Michael Lesaca said:
Boy am I glad there are hundreds, if not thousands of people willing to part with insane amounts of money for things they don't understand besides "Big bad corporation" and "robin hood." You know what? Screw Geohotz. Screw everybody who don't have enough foresight to see that online capabilities have changed the way "I buy it, it's mine" operates. He may not have directly hacked or pirated online, but that is naive to think that others didn't take advantage of the rootkey for more than simple, offline homebrewing. Yes, he is entitled to do what he wants with his own system, but I'm entitled to do what I want with my system online. And what I want to do is play a game without hackers, and he is partly to blame for that.
And to top it all off, he let Sony know who he was. How stupid can you be? Did he really think he'd just get away with it without ANY trouble? I can't believe anyone would support someone so pretentious and egocentric.
This here is the reason that we are having to -have- this discussion.
Your motives are so simplistic and self-centered that your argument comes off as being utterly subjective. You don't care about the fact that this is a new age, and that these laws DON'T EXIST... that we've been basically 'making do' with outdated laws because our lawmakers don't understand how to properly establish and enforce these mandates.
In a world where information begins to flow freely... the natural reaction of those who make a profit off of the transmission of information is to crack down. But there is no law actually PROTECTING them from the free-flow of information.
What this entire argument... what seventeen pages of dialogue all boils down to... is that this case... and others like it... these are where the precedents will be set. From here on out, either the law will protect Big Businesses willing to dish out hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure 'control' of their product, by spreading fear that without your billions of dollars per year, they won't be able to keep making games for you (a blatant lie which most foolishly believe because they have a rudimentary understanding of the economic system)...
... or the law will protect the end-user... and you will begin to see more EFFICIENT and USER-FRIENDLY methods of controlling intellectual property in the new age of Connectivity and Information.
Either way, it's the beginning of a change in policy. It all starts somewhere. I tend to disapprove of COMPANIES thinking they have the right to tell me what to do with things I buy. Many agree with me. We obey the terms of service, we get to use the product as intended. If we don't... then they have the right to not let us use their services.
The extent of the RootKit is quite deep. It allows for things that are terrifyingly powerful... and puts tools in the hands of the wrong kind of people. But had Sony been smart, and invested their time in developing a secure system instead of relying on LEGAL force to keep people from doing what they pleased with the machine... this wouldn't be a problem. Then when someone maliciously hacked it and used it in the commission of a crime, it would be an issue.
But first we have to define what will constitute a crime. First we have to determine where and when the rules of 'ownership' apply. Is it the right of the end-user to modify their machines how they see fit, so long as they don't use it in the commission of a crime? Or do we support the efforts of businesses to make more money off of the end-user by limiting their rights when it comes to the use of a purchased product?
In the end, either way the rulings begin to come out... we're going to see the face of the world change. And neither way is INHERENTLY wrong. Companies are built to make money. That's what they do. But people have rights... and this is (for the time being) still a free country... and do we allow companies to side-step these rights in the name of making larger profits?
What -really- needs to happen is simple. There needs to be a middle ground... where the user's rights are preserved... and the rights to make a profit by the company are protected. Perhaps what GeoHot did shouldn't be a criminal offense... but as this lawsuit claims... a civil offense. GeoHot did, in effect, contribute to a serious potential loss of profits to a company. His 'hack' was distributed across the internet... put into the hands of those who WOULD violate the law with it... and could cause Sony a great deal of monetary damage.
So find him guilty of contributing to monetary damages and a loss of profits... fine him... and establish some sort of ruling in which the modification of the console is not the problem, but rather the distribution of this hack allowing for widespread damage to Sony's product.
This would be ideal... because those who wish to modify their consoles would have the RIGHT to do so... and companies which install firmware or hardware which prevented this would be in violation of those rights... but it would also ensure that these modifications would be done without the kinds of scary 'cracked the entire console to make it able to commit fraud and blah-blah-blah' that people are so worried about.
In the end, it would ensure that both parties acted with a bit of responsibility.
Just my interpretation of the matter, anyways.
(End-Note: Let's face it, though... all a ruling like this would do is cause both sides to start suing the pants off of each other until a Judge got sick of it and threw it all out as being frivolous.)
