PS3 Hacker Raised All the Legal Funds Needed to Beat Sony in a Weekend

[valleyshrew]

Sony are not being greedy, they're the least profitable console manufacturer and desperately trying to keep profitability up so they can continue to make the games that we love. They're one of the least greedy games companies. How much money did Ico and Sotc make? Yet they've given half a decade to Fumito Ueda to develop an expensive sequel that will probably not be very profitable. What would EA or activision have done? Nintendo shit out cheap childrens games that sell 20 million copies. Wii sports was a joke, there are flash games with more depth. It didn't even follow the rules of tennis. But it's the best selling game of all time. Microsoft charge hugely for online and accessories (check the cost of upgrading a hard-drive on ps3 vs. 360), and barely make any games themselves. They, like nintendo and apple, have discovered that advertising is more important than a good product. So they spend $500m advertising kinect, while releasing no good games for it, and it's the fastest selling game accessory in history. Sony on the other hand spend lots of money developing good games that will work with Move like Killzone 3, and it sells fuck all.

It's similar to the napster situation. Is napster illegal? It shouldn't be. But it was shut down because 99.99% of it's use was piracy, and it's the same with cfw. Now on an iphone it's different, there's legitimate reasons you'd want an open system when away from home. With a ps3 on the other hand, the only thing it does that your PC doesn't, is play pirated ps3 games. So it should be illegal. Technically you can do what you want with your device, but Sony sold you the ps3 at a loss and you're being a dick by giving people the tools to bankrupt them.

 

[Centrophy]

Look, if I want to turn my toaster into a microwave or a control panel for a nuclear sub then I have every right to do so. And the people whining about Sony taking away PSN for everyone are using a straw man argument. It's not so black and white and would be foolish on their part. Suddenly they have no online multiplayer, which their competition does. It would be suicide for them.

Also the people stating that they can't ban people who whack their PSN accounts and Microsoft can because it Sony can't tell who's using a hacked version or not is bollocks. It's not GeoHotz' problem that Sony thought their console would never be hacked and thus never made provisions. Sony's next step should be coding in a some checks for PSN, and banning those that do.

I have no problem if they ban people off of their(Sony's) network, it's their network. The problem I do have is bricking and suing people for tinkering with their(the consumer's) machine. At the end of the day the argument comes down to whether you believe that what you buy is actually yours. I happen to think so. The Playstation Network on their other hand is Sony's, make everyone wear funny hats while on it for all I care.

 

[didibus]

Now everyone needs to clear there mind for two seconds. This is not simply a matter of protecting your cheat free gameplay, because you're a casual gamer that knows little of the circumstances. This is a man being legally accused, through the law of the country, of having doing something wrong. Any argument of the like: "well everybody will be complaining once people cheat in games" is of no value on the subject.

1) If a man who buys a good from a seller uses that good in a way in which the seller had not intended, should it be considered an act punishable by the law?

Obviously not.

2) If a man who buys a good from a seller uses that good in a way in which the seller had specifically told him that he only accepts to sell the good on the condition that the buyer does not use such good for X purpose, for which both parties agreed, and that the buyer thereafter uses the good for X purpose, should it be considered an act punishable by the law?

This is ambiguous to answer, and it is the real issue of this case. If yes, we must then define what punishment is appropriate. Having to return the good to the seller (should the buyer be refunded). Or maybe the buyer is imposed a fine (what amount?). Or some crazy punishment, as in jail (wouldn't make sense, as the buyer did not commit any crime, this is a civil issue, not criminal). If no, then you can go on enjoying everything you bought without worrying that misuse of the product will have you punished.

note: We are talking about goods here, not services.

 

[Autofaux]

There is no protagonist in this shitstorm. Both have their agendas, and neither are doing it for anybody other than themselves.

Sony, however, is the lesser of the two evils. Controlling its interests is exactly what it should be doing. Removing Other OS was an unnecessary move, but the attempts made by this self righteous sod to return them by circumventing the console's security altogether, and distributing those tools to others, makes him an accessory to piracy.

I'm with Sony on this one.

 

[The Lost Big Boss]

I lost any and all support for the kid when he did a rap video.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm really only using it as an example, also now that I think about it, SMAS is one kick ass acronym

Should have added "heroes" at the end. SMASH. >.>

Still, I think it's a good example of a current problem. A lot of people do emulate SMAS or the individual titles, though they are all commercially available in some format. Myself, I bought several SMB titles on the VC before I loaned my console to my mum.

Digital downloads have made a lot of titles viable again, but they're still being downloaded and emulated instead. It's one thign if you can no longer purchase the game legitimately 9though I will point out, still illegal and can get you into a lot of trouble) and quite another when it's being made available.

Geohot, for example, was playing Supewr Mario World, one of my first VC purchases.

Not that I'm saying Sony is automatically right, either. Like I said before, Sony really can't go after this on the grounds that Nintendo's propterties are being infringed, so all they've got is what looks like it comes down to jailbreaking. Still, it's interesting, even if only as a thought experiment.

 

[Arcticflame]

You pay for it, you agree to the rules and to abide by them. Don't like it? Don't do it.

But you don't, that's the point. EULA's aren't exactly iron clad.

 

[ImprovizoR]

For the sake of personal property that Romans established more than 2000 years ago I hope he wins. People should be able to do with their property whatever the fuck they want. If you payed for it you own it and you can do whatever you want with it. It's up to game developers and publishers to sue you if you pirate their product. Sony just wants to control your use of product you purchased. No one should be able to do that. Just because someone slaps EULA to something and tells you you need to abide by it doesn't mean that you should listen to them. EULA is evil and you should all ignore it.

 

[luckycharms8282]

I agree that once it's in consumer hands, they can do whatever they want with it.

I am afraid of how the influx of modded consoles will affect multiplayer. Hackers rarely just stick to modding their own stuff.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

You pay for it, you agree to the rules and to abide by them. Don't like it? Don't do it.

The jailbreaking of the iPod disagrees with you.

The jailbreaking of the iPod doesn't result in games being stoled from the app store. Hacking a PS3 does. Jailbroken iPods get their own custom apps. Hacked PS3 play stolen games. Huge difference my friend.

...

No, I think you've got it confused. These hacks were all about implementing "Other OS". It's also allowing a customer to do what he wants with his paid for merchandise. But trying to blur the line of hacking with "stolen" games is a little dubious at best when they accomplish different goals.

It's not blurring the line of hacking with stolen games when that's what this code that was "all about getting back the Other OS" leads to stolen games now is it?

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Also since he agreed to the EULA and ToS on purchasing the console:

Except as stated in this Agreement, all content and software provided through Sony Online Services are licensed non-exclusively and revocably to you, your children and children for whom you are a legal guardian (collectively for purposes of this section, "You" or "Your"), solely for Your personal, private, non-transferable, non-commercial, limited use on a limited number of activated PlayStation®3 computer entertainment systems, PSP® (PlayStation®Portable) systems, VOD Devices and any other hardware devices, including peripherals that are sold or licensed by a Sony company, authorized by SCEA in the country in which your account is registered. All intellectual property rights subsisting in Sony Online Services, including all software, data, and content subsisting in or in connection with the operation of Sony Online Services, the Online ID, the access to content and hardware used in connection with Sony Online Services (collectively defined as "Property"), belong to SCEA and its licensors. All use or access to Property shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement, other applicable agreements, if any, and all applicable copyright and intellectual property rights laws. You may not sell, rent, sublicense, modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble any portion of the Property . Except as stated in this Agreement or otherwise expressly permitted by SCEA in writing, you may not reproduce or transfer any portion of the Property. You may not create any derivative works, attempt to create the source code from the object code, or download or use any Property for any purpose other than as expressly permitted. You may not bypass, disable, or circumvent any encryption, security, digital rights management or authentication mechanism in connection with Sony Online Services

Later on in setion 12.

Some content may be provided automatically without notice when you sign in. Such content may include automatic updates or upgrades which may change your current operating system, cause a loss of data or content or cause a loss of functionalities or utilities. Such upgrades or updates may be provided for system software for your PlayStation®3


So techincally he did something he agreed not to do ( section 12 is in response to the change in other os feature QQ...buy a computer you bums)

The problem here is EULA's are not legally binding. The fact that they claim you are agreeing to it simply by purchasing the product, before even getting a chance to read it, makes it invalid. Also, he has stated he does not use PSN, nor intends to, so therefore he is not held to the PSN Eula either. Contracts are only legally binding if both parties actually agree to them.

Ummm, no. You're thinking of a shrink wrap contract. The thing is that the PS3 EULA is legally binding debause you can look it up online and print if off. If you can look at the contract before you make the purchase, than the contract is legal.

The courts have ruled that EULAs are unenforceable if there isn't a reasonable assumption that they are read and agreed to before taking effect. I don't think it is a reasonable assumption that every person who has ever purchased a PS3 has gone on-line looking for a EULA that is applicable once they purchase the product. How many parents/grandparents/siblings/spouses that purchased PS3's as a gift would know about this? Heck, I'm sure most actual gamers, who purchased a PS3 for themselves knew about it ahead of time. Therefore, it is unenforceable. A company can't say you agree to something without you actually agreeing to it. That's why all the EULAs on games have the little "I accept" button before you install. Otherwise, they have now way of proving you consented to the EULA.

I'm sure the courts didn't rule the EULA unenforcable. Especially since Blizzard games won a large sum of cash in a legal case when they sued someone for breaking their EULA a few years ago. Someone else on this thread already showed the links to that. If the EULA is so unenforcable then why bother?

 

[RadiusXd]

You pay for it, you agree to the rules and to abide by them. Don't like it? Don't do it.

But you don't, that's the point. EULA's aren't exactly iron clad.

EULA's are the thing everyone always goes:
blah blah by accepting blah blah.... TLR *accept*
Right? cause i hardly respect those things.

 

[starrman]

All those people who are saying that it will suck when PSN is shut down etc. Seriously? You're happy for Sony and other companies to use draconian methods, which fly in the face of every other form of media or electronics to abuse your rights as a purchaser? Sure there will be fallout, but suck it up, there's bigger things at stake here.

 

[Jaythulhu]

Perhaps there's a glimmer of hope in this for we who remember the golden days of gaming when developers did what the did for love of gaming, and for the one and only be-all and end-all of gaming, the PC. Sony wants to stop you from doing whatever you want, Microsoft shits on everything, but the PC is always there to love you. It will never deny you the ability to install, use or play whatever you want, anytime, unless the software you're trying to install is a faulty mess of poor quality code, and that's the fault of the devs, not the hardware (which you can switch out for newer, better performing and higher quality parts as you see fit, by the way).

Viva La PC!

(completely off topic, has anyone else had problems with completely unreadable captcha "challenges" lately?)

 

[jayzz911]

You pay for it, you agree to the rules and to abide by them. Don't like it? Don't do it.

ok to be fair if it used to let you put what ever OS you wanted on it then sony got greedy and took it away. While i myself have no reason to put a different OS on my PS3 i reserve the right to do so. Hell microsoft had this happen with the 360 mods and that was fucking hardware all you do is void the warenty and go on with your life. Hope this guy wins and wins big.

Blame George Hotz, Sony didn't care about it until Hotz started publicly hacking the OS with that very functionality. When you misbehave, you typically lose priviledges as punishment, no? George Hotz misbehaved, and this is the consequence. If he was doing it for his own personal use, he shouldn't have published the access keys.

they took it away and thats what made him do this... it's not the other way around. Or in your words: He lost the functionality and that made him misbehave in Sony's view (not the law just Sony's)
To the people saying he shouldn't have made it public i ask why? All he did was help other people install linux on their ps3 so yea then people choose to use that to pirate games which isn't his fault
People whining about online multiplayer: Sony still owns PSN and there are terms of service that state you can't cheat or use a modified console. so people using modded consoles will get banned from PSN

 

[Alon Shechter]

Looks like Bond is getting back in action.