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

JonnWood

New member
Jul 16, 2008
528
0
0
montopolis said:
You are correct, your argument is ludicrous.

But responding to it, Sony's issue is not that he hacked his own console, on his own. Its that he posted the root key and instructions on the internet for everyone to access. You are absolutely able to do what YOU want to YOUR property, on your own, as long as you don't go online, because the PSN is Sony's network.

The real issue here is, that Sony is suing because they believe that the root key is Sony's property and it is not George Hotz's to give away to the public. Almost all these post here seem to not understand that, including this article's author and apparently George Hotz.

Sony is NOT contending that they should be allowed to come to your house, and mess with your PS3. They simply don't want YOU giving away to THEIR root keys to EVERYONE! Is that such an evil thing to want? to keep THEIR secret code a secret? I believe not.

Reading this article and its subsequent posts, I notice that everyone here keeps avoiding the real issue, and making it about Sony invading your houses.
HIDE YO KIDS
HIDE YO WIFE
:)

klaynexas3 said:
i think both sides are at fault. the hacker has unleashed the pirate community unto the ps3, and now will be losing game sales because it "was just for homebrewing". sony is at fault in that it needs an engine that is more mod friendly,
Home consoles are almost never mod friendly, and the PS3 has been out for 4 years without mods.

look how well valve does because of that, homebrew is allowed, but the pirating is still kept at bay.
Actually, it is possible to pirate Steam games, just inconvenient.

it's a good system, that should be done for the ps3. i don't know how most of this stuff works, i've never done it and i haven't looked into the hardware of my ps3, but from the sounds of it, i guess all that i can see happening is psn turning into 4chan on a console. homebrew, good. piracy, bad. let's make sure we can see this.
Problem is, piracy dogs homebrews heels like a chihuahua following a guy who's shoes smell like Snausages; if you have homebrew, there's going to be piracy.
Retosa said:
Illyasviel said:
Retosa said:
Yeah, and like Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft haven't sued their customers for ridiculous things. Fan games and fan projects, Pokemon being discussed on a forum with screenshots of the japanese game before it's released in NA. Fan movies, etc. Instead of getting sued all the time, we get bullshit DRM that rootkits our computers, among other things. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are all abusing the laws and rules that were created by the RIAA/MPAA's pressure. And honestly, the gaming industry has prevented usable backups from being created since even the Playstation. Hell, even as far back as the Nintendo or before then. It's not like cartridge backup modules were easy to come by at any point in time. They are doing just as much to harm consumers as anyone else. Price fixing, DRM, abusing 'IP' laws to say that consumers don't own their gaming consoles.

I will agree with you that Geohot could have handled the situation better. But I have to say, Sony can't be reasoned with. They removed Other OS very quickly, and were never planning to bring it back. They also removed backwards compatibility. All in the name of 'protecting their IP' and 'combating piracy'. If they don't like what you do with their system, they gut it. And they've proven it time and time again.

The industry may not be as evil as it could be, but that's just a blanket statement. You could say "that guy just murdered those people... But at least he didn't rape them before he did it. He's not as evil as he could be." or "That guy just robbed the convenience store... But at least he didn't shoot the clerk. He's not as evil as he could be." In the end, it becomes a statement about how BAD the other industries are, not how GOOD the gaming industry is. What is being done is wrong, and the fact that so many people are convinced Sony is just "protecting itself" is proof of how badly brainwashed we've become.
I don't think the number of cases the gaming industry files per year even comes close to ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND. Think about that. Every single day, about 275 people or organizations received an order to appear in court. Can you even think of 27 times you've heard of the gaming industry suing somebody? Not a typo. I am asking for you to recall a number of cases filed, off the top of your head, one tenth of what the rest of the industry does in a day in. I can think of when Nintendo sued an Australian based R4 ( the DS crack ), Sony sued the guys distributing the USB crack and the Nintendo thing about Pokemon you mentioned. Three total and two of those are pretty damn legit.

Everybody restricts information about their products before release. Sure the suing is a bit much, but that's not something you can single out the gaming industry for. Ever wonder what happens when you distribute a movie that has a marquee on the bottom that says "Pre-release: not for distribution?" Most forms of copy protection do not involve installing a rootkit, and this only effects PC gamers, which means all you console only gamers don't get to use that rationale. But speaking of rootkits, do you remember StarForce? A Russian form of copy protection that installed a rootkit and was temporarily used by UbiSoft? Well, gamers complained about StarForce and UbiSoft dropped StarForce completely, and in fact, did not resort back to DRM for years. They brought DRM back when it turned out some of their games were being ridiculously pirated. I don't think I can remember any incidents of any other entertainment players doing anything like this for consumers.

That other OS argument is hardly worth much either. I doubt more than 5% of people even tried it once, and even though they took ONE feature out, they added a bunch more. Oh hai Netflix, PSHome, Qriocity, 3D support, when did you get on my PS3? Btw, if you really want Linux that bad, do what I did and buy like a USD400 notebook or dual boot or emulate ( I forget the exact term, but I believe you can do it with Cygwin ).

Backwards compatibility is not a big deal. I have it, and used it once. I came to the realization that while using backwards compatibility, the game is constantly streaming right off the disk, as opposed to intelligently using PS3 caching or installation. This shortens the life of my bluray drive and generates extra heat that can damage my PS3. If I really want to play PS2 games, I'll buy a PS2.

I'm not sure when this happened, but the more I talk to people the more I get the impression that a significant portion of people believe that businesses should be and are run by saints, that businesses do not constitute people making decisions, but some type of amorphous, nonhuman, innately evil substance making decisions, and finally, that they are the only people who matter in the universe. Sure businesses might not be your friend, but neither is GeoHot, and unlike GeoHot, businesses allow people to put bread on their table. Let me say it again. GeoHot is not your friend. Don't ever mistake him to be.

So, for once, throw the gaming industry a bone. They deserve it. As it is, sure DLC kinda sucks, but unlike the other industries, they really are making forward strides to bring consumers value through aggressive integration of technology. What about the music industry? Well, soon after the RIAA formed, the Big 5 ( I think? ) reduced CD prices by 30% to about USD12.50 / disc average, but those prices have gone back up to USD16. When was the last time you got a voucher from, say EMI Music? Hey, thanks for buying one of our CD's. As our thank you, here's a coupon to get 50% off your next purchase. In comparison, I have gotten two from EA games, eight beta invitations, one from GameStop and I think one from Sony. In comparison, games have only increased in price once in the last decade plus, hardly in line with increases in development and marketing costs and inflation.

Consider the alternative. Headlines filled with gamers being sued for thirty grand per game pirated. Think that number is absurd? Its not.

I think I saw somebody making some kind of analogy to Sony removing Other OS to be like removing the engine from your car? That's the most ridiculous analogy I've heard in my life. You don't need Other OS to use your PS3. Its more like... removing cruise control. Sure its a nice feature, I guess, but I've never used it, and I wouldn't be surprised if most people haven't used it either.
Just because the gaming industry doesn't sue quite as frequently as the music industry doesn't make a lot of the lawsuits right. Plus, you have to consider that there are a LOT more people pirating music than there are pirating games. Music files are 3-5mb/piece (on average). Games... Well, these days you're looking at a minimum of 1GB, often somewhere around 5-10GB, with some being much larger than that. Takes a lot longer to download, and is a more niche hobby, rather than a close to universal hobby. Compound that with the number of people with the technical knowledge to pirate games being a bit more limited (using Daemon Tools is easy as hell, but I've talked to some people who wanted to try 'getting the free games off the internets', who got the iso, couldn't figure out wtf to do, and just said screw it and bought the game.) Also, considering that expanded technical knowhow tends to include the ability to hide themselves better via proxies and anonymous bittorrent settings/programs and etc. This all makes it harder for game companies to go after gamers pirating their goods.

Not to mention the fact that the music industry tends to be a lot further behind in their business models than the gaming industry. They've done the same thing for a lot longer, and are entrenched deeper in their ways than the gaming industry is. RIAA feels like it has a lot more to lose from internet music distribution than the gaming industry has to lose from online gaming distribution (in fact, both industries have a lot to gain... However, music publishing has a LOT it could lose, due to an increased ease in self publishing over the internet, with the proper technical knowhow. The music industry knows this.) Also, I have to laugh at the fact that most of the music pirates area also their biggest consumers, as recent studies have found out. Actually, a lot of pirates I know are like that. No, doesn't make it right, but I just thought of it and it made me laugh.

It sure was nice of Ubisoft to temporarily remove DRM from their games, but they brought back some of the most ridiculous DRM out there. Also, I'm willing to bet that someone high up in Ubisoft decided that since 'game pirating' was at an 'all time high', 'a lot of our games are being pirated' so they needed to 'protect ourselves with DRM! GET PEOPLE WORKING ON IT RATHER THAN THE GAME!'

I never got a chance to use backwards compatibility on my PS3, but if they designed it properly (AKA caching the information properly and making use of the PS3's superior memory, while emulating the processing power and etc), then the PS3 would've been better at playing PS2 games than the PS2. Kinda like the PS2 was better at PSOne games than the PSOne was. It all came down to them not wanting to spend the extra money on properly designing it. Though, I can kinda feel for them a bit, considering they sold every system at a loss for a long time, and weren't doing so hot for so long, so I can understand removing it from the PS3 Fat. BUT, they could've fixed all that stuff with the PS3 Slim, instead of removing it completely. Your reason for not liking the PS2 backwards compatibility is them not designing it correctly, which is an argument for how much they failed at it, not it being a bad idea.

Other OS is something that maybe not a lot of people used, but it was a nice feature that allowed customization and the ability to play around and enjoy the system to its fullest for some people. It allowed homebrew apps and all sorts of fun stuff to be done on the PS3. Just because it wasn't a feature you wanted or used, doesn't mean others didn't like it. Sony removing it pissed off a lot of people who liked screwing around with that kind of stuff, and those are the people that went out and cracked the system open.

No one thinks that corporations are run by saints. But if we disagree with what they're trying to do, and what laws and rules they try to force down our throats, why shouldn't we fight back? Why should we roll over and just accept that we pay for a leased console that we aren't allowed to decide what we can do with? Why the hell should we just let them tell us what we can do with things we pay hard cash for, with none of the legal benefits of a lease? Tell ya what, if we start getting the legal benefits of leasing the consoles, I'll be alright with the fact that it's a lease. But either we lease the damn thing, and get the protections, or we own it, and we can do whatever the hell we want with the damn thing as long as what we do doesn't have an effect on the Playstation Network servers. I don't agree with the script kiddies screwing with the PSN games and all that bullshit.

No one wants pirating (except the pirates, of course), but a lot of us want to know that when we buy a console, we BUY it. And a lot of us want to be able to do more with our PS3's than we're currently allowed to do. As for Geohot being our friend? I don't give a shit whether he's a friend of mine or not. He's fighting a court case that, if he wins, will do exactly what I want. Tell me I OWN my Playstation 3. I'm not leasing it, I own the fucking thing. And THAT, is what I approve of. Complain all you like about the fact that he 'abused Sony's IP', IP needs to be completely redefined and the protections of it need to be reinvented. The DMCA needs to be completely abolished, and copyright law rewritten from the ground up.

I was reading an article a couple months ago on /. about how some scientist had created some new technology that sounded interesting. I don't remember exactly what it was, but he was presenting it. Afterwards, he went up to a company exec to ask if they'd be willing to help fund his research for applications if it could do what he was expecting it to do when he completed his preliminary research. The executive laughed, and informed him that if it worked the way it was supposed to, he would have his company hire a shitton of copyright lawyers, and write patents for every single application for the technology that they could think of. Thus, the scientist decided he wasn't going to patent his own research, due to the fact that even if he did, it wouldn't matter at all. This shit happens ALL the time, and it slows innovation and is absolute bullshit of the highest degree. This is why I hate copyright law, IP, and the DMCA.

As for the analogy, that was mine (unless someone else made an analogy similar to the one I made, or I might have quoted that one and got my analogy from it, I can't remember). Anyways, my analogy was that it was like modifying your engine. Other OS is another OS, runs differently from PS3's OS. Which makes it VERY MUCH like modifying your engine. If you fuck up, you can either screw up and have to start over, or you could brick your system (which can happen when modifying a car's engine as well). If you don't know what you're doing, you can brick your car/PS3. If you brick it, it's your fault, and Sony's (or the car manufacturer's) warranty has been voided (as they don't support Other OS anymore). You want another one, you buy a new PS3/car.

Edit:

montopolis said:
Yes, because I should be forced to make a choice between keeping a feature I enjoy, and being able to play new games on a system I paid for, just because Sony decided to REMOVE the feature from the system. So they removed an ADVERTISED feature from a system I paid for with the knowledge that I could USE that ADVERTISED feature, OR tell me I can't play any new GAMES that come out for my GAMING console, because the NEW games require an update that REMOVES my ADVERTISED feature.

Yes, that's fair. Either I have an extremely limited library of games, with no access to online games, or lose an advertised feature for the console I purchased thinking I'd continue to receive support of my advertised feature. It's bullshit and you know it. That's like buying a car with an iPod Dock, only to have the vehicle recalled because they decided to remove the iPod Dock from the vehicle due to some legal matter. Yeah, that's fair.
No, it's like having the iPod dock removed from your car AUTOMATICALLY at your next tune-up or REPAIR, not a RECALL. You can keep DRIVING it, but the next time you need SUPPORT for it, poof.

Getting an obscure feature back isn't worth all the piracy that comes with it, and you know it.
 

JonnWood

New member
Jul 16, 2008
528
0
0
Decagonapus said:
Darkauthor81 said:
But then again, no one can blame gun makers for gun violence or McDonalds for obesity. He gave them a tool. If they choose to abuse it. That's on them not him.
Exactly
Except for the part where he would have to be really, really dumb not to expect people to use it for piracy, given the example of, oh, just about every other hacked console ever.
 

mabrookes

New member
Dec 5, 2010
16
0
0
montopolis said:
Retosa said:
Yes, because I should be forced to make a choice between keeping a feature I enjoy, and being able to play new games on a system I paid for, just because Sony decided to REMOVE the feature from the system. So they removed an ADVERTISED feature from a system I paid for with the knowledge that I could USE that ADVERTISED feature, OR tell me I can't play any new GAMES that come out for my GAMING console, because the NEW games require an update that REMOVES my ADVERTISED feature.


Yes, that's fair. Either I have an extremely limited library of games, with no access to online games, or lose an advertised feature for the console I purchased thinking I'd continue to receive support of my advertised feature. It's bullshit and you know it. That's like buying a car with an iPod Dock, only to have the vehicle recalled because they decided to remove the iPod Dock from the vehicle due to some legal matter. Yeah, that's fair.
You missed the point, NO ONE FORCE YOU TO DO ANYTHING, you had a CHOICE. Sony decided to no longer support Other OS, from that firmware on. You had the choice to not update your PS3.

Microsoft no longer supports Halo 2 online anymore, and it was advertised to have online multiplayer. Chromehounds, by Sega, is no longer supported as well. So why don't you complain about that? EA has many games that no longer have online support, but all were advertised to be playable online. Would it be fair if they got hacked too? You cant play any of those games the way they were advertised to play!
.
If no one was forcing anything, there wouldnt have been a choice to make - thats pretty simple. And as for the games online issue, what if someone did hack them and set up a system to play them online again would you care, or want them stopped for daring to enable a game to be played?
 

Retosa

New member
Jul 10, 2010
107
0
0
montopolis said:
Retosa said:
Yes, because I should be forced to make a choice between keeping a feature I enjoy, and being able to play new games on a system I paid for, just because Sony decided to REMOVE the feature from the system. So they removed an ADVERTISED feature from a system I paid for with the knowledge that I could USE that ADVERTISED feature, OR tell me I can't play any new GAMES that come out for my GAMING console, because the NEW games require an update that REMOVES my ADVERTISED feature.


Yes, that's fair. Either I have an extremely limited library of games, with no access to online games, or lose an advertised feature for the console I purchased thinking I'd continue to receive support of my advertised feature. It's bullshit and you know it. That's like buying a car with an iPod Dock, only to have the vehicle recalled because they decided to remove the iPod Dock from the vehicle due to some legal matter. Yeah, that's fair.
You missed the point, NO ONE FORCE YOU TO DO ANYTHING, you had a CHOICE. Sony decided to no longer support Other OS, from that firmware on. You had the choice to not update your PS3.

Microsoft no longer supports Halo 2 online anymore, and it was advertised to have online multiplayer. Chromehounds, by Sega, is no longer supported as well. So why don't you complain about that? EA has many games that no longer have online support, but all were advertised to be playable online. Would it be fair if they got hacked too? You cant play any of those games the way they were advertised to play!

You are all just hanging on to the removal of Other OS as an excuse to wrongly justify the hacking of the PS3.

PS; Thanks for your car analogy, its exactly what this argument needs more dumb-ass car analogies.
a) Halo 2 multiplayer requires expensive servers to upkeep, thus making it completely different. Other OS took money to REMOVE rather than money to SUPPORT it. Sony wasn't losing money on this feature, it spent money to remove it.

b) Yes, you were, it's called coercion.

co·er·cion
   /koʊˈɜrʃən/ Show Spelled[koh-ur-shuhn] Show IPA
?noun
1.
the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2.
force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

"If you don't update your OS and remove Other OS, you can't play our new games.", that's using their power as the governing force of the PS3's firmware to FORCE you to update to play any new games for your PS3. Your attempt to dress it up as a fair choice, or even a choice at all, is laughable. Have a console that WORKS for what I bought it for, or lose a feature that I really really enjoy, but keeping it would essentially make my system ONLY for that. And considering the $600-$700 pricetag that came with the system at the time Other OS was still available... I don't really think there's a choice there.

If the choice was whether you could use PSN or Other OS, it would be different. But saying you can't access PSN or play new games if you want to use Other OS, is essentially saying "You want that feature, you're gonna have a system to run Other OS, and that's all it'll do.", because you'll get bored as hell of your games, as it's a very limited library, and the fact that you CAN'T get DLC for those games.

Also, if I remember correctly... Halo 2 for the PC is still playable online. Microsoft may have cut support of it for the XBox because it's too expensive to run, but if they had allowed fans to support it, the game would still be playable online.

Wrongly hacking the PS3? I'm sorry, I support information, and I support people who hack their consoles and their peripherals. 99% of the entertainment value garnered from the Kinect is because of hacks. The only complaints I hear about involving Kinect hacking is that some people think what they're doing is useless. Yet the second it involves a console everyone's up in arms screaming about piracy.

Piracy is a problem, yes. But, we make it out to be a lot worse than it is. My other issue arrives when people support a company screwing over ALL of their consumers because of 'piracy'. Claiming that the company has a right to protect its IP. Piracy isn't as big a problem as the companies tell us, and we all know it. And it does NOT justify them screwing over their paying customers. The fact that people support them in screwing us while claiming pirates make it justified is a testament to how brainwashed we are.

JonnWood said:
Snip
Problem is, piracy dogs homebrews heels like a chihuahua following a guy who's shoes smell like Snausages; if you have homebrew, there's going to be piracy.
Snip
Getting an obscure feature back isn't worth all the piracy that comes with it, and you know it.
Problem is, people say piracy is supported by homebrew. The only 'piracy' I've ever heard of supported by homebrew is emulation of older systems. And if PSN is the main distributor of homebrew, they can significantly reduce the chances of that getting around. Yeah, people can grab it off the internets and put it on their PS3. Yes, some of those games are actually available to buy now via PSN/Wii Virtual Console, etc. But if you already own the games, why not allow them to be playable on your newer consoles via that. Hell, my PHONE has emulation apps. All it is, is Sony wanting absolute control over everything that's doable with their system. That's wrong.

Actually, if Sony hadn't removed the feature to begin with, and if Sony had supported homebrew to begin with, we would've had the pirates breaking the PS3, specifically FOR pirating. Whether it would've come sooner or later, I don't know. But there wouldn't have been any argument as to WHY it was broken open, no defense, and it would've been easy for Sony to take whatever asshat cracked the PS3 for pirating to court. The fact is, the PS3 would've eventually been cracked. And when Sony pissed off people by removing Other OS, they got people who install Linux on shit involved. Honestly, you KNOW they're going to break it open as soon as you involve them. Yeah, it takes time, but time and effort are all it took.

montopolis said:
You are correct, your argument is ludicrous.

But responding to it, Sony's issue is not that he hacked his own console, on his own. Its that he posted the root key and instructions on the internet for everyone to access. You are absolutely able to do what YOU want to YOUR property, on your own, as long as you don't go online, because the PSN is Sony's network.

The real issue here is, that Sony is suing because they believe that the root key is Sony's property and it is not George Hotz's to give away to the public. Almost all these post here seem to not understand that, including this article's author and apparently George Hotz.

Sony is NOT contending that they should be allowed to come to your house, and mess with your PS3. They simply don't want YOU giving away to THEIR root keys to EVERYONE! Is that such an evil thing to want? to keep THEIR secret code a secret? I believe not.

Reading this article and its subsequent posts, I notice that everyone here keeps avoiding the real issue, and making it about Sony invading your houses.
Sony has been trying to prevent people from modifying their own consoles for a long time. The USB hack that existed for a while, as well as a million other different hacks they've been legally trying to crush. They want to have absolute control over their console, and control what you can and can't do. It's not as simple as "They don't want you giving out their root key!". If they could figure out a way to do so without a nasty backlash, they'd do what M$ did, and send out a PS3 update that would brick any PS3 running Other OS.

Also, the idea of licensing your console is a very new one. That's the legal battle that's essentially being fought here. This isn't about piracy. This isn't even REALLY about the rootkey. This is about a company trying to say we shouldn't have the ability to modify our consoles because we license them. As a licensed good, we are only allowed to what the actual owner of the license allows us to do. So NO, technically we DON'T own the PS3, and we're NOT allowed to do what we like with it, as it goes against the license. I want to own my console, not license it. THAT is what this fight is about, and something that a lot of people need to understand.

As for keeping their secret code, it is the easiest way to break the PS3 open so you CAN do what you want with it. So if you DO want to play with your system, you kinda need it. If you think everyone should have to find it for themselves... Well, that's a bit silly. And BTW, Sony gave it out themselves via Twitter anyways. ;)

chewbacca1010 said:
Shit like this always amuses me for two main reasons: number one, it brings out the scores of fanboy apologists who defend Sony like they own stock or something. PROTIP gents: Sony, like all corporations, is incapable of giving a fuck about you, your well-being, your rights or anything that is good for you. If killing you off would make them a boatload of money, they'd find a way. In this instance, they are still going to be raking in the scratch either way. They'll just hold slightly less power over what they make, and having less power, however slight, scares the Christ out of most corporations. Cry me a river, is my response.

Number two, it just goes to show how far from our roots this industry has shifted. At one point in the history of computers and gaming, experimentation was encouraged and lauded as it lead to all manner of innovation. In fact, gaming, the thing we've all come to love, was born of this experimentation. Now that major players are involved, people who try to get creative get punished. So much for innovation kiddies. Enjoy Generic War Shooter #1,349.

Shame on Sony, if you ask me and more power to the people, rather then to the corporations.
Thank you. I agree wholeheartedly.

Edit:

Illyasviel said:
Those questions weren't really meant to be answered, only to demonstrate that the majority of people who complain about the loss of Other OS are not even people who get any use or intend to get any use out of OpenOS. Good job though. You probably know more about Linux than I do. Iirc, you can just use grep to string match and as for the pattern matching part, the syntax is similar to various scripting languages ( doesn't use * for wildcard though, I think more along the lines of ^, etc. ).

I was thinking Knoppix ( great for livebooting ), but ended up with k-Ubuntu.

Business is taking over innovation because its too goddamn expensive to do innovation on your own. There will always be exceptions, but the fact of the matter is innovation isn't fueled by happy thoughts and unicorn farts. The number of people who get screwed now pales in comparison to the number of people who get screwed if it really were a big free for all melee.

But oh wait... looks like you can innovate at home after all [http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=25955]. So the gaming industry is already giving you their tools... for free, or the price of a game, and we still need to hack the PS3 "for the homebrew?"

Look, I have no problem with you. The people I have problems with are generally pirates who will come up with any kind of bullshit reason as long as it, however vaguely, justifies their right to piracy.
I think the reason that a lot of people associate piracy with Linux on the PS3 is because, well, emulation really. Piracy aside from emulation was never really a problem until AFTER this whole fiasco. And honestly, a lot of people own old games that over time got stolen, or the console broke, etc. So they want to enjoy that on their PS3, because let's face it, wiring your computer to your TV just for emulation is a lot of hassle, and you can't use your PC while you're doing that.

Let's face it, none of us want piracy. But we also know it will continue to happen despite everything. However, we also know that piracy isn't as big a problem as it is claimed to be. If it was, we wouldn't have a growing gaming industry.

And just so you know, I'm not against company driven innovation. What I'm against is companies patenting things that don't belong to them and forcing the actual inventors to pay THEM for applications of their own invention. Or companies patenting technology then never developing it or bringing it out into the open because it would drive them out of business, and they want to make as much money as they can. The current copyright system allows for things like this to be done, and I don't like that, it DOES stifle innovation. I'm not against company driven innovation of their own businesses to push the boundaries of what can be done. And in a lot of cases, individual innovation is neigh impossible, I understand that. But the fact that when it does happen they can't profit from them due to patent trolls... Yeah, not cool.

Also, good on Epic Games for that! However, there still needs to be a distribution model in place for games made like that (AKA because they have to let Sony/XBox share the profits to distribute it, it stops being free homebrew, but instead becomes an indie game.)

Also, I've got no problem with you, I think you're an intelligent person, and you're fun to debate with. We haven't devolved to insulting each other or flaming, instead we're offering points, countering them, etc. We definitely have different opinions, but that doesn't mean you've not made very valid points. I also like to think I've made valid points in my arguments. I don't expect to change your opinion, but if I made you think about why a lot of people who don't support piracy are supporting this guy, then I did what I set out to do.

Also, thanks for reminding me of grep. I need to install linux again, it's been a while. Having a baby really cuts into your technology toying time!
 

Retosa

New member
Jul 10, 2010
107
0
0
montopolis said:
Retosa said:
montopolis said:
Retosa said:
Yes, because.
You missed the point.
a) Halo 2 multiplayer requires expensive servers to upkeep, thus making it completely different. Other OS took money to REMOVE rather than money to SUPPORT it. Sony wasn't losing money on this feature, it spent money to remove it.

b) Yes, you were, it's called coercion.

co·er·cion
   /koʊˈɜrʃən/ Show Spelled[koh-ur-shuhn] Show IPA
?noun
1.
the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2.
force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

"If you don't update your OS and remove Other OS, you can't play our new games.", that's using their power as the governing force of the PS3's firmware to FORCE you to update to play any new games for your PS3. Your attempt to dress it up as a fair choice, or even a choice at all, is laughable. Have a console that WORKS for what I bought it for, or lose a feature that I really really enjoy, but keeping it would essentially make my system ONLY for that. And considering the $600-$700 pricetag that came with the system at the time Other OS was still available... I don't really think there's a choice there.

If the choice was whether you could use PSN or Other OS, it would be different. But saying you can't access PSN or play new games if you want to use Other OS, is essentially saying "You want that feature, you're gonna have a system to run Other OS, and that's all it'll do.", because you'll get bored as hell of your games, as it's a very limited library, and the fact that you CAN'T get DLC for those games.

Also, if I remember correctly... Halo 2 for the PC is still playable online. Microsoft may have cut support of it for the XBox because it's too expensive to run, but if they had allowed fans to support it, the game would still be playable online.

Wrongly hacking the PS3? I'm sorry, I support information, and I support people who hack their consoles and their peripherals. 99% of the entertainment value garnered from the Kinect is because of hacks. The only complaints I hear about involving Kinect hacking is that some people think what they're doing is useless. Yet the second it involves a console everyone's up in arms screaming about piracy.

Piracy is a problem, yes. But, we make it out to be a lot worse than it is. My other issue arrives when people support a company screwing over ALL of their consumers because of 'piracy'. Claiming that the company has a right to protect its IP. Piracy isn't as big a problem as the companies tell us, and we all know it. And it does NOT justify them screwing over their paying customers. The fact that people support them in screwing us while claiming pirates make it justified is a testament to how brainwashed we are.


montopolis said:
You are correct, your argument is ludicrous.

.
Sony has been trying to prevent people from modifying their own consoles for a long time. The USB hack that existed for a while, as well as a million other different hacks they've been legally trying to crush. They want to have absolute control over their console, and control what you can and can't do. It's not as simple as "They don't want you giving out their root key!". If they could figure out a way to do so without a nasty backlash, they'd do what M$ did, and send out a PS3 update that would brick any PS3 running Other OS.

Also, the idea of licensing your console is a very new one. That's the legal battle that's essentially being fought here. This isn't about piracy. This isn't even REALLY about the rootkey. This is about a company trying to say we shouldn't have the ability to modify our consoles because we license them. As a licensed good, we are only allowed to what the actual owner of the license allows us to do. So NO, technically we DON'T own the PS3, and we're NOT allowed to do what we like with it, as it goes against the license. I want to own my console, not license it. THAT is what this fight is about, and something that a lot of people need to understand.

As for keeping their secret code, it is the easiest way to break the PS3 open so you CAN do what you want with it. So if you DO want to play with your system, you kinda need it. If you think everyone should have to find it for themselves... Well, that's a bit silly. And BTW, Sony gave it out themselves via Twitter anyways. ;)
Im amazed that you managed to ignore the other 26 games I mentioned that no longer have, (as advertised), online multiplayer. Halo 2 can still be played online on PC, but not on Xbox, they removed a feture that was advertised. Once again I ask you, is it ok to hack them?

You were NOT, I say again, NOT FORCED or COERCED to do anything, they took a feature away, they told you, they warned you they were gonna take the feature away, they told you what to do if you wanted to keep it. In the same way the Matrix online did, Halo 2 and many other games when their multiplayer was rempoved. So, does that give ANYONE the right to hack those games and publish their weaknesses online? I dont think so.

Sony doesnt want people hacking their consoles, neither does Microsoft nor Nintendo. You brought this up, yet you have no issue with it, Microsoft bricks YOUR system if they identify it being hacked, isnt that invasive as well? Why doesnt anyone have and issue with that? The only difference is that Sony is taking futher legal action, instead of just bricking their systems.


You understand what Im saying based on your answers, but you are hung up on the illusion that "Sony says you dont own your system" which is not true. You can do as you wish to your own system, privately and off their PSN. What they are suing is whether giving away their root key to everyone is legal or not. I have not seen a single report about this saying that Sony claims to own your system. All the reports are about the issue that he gave away the root key. Like YOU said, the root key is the easiest way to hack the console, that why they sued.

Im sure that if you hack your own console on your own, and keep it offline, I am possitive Sony (or Microsoft for that matter) wouldn't give a shit.
First of all, I have not seen you mention "26 games I mentioned that no longer have, (as advertised), online multiplayer", second of all, let's see how I respond.

Okay, let me break this down for you.

1. I didn't miss the point. You're saying it's alright to be told you can't use your console for both things it was bought for. Gaming and Other OS in this instance. Yes, I COULD choose to not use it for gaming. Or I COULD choose to lose Other OS. The fact is, you don't get it. To you, it's "Sony is defending us against the hackers and pirates and cheaters OMG!" And it's pointless for me to convince you otherwise. You have no understanding of the greater implications, and can't see past the "OMG SONY TOLD YOU HOW YOU COULD KEEP OTHER OS!", yeah, at the cost of making it useless for its major design purpose, as well as preventing you from enjoying any new features that were designed for it. *insert sarcasm* Go Sony. *end sarcasm* TL;DR, Sony pretty much gave an ultimatum. Stop using Other OS or stop buying new games. This is not good policy, and should NOT be suported, as it is an attempt to coerce you into dropping a feature that, while really nice, isn't what 99% of people will choose over keeping their console able to play the latest games. You were given the option "Do what we want and drop the other feature, or lose the ability to play any new games." I'd call that coercion.

2. You manage to completely ignore the fact that online multiplayer CANNOT be supported forever if it is completely funded by the company. At some point, the potential for profit from keeping the service going, as well as the good PR from keeping the service going, are offset by the cost of keeping the service running. If anyone somehow managed to create a Halo 2 (or whatever other games that I never noticed you mention, and couldn't really give a fuck about) server that would run, and created a hack for the original XBox that allowed you to play your Halo 2 online, I would clap and say "Good job! Excellent hack". And yes, it would be a GOOD thing if it was hacked. I already stated that it cost money for Microsoft to continue to support online multiplayer, just as any other company knows, it's expensive to support online multiplayer IF THEY CONTROL THE SERVERS. If the servers are player controlled, then the company doesn't have to put out the money. Makes a huge difference. You ignored this point completely.

However, as I also previously mentioned. It actually cost MONEY for Sony to REMOVE Other OS. So instead of being a money saving initiative, it was something they had to fund, to cut out a service they had advertised. And they claimed it was to beef up the security of the system and prevent piracy. I hadn't heard of any PS3 games being pirated. This was because they found out people had been playing non PS3 games on their PS3's. (Emulating SNES, NES, etc.) They feared that people would use it more for that, than for playing PS3 games. I believe they were also fearful of PSOne emulation, which would have definitely cut away at their PSOne Classics profits, but I don't think it would've been a very big one, due to the technical expertise to get that running. No one was pirating PS3 games at that time.

All in all, they removed the feature out of fear of losing control of what the system would be used for.

3. I will quote you "You are correct, your argument is ludicrous."

Not only am I not "Speakercone", but your arguments that removing advertised multiplayer because it's no longer viable to keep the expensive servers running is comparable to spending buttloads of money to disable and lock away a feature that was built into the firmware just because they're scared of losing control are ludicrous. Seriously, you're comparing closing an extremely expensive to continuously support service to spending money to remove a feature. I almost think you're trolling me.

4. Do you really think anyone's stupid enough to try to take Microsoft to court over them bricking their XBox? And do you REALLY think that anyone would've been stupid enough to take Sony to court if they had done the same thing? We'd lose even MORE rights, and any chance of winning a compelling case on ANYTHING regarding this kind of topic due to the precedent it would set. Sony on the other hand, believes they can win and set legal precedent that proves their current stance on THEM owning the console and US licensing it from them for use. If Sony loses, Microsoft may stop bricking systems because there would then be a legal precedent against that. They know no one's going to attempt to sue them. Sony could've easily done the same thing, and no one would've done anything about it. Instead, Sony brought it to court, and unleashed a public backlash.

5. Read Sony's EULA, it says you don't own the console, and are licensing it for its intended use. Also, obviously if you hack the console and keep it offline and never tell anyone about it they won't give a shit, they won't KNOW about it. Yeah, I get that they don't want to hack it, but that's the thing, it wouldn't have NEEDED hacking if they hadn't dropped support for Other OS. The console had survived YEARS of the pirates attempting to hack it for pirating purposes. After they closed Other OS, it took less than a year to get hacked. If they just wanted to keep hacked PS3's from going online, that wouldn't be so bad. It'd suck for people like me who would like to use Other OS, as well as use Netflix and PSN for buying random games (I don't play games on PSN, I prefer my computer for online gaming). Which would've been possible if Sony hadn't dropped support. But you can't have your cake and eat it too (No, the cake is not a lie).

6. All the reports point out he's the one who gave out the rootkey. But the actual legal reason he's being sued is because he broke the licensing agreement and didn't use the PS3 for its intended purpose. His defense is that he OWNS the system and can do what he pleases with it, he wants to set a legal precedent stating that we are free to OWN our consoles, not license them. Yeah, Sony's pissed at him for handing out their rootkey, but considering they gave it out on Twitter as well, they can't really get him for that. No legal wiggle room for it. However they stand to gain a lot if they win. They will set a legal precedent for EULA's to be binding legal contracts (OUCH) instead of just reason for termination of service. A consequence of that could be say... You don't read the EULA, and do something to violate the terms of service, or say your go to do some chores while playing WoW, and your little brother harasses someone and pisses them off. You not only get banned from the game, but get sued for disregarding the EULA, yeah it's far fetched but any violation of a EULA could become grounds for being sued.

7. It's becoming clear to me that we're reaching a point where if we continue this, it has a chance of devolving. I'd say only a couple more posts where we offer counterpoints to each other, and then agree to disagree. We both seem to know our own stance and have come to a point where our opinions are very divided, and what we consider to be morally right/wrong is very different. I think we both fail to understand some aspect of what makes each of us so opinionated, and we're reaching a point where we should stop pretty soon. Just something to keep in mind. Also, thanks for debating with me, it's been funtimes thinking of exactly how to word things so that I can get my point across, while trying to understand your point and offer counterpoints!
 

Zeema

The Furry Gamer
Jun 29, 2010
4,580
0
0
Hang on i dont really understand.

Is the Hacker a Good guy or a Bad Guy?
 

Retosa

New member
Jul 10, 2010
107
0
0
montopolis said:
Retosa said:
Yeah, I agree to dissagree already! This is going on too long, but this is an old news story, no one besides you me and maybe someone else is checking this. So, I bet we could go on a bit longer.

Nonetheless, you never answered my question. Is removiving an advertised feature from a game or a console any reason to hack it and let the world know its weakness?

Also, Do you honestly believe that Hotz intended to release the root key without knowing it would be used immediately for pirating? Do you honestly believe he was being noble?


It seems you are one of the very few who had to choose between keeping and loosing Linux on a PS3. I feel for you, yet as Spock said, "The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few." To protects its clients and customers, Sony decided to take extreme action, and yes I admit it, FORCE its users to make a choice.

You still debate that Sony says the PS3 are theirs, but, as many others have pointed out, they are speaking of their software. Like a computer, you own and are allowed to do as you wish to it. But MS Windows is not yours, and you are not allowed to give away the software or the serial keys right? Yet you bought the software when you purchased the computer. I dont see how Sonys PS3 is any different. PS3 hardware yours, software theirs, and in their complete right to add and remove what they want. Even if we dissagree with their desitions. Windows constantly adds and removes stuff from their software, but its up to the consumer to update their systems or not.
Well, considering it wasn't hacked to just show the world the weakness, it was hacked to return the lost functionality, I'd have to say yes. I wholeheartedly approve of returning functionality to something by hacking it. (I did answer this by saying I'd wholeheartedly approve if someone hacked the XBox with an update for Halo 2 that would redirect them to a server that the community paid for as a Halo 2 XBox server, which could potentially be done, actually. It'd be an awful lot of work, however.)

Now, here's my big question, and something I never really understood. What was Sony 'protecting' its clients and customers from? Sony wasn't protecting its clients and customers. It made that claim while 'protecting' itself from... Emulators?

No, I disagree, if it was only the software, then we'd be allowed to install other Operating Systems alongside the PS3 operating system as long as we set up a boot sector and dual booted. PS3 OS is PS3 OS, and separate, while the Other OS could be a separate entity alongside the PS3 OS. They would boot separately, and you'd have to restart to switch to the other. They are saying the WHOLE PS3 is theirs, and we are licensing it. Not just the OS. Just like you can boot Windows alongside Linux, why can't I boot Linux alongside Sony PS3 OS 3.56? That's them controlling their hardware, not just their software.

As for the serial keys, the rootkey is a fairly different piece of information. One allows you to make whatever changes you desire in the system (essentially), while the other allows you to install the software on the system illegally. One's used to break free of control, the other is to illegally acquire something that's not yours. Sharing the one is sharing information that allows others to do things to a system that they own. They both enable pirating. One directly, the other VERY indirectly.

The sad fact is, you can't say that Geohot didn't know that posting the rootkey would end up in the pirate's hands and that they would use it for that. However! Why is it, that we blame HIM for what the pirates did? He didn't actually enable the pirating. I know that opening up the system gave the Pirates exactly what they'd been hunting for since the PS3 was released. The pirates would've gotten it eventually though, IMO. Dunno how much longer it'd have taken, but it would've happened eventually.

Trezu said:
Hang on i dont really understand.

Is the Hacker a Good guy or a Bad Guy?
Depends on your point of view, some people view him as bad, some people view him as good. I view him as doing good, personally.
 

A Free Man

New member
May 9, 2010
322
0
0
In my honest opinion I think this is complete bull. It doesn't really matter what spin you put on it by buying a console you are agreeing to abide by their end user license agreement. If you then choose not to do so you are breaking the law. If I bought a game and then copied it and sold it a milliong times I could claim that I still bought the game which is true and that what I do with my game is completely up to me. But despite these arguments it still is against the law. Criminals will always try to justify themselves if it means not having to take responsibility for their actions. If he does not agree with how Sony have structured their console there is a simple solution, don't buy it.

That being said I do however agree with the one point he makes about removing features that were advertised, I think that was wrong of Sony and of any other companies that partake in similar activities. When people buy something they expect to receice what they paid for and if they don't they have every right to be angry.
 

Chris646

New member
Jan 3, 2011
347
0
0
I support GeoHot. While I don't hack my consoles, "if you paid hundreds of dollars for a feature in a product, and then the company that made the product takes away the feature that you purchased their product for, you have every right to try and get that feature back"; to quote Extra Credits.
 

Retosa

New member
Jul 10, 2010
107
0
0
montopolis said:
Retosa said:
But you CAN have Linux on your PS3 hardware, you just cant play their new software. How is that controlling your hardware? We already established that you can install Linux on a PS3 as long as it has not been updated.

By your reasoning, you can't install Linux with the Xbox 360 dashboard or a Wii, so, they own and control your hardware too! So, why doesnt anyone complain about that?

I believe, that Sony wanted to protect itself, its clients and its customers from pirates. So that their own games and their clients games dont get pirated. While protecting its customers from people cheating on the PSN, as they did almost immediately. Why would they make such a well protected machine that took 4 years to hack if they didnt want to protect themselves from pirates?

I dont see why argue the serial keys over the root keyes, either one can be used for pirating, if releasing serial keys is illegal, so should be releasing the root keys, right? If anything the root key should be worse to give away, I guess.

You are right, no one can prove that George Hotz did or did not have a malicious intent when he released those keys. But logically, someone that smart knew what was gonna happen. Thats why he released a disclaimer, to "wash" his hands off any responsibility.
I was talking about my desire for Sony to allow it again. If they supported it, I would be very happy. But that won't happen, so I'm waiting for the fallout from this, and to see what happens. Oh well. I'm done the debate, too tired to think properly about a good response. Thanks for the debate dude. Was fun.
 

RvLeshrac

This is a Forum Title.
Oct 2, 2008
662
0
0
Korten12 said:
Like I said in another topic:

If they win they will say "Its just for homebrewing!"

5 days later PSN shuts down due too many hackers and pirates because its 'legal'.
After 500 comments, I'm betting there are at least a dozen on this, but I'm saying it anyway:

People will cheat, and people will pirate. You cannot stop them. Treating your regular customers like dirt is not going to help.

What you *can* do, however, is mitigate the issue. Console-bans. MAC-bans. IP-bans. There are lots of options for banning users from your online service. You control your online service. At the end of the day, no one really has an issue with this. We can talk about dick moves you've made when banning people, but you have every right to ban people from your servers, which you run.

What they do in their own home, with equipment they've purchased from you, however, is *none of your damned business*, no matter how big a company you run.
 

RvLeshrac

This is a Forum Title.
Oct 2, 2008
662
0
0
montopolis said:
Retosa said:
But you CAN have Linux on your PS3 hardware, you just cant play their new software. How is that controlling your hardware? We already established that you can install Linux on a PS3 as long as it has not been updated.

By your reasoning, you can't install Linux with the Xbox 360 dashboard or a Wii, so, they own and control your hardware too! So, why doesnt anyone complain about that?

I believe, that Sony wanted to protect itself, its clients and its customers from pirates. So that their own games and their clients games dont get pirated. While protecting its customers from people cheating on the PSN, as they did almost immediately. Why would they make such a well protected machine that took 4 years to hack if they didnt want to protect themselves from pirates?

I dont see why argue the serial keys over the root keyes, either one can be used for pirating, if releasing serial keys is illegal, so should be releasing the root keys, right? If anything the root key should be worse to give away, I guess.

You are right, no one can prove that George Hotz did or did not have a malicious intent when he released those keys. But logically, someone that smart knew what was gonna happen. Thats why he released a disclaimer, to "wash" his hands off any responsibility.
So many misconceptions here:

A) You can only run Linux on your PS3 if you purchase a PS3 with an OtherOS-capable firmware version. You can no longer purchase a PS3 with OtherOS available. I've never really understood why people want to run Linux on a console, but whatever. I just imagine Paul installing Linux on Graham.

B) Microsoft and Nintendo never offered the ability to run Linux as a feature on their consoles. If they had, and removed it, the people who are upset here would still be upset. None of them purchased a 360 or Wii with the expectation that they'd be able to run Linux, but all of them purchased PS3s with the expectation that they'd be able to run Linux.

C) The PS3 wasn't "well protected," as outlined explicitly in the presentation. It uses the same security features that have been broken in other consoles. Once a concerted effort was made by the individuals who had the skills, knowledge, and tools necessary to hack a console, it took no longer to hack than any other console.

D) CD Keys are used to prove that you own a copy of the game. The Root Keys are used to encrypt code to run on the system. They have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER, and stating that you think they do belies just how little you know about the subject.

E) So, then, anyone who posts a disclaimer about anything should still be held liable for when that thing happens? What would be the point of disclaimers, then?


----------------------------------

I'm also curious as to why people don't see this as a fundamental rights violation. Sony removing a feature post-sale, consequence-free, if allowed as a precedent, simply opens the door for any company to remove features post-sale, with no consequence. Sure, removing your cruise control may not be a big deal, but what if they remove your air conditioning? Alarm system? Anti-lock brakes?
 

Carlston

New member
Apr 8, 2008
1,554
0
0
Imagine buying a TV from a psychotically control freak religious company.

Your not to watch porn or anything R rated. If you do we will shut down your TV, ban you from cable, and they time to time spy on your to see what your watching and feed "firmware" updates to shut down most of the cable channels they allowed you a year ago.

Then again, if gun companies could sue people for breach of contract using their weapons in crimes and giving them a bad name... well... that could work.