 2 years is not a long time. maybe to a gamer that will get depressed for not palying a game on launch-day it would be, but not for a sane person.

Are you aware that piracy on PS3 started 2 years ago? There was NO WAY to play pirated games before that, not even with blurays!

I am aware of the games my cousin pirated 4 years ago. What was that you said?

 

[BernardoOne]

Hasn't the 360 and Wii been 'easily to hack', for like...ever now?

Never really saw NEAR the level of stories on TE when that was happening...

Maybe it's cause the PSP got so screwed by CFW?

Yes, PS3 is less popular by pirates because it is harder to hack and blueray discs cost A LOT. you can buy 10 dual layer dvds for the cost of 1 blueray disc.
then again this was only hard for people who didnt knew how ofc, but there are many such in the world.
what can i say, sony - 0, humanity - 1. locking users out of costum software should be criminal offence, but now its copyright.

Actualy, you are wrong. To hack PS3 you only need a USB drive. Piracy on PS3 does not use bluray discs, it uses the internal or external hardrives.

that is a fairly new thing. it used to be blueray or bust.

Fairly new? It can be done for the last 2 years! And it was the first thing you could do btw. As in, Blu-ray discs were never, ever needed for piracy.

you are aware that PS3 existed for more than 2 years?
Back when current gen consoles started, noone used internal HDDs. Bluerays were the way to do it. 2 years is not a long time. maybe to a gamer that will get depressed for not palying a game on launch-day it would be, but not for a sane person.

Are you aware that piracy on PS3 started 2 years ago? There was NO WAY to play pirated games before that, not even with blurays!

I am aware of the games my cousin pirated 4 years ago. What was that you said?

Right, your "cousin". Show me proof, real documentation on that. Im pretty sure its bullshit.

 

[Feylynn]

.

Here's what a publisher sees.

People pirated our game

Then they bought it

Clearly they liked our game, but to appease our shareholders, we will load DRM onto it.

Now, the problem with people like you, is that you don't seem to be able to read reviews, and have never heard of youtube to get a feel for the game. You just HAVE to have it for yourself.

If you don't buy a game because it didn't have a demo, tell the god damn publisher, so they don't keep loading up DRM.


By pirating "for the demo", you're making the problem *worse*.

Also, my job is basically market analytics. If you dont' have the research to support your point, don't even mention it. Because what's going to happen (like right now, in fact) is that I'm going to ask you for evidence of your

Pirating as Demo and as Advertisement is a thing that happens.

statement, or request that you admit that you just made that up on the spot, which is equally likely.

For starters I'll clear up that my post was unclear that the start was supposed to be past tense, I no longer pirate things. But I have previously and it did get me to buy the games and trust that their sequels would be worth paying for on release.
My post was then very clearly worded to say that I'm aware that I'm working on a very small sample size. I'm aware that it is insignificant as a statistic and can't be used to chart the effect of this practice. But I am 100% certain it has happened because I personally have done this.
The reason that I mentioned it at all was in response to the idea that zero people would ever being willing to buy a game because they are a "pirate" and could get it for free. So how could any business make something more convenient than free?

This was my basis to imply Steam has done something right. It's entirely possible that the sub-20 people I know for a fact did this as well are the only people in existence to ever come up with such a crazy idea. I just wanted to express my belief it happens, or HAS happened more than an absolute zero.

 

[Poetic Nova]

Actually tempting to use since Sony is forcing singstar to us.

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

Sadly It's getting to the point where you don't own anything you buy anymore

you never did. You own a licence to the game just like you always have. It's simply how Ip and copy rights work.

Completely incorrect.

The product you buy, regardless of what medium you buy it in, gives you physical ownership of the files/item you bought. By doing so, you agree not to sell or otherwise use the product or information in a commercial manner, but that product is yours to do with as you wish (rule of first-sale doctrine, making personal backups). Trying to justify this is like saying, "You can't own a Ford stationwagon - only the licence" or "you can't own this DVD, only a licence to view it." No matter how many weasel words the gaming industry uses to try and justify it, it has never worked, and never will work.

more or less yes that is what the statement is you don't own anything media wise due to the way the laws are written. I believe there are some companies trying to stop used dvd/bluray, game and book sales as well because of loss of in profit even if the said product is no longer in production.

Then I suggest you look up the rule of first-sale doctrine, because your argument is wrong. As said before, copyright doesn't trump physical ownership. Never has, and never will. Even if a law were passed to somehow outlaw reselling copies, it will still go on unabated and would eventually be struck down - you can't outlaw garage sales and the resale market on the whims of a few game publishers. That is absurd.

The second part of your argument goes to gaming companies trying to get a share of the resale market because they're trying to change the argument that a game (and by extension, physical media) can only be sold once. That's why they've pushed day-one DLC, online passes and pre-order bonuses over the last few years - it's all been done to combat the resale market.

I have a feeling this big court case coming up (at which this issue is at stake) will fall through, just like the attempt to push through digital media that can't be resold in the EU.

then this gets into grey area of modding pc games such as visual novels for example. There are Japanese companies out there that do not want people translating their product in English for any means "bad publicly etc". even if you buy the product and own it and want others to read it "face it Japanese is hard as hell to learn" by making patches for said players. The pc game base is tad more mod friendly here but that's difference In culture/business I suppose.

Now lets take The dmca signed into act of 2010 for example. This prevents you from making backups or copies of dvd's, games, cd's with copy protection even though it's legal to have a back up. The law was written as such if you by pass the copy protection on any physical media disc "even for the sole purpose of backing up" you are breaking the law so it makes the old laws moot because you know as well as I do that every piece of media now is copy protected.

 

[Strazdas]

Hasn't the 360 and Wii been 'easily to hack', for like...ever now?

Never really saw NEAR the level of stories on TE when that was happening...

Maybe it's cause the PSP got so screwed by CFW?

Yes, PS3 is less popular by pirates because it is harder to hack and blueray discs cost A LOT. you can buy 10 dual layer dvds for the cost of 1 blueray disc.
then again this was only hard for people who didnt knew how ofc, but there are many such in the world.
what can i say, sony - 0, humanity - 1. locking users out of costum software should be criminal offence, but now its copyright.

Actualy, you are wrong. To hack PS3 you only need a USB drive. Piracy on PS3 does not use bluray discs, it uses the internal or external hardrives.

that is a fairly new thing. it used to be blueray or bust.

Fairly new? It can be done for the last 2 years! And it was the first thing you could do btw. As in, Blu-ray discs were never, ever needed for piracy.

you are aware that PS3 existed for more than 2 years?
Back when current gen consoles started, noone used internal HDDs. Bluerays were the way to do it. 2 years is not a long time. maybe to a gamer that will get depressed for not palying a game on launch-day it would be, but not for a sane person.

Are you aware that piracy on PS3 started 2 years ago? There was NO WAY to play pirated games before that, not even with blurays!

I am aware of the games my cousin pirated 4 years ago. What was that you said?

Right, your "cousin". Show me proof, real documentation on that. Im pretty sure its bullshit.

Indeed it was my cousin. i am a PC-only gamer. He plays all 3 (PC, Xbox and PS3)
4 years ago it didnt occur to me to film the sitation because you may want to know it someday. so sorry, i cant prove it, and you have a right to distrust my word, but that does not negate it being truth.

 

[BernardoOne]

Hasn't the 360 and Wii been 'easily to hack', for like...ever now?

Never really saw NEAR the level of stories on TE when that was happening...

Maybe it's cause the PSP got so screwed by CFW?

Yes, PS3 is less popular by pirates because it is harder to hack and blueray discs cost A LOT. you can buy 10 dual layer dvds for the cost of 1 blueray disc.
then again this was only hard for people who didnt knew how ofc, but there are many such in the world.
what can i say, sony - 0, humanity - 1. locking users out of costum software should be criminal offence, but now its copyright.

Actualy, you are wrong. To hack PS3 you only need a USB drive. Piracy on PS3 does not use bluray discs, it uses the internal or external hardrives.

that is a fairly new thing. it used to be blueray or bust.

Fairly new? It can be done for the last 2 years! And it was the first thing you could do btw. As in, Blu-ray discs were never, ever needed for piracy.

you are aware that PS3 existed for more than 2 years?
Back when current gen consoles started, noone used internal HDDs. Bluerays were the way to do it. 2 years is not a long time. maybe to a gamer that will get depressed for not palying a game on launch-day it would be, but not for a sane person.

Are you aware that piracy on PS3 started 2 years ago? There was NO WAY to play pirated games before that, not even with blurays!

I am aware of the games my cousin pirated 4 years ago. What was that you said?

Right, your "cousin". Show me proof, real documentation on that. Im pretty sure its bullshit.

Indeed it was my cousin. i am a PC-only gamer. He plays all 3 (PC, Xbox and PS3)
4 years ago it didnt occur to me to film the sitation because you may want to know it someday. so sorry, i cant prove it, and you have a right to distrust my word, but that does not negate it being truth.

See, if that was true, everyone would know about and it would be documented. If your only source is your cousin...well, that is not exactly reliable.

 

[Strazdas]

Hasn't the 360 and Wii been 'easily to hack', for like...ever now?

Never really saw NEAR the level of stories on TE when that was happening...

Maybe it's cause the PSP got so screwed by CFW?

Yes, PS3 is less popular by pirates because it is harder to hack and blueray discs cost A LOT. you can buy 10 dual layer dvds for the cost of 1 blueray disc.
then again this was only hard for people who didnt knew how ofc, but there are many such in the world.
what can i say, sony - 0, humanity - 1. locking users out of costum software should be criminal offence, but now its copyright.

Actualy, you are wrong. To hack PS3 you only need a USB drive. Piracy on PS3 does not use bluray discs, it uses the internal or external hardrives.

that is a fairly new thing. it used to be blueray or bust.

Fairly new? It can be done for the last 2 years! And it was the first thing you could do btw. As in, Blu-ray discs were never, ever needed for piracy.

you are aware that PS3 existed for more than 2 years?
Back when current gen consoles started, noone used internal HDDs. Bluerays were the way to do it. 2 years is not a long time. maybe to a gamer that will get depressed for not palying a game on launch-day it would be, but not for a sane person.

Are you aware that piracy on PS3 started 2 years ago? There was NO WAY to play pirated games before that, not even with blurays!

I am aware of the games my cousin pirated 4 years ago. What was that you said?

Right, your "cousin". Show me proof, real documentation on that. Im pretty sure its bullshit.

Indeed it was my cousin. i am a PC-only gamer. He plays all 3 (PC, Xbox and PS3)
4 years ago it didnt occur to me to film the sitation because you may want to know it someday. so sorry, i cant prove it, and you have a right to distrust my word, but that does not negate it being truth.

See, if that was true, everyone would know about and it would be documented. If your only source is your cousin...well, that is not exactly reliable.

well my own eyes were witness of his pirated PS3 game, so cant really claim that he lied.
also this person also claims he can do it 4 years ago http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090430034816AAyuMIx

 

[Danceofmasks]

But why did they do it in the first place? Why were they tinkering around with the PS3's firmware to begin with if they themselves didn't want to spread it around? I guess it really raises the bigger question of "why do hackers hack?" I understand that there's some people out there wanting to send a message against companies they disagree with or otherwise just don't like, so they hack their systems as a way to attack them without getting found out. But I can't help but feel that a case like this are the hackers just saying "We did it just because we could." Well you can very easily take candy away from a baby, but that doesn't make you any less of a dick for doing it.

History lesson.
Every console, ever, up until the PS3, were hacked within weeks of launch.
To run Linux.
Nobody bothered to hack the PS3 for many years. Why?
Because what's the point of hacking a system that already allows you to run Linux?
That's the issue here. Sony marketed the PS3 as a computer.

The PS3 fat was, out of the box, really good value for being a web server. Or if you buy 12 of them, to make a supercomputer with.

Then Sony decided, "hey, let's patch in firmware that means you can't load your own programs anymore!"

It took some months after that before the first batch of PS3 hacks came about.

So, to be clear, the people who hack consoles are those tech savvy people who think, "if I buy hardware, I should be able to do whatever I want with it."

Let the record show that the PS3, for the time while it wasn't a closed system, was the most secure console in history.

Edit: fixing broken quote code