...Really? Do you think that even though they bought the piece of technology, legally, mind you, that they don't then have the right to use it to their discretion? So, simply because the company didn't like it, they have the right to destroy the person's enjoyment because it wasn't sanctioned by the gormless corporation? Think in the terms of the people, what do they believe? Most people would see that the hackers had atrophied and crushed potential, and that the corporation was, in fact, in the wrong, for constricting their creativity.Korten12 said:
PS3 Hacker Raised All the Legal Funds Needed to Beat Sony in a Weekend
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
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.dragontiers said:
I said before, he should not have leaked the codes. Other than that, whats the problem?Mazty said:
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.Gindil said:
Fireamrs have a completely different set if rules. I wish people would stop using guns as an alalogy. Guns were made to kill people. PS3 were not made to play Super Mario. When a gun crime happens it effects two gorups of people. The group of the victim and the family, and the gunman who faces the law. When you pirate a game you're affect the Sony for using it's console for illegal use, which ever publisher you stole the game from, the other online players of the PS3 who get screwed due to pirating, and you for hacking and pirating. The gun analogy is stupid. Furthermore this guy showed people how to do an illegal act. To use your gun analogy that's like defending a gun shop owner who sells guns under the table that wind up being used in crimes. Yes you can arrest and try the gun store owner there. What if someone gets hit with a DDoS attack from a PS3 that was hack with Geohot's key? Do you blame Geohot, or the Manufacturer Sony? You blame Geohot. You never blame the manufacturer for people bying thier product and using it illegaly. By your asinine logic I can sue Windows for everytime a hacker used their OS to create viruses. See how that doesn't work?joebear15 said:
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.AzrealMaximillion said:
Huh. I'm honestly not sure what to think. I don't want piracy to run rampant on the PS3 but I kind of agree with the idea of being able to do what you want with your property. So, yeah, I'm on the fence but I'm interested to see how this turns out.
Personally, I think you can do whatever the hell you want to your PS3, but as soon as your hacking begins to affect others in a negative way (including piracy, cheating, etc.), then you've crossed the line.
Do you own a copy of, say, Super Mario All-Stars (and by "own" I mean having legally purchased), and then got it to work on your PS3? Neat.
Do you not own a copy of SMAS, and then got it work on your PS3? That's illegal.
Do you own a copy..., but your friend doesn't, and then got it to work on his/her PS3? That not right either.
Leave my online gaming alone, and don't break the law; after that, do whatever you want. I think Sony is trying to defend itself from being burned by the worst-case scenarios; isn't that why they removed the Other OS feature? People abused their privileges, and for that such things are taken away. I bet that Sony would be more inclined to allow you your hacking if there weren't those who turned around and bit the hand that fed us.
Do you own a copy of, say, Super Mario All-Stars (and by "own" I mean having legally purchased), and then got it to work on your PS3? Neat.
Do you not own a copy of SMAS, and then got it work on your PS3? That's illegal.
Do you own a copy..., but your friend doesn't, and then got it to work on his/her PS3? That not right either.
Leave my online gaming alone, and don't break the law; after that, do whatever you want. I think Sony is trying to defend itself from being burned by the worst-case scenarios; isn't that why they removed the Other OS feature? People abused their privileges, and for that such things are taken away. I bet that Sony would be more inclined to allow you your hacking if there weren't those who turned around and bit the hand that fed us.
Then I'm afraid videogames will have to take the hit, the worst consequence would be to give corporations rights over the personal property of individual citizens. That's completely unacceptable. They can deny hackers their online services, but they can't say what you do with piece of hardware that you legal bought and own. What happens if Rupert Murdock signs up with Apple and then makes it so that you can't receive any news on your iPhone or iPad except FOX? Orwell never considered the possibility that the same exact thing could happen in a capitalist society.DVS Storm said:
People seem to be confusing the meaning of "hacking" within the modification community with the pop-culture perception of it. The modification community still uses the term "hacking" as it was originally conceived- that is, the modification of a device or software to provide different functionality that its original construction. Pop-culture uses "hacking" to mean malicious activity using computers, such as outright hostile activities like DOS attacks; or in the case of games- cheating.
To understand what "hacking" in it's most simple, benign sense, look at a book like Sneaky Uses for Everyday Things. Any time you use something for a purpose other than the one it was intended for, you could consider that "hacking".
It also seems that several people are missing the legal argument here. Nobody is disputing that Sony owns the copyright to the PS3 name, software or hardware. All those things have to do with protecting Sony from market competition. Those are the things in place that prevent another company from selling PS3s. Microsoft, for example, could not buy a PS3, reverse engineer it, and sell a Microsoft brand PS3. But that has nothing to do with the use of the console after it has been purchased.
Sony does not own my PS3 console because I purchased it from them and in their selling the product to me a legal transfer of ownership occurred. They are not legally permitted to come to my house and take it from me. They are not legally permitted to tell me when I can or can not play it, or what I can play or watch on it, because it is my machine. In this same vein, I am legally allowed to make any modification to it I want because it is no longer Sony's property. If I open the case and start fiddling with the hardware, then of course I'm voiding Sony's warranty. But that means they stop providing me warranty service because it's no longer the "device they sold me", it's an altered device and they may or may not know how to fix once I have tampered with it.
Sony provides a service- by way of the PlayStation Network- that continually updates software and firmware on the PS3. When I log on for the latest update, I give my consent for Sony to update that software/firmware, but I still retain absolute authority over my console. So if I don't want to let my software/firmware be updated by Sony, then I wouldn't have to. If their update would do something that I didn't like, such as removing otherOS support, then I wouldn't have to download that update. I have the legal right to opt-out of (violate) any ToS and EULA as long as I no longer wish to have access to those services.
Likewise, Sony also has the legal right to opt-out. If I were to do something with my PS3 that breached the ToS or EULA that Sony set forth, such as what GeoHotz did with the rootkey, then Sony has every right to stop supporting the device; ban me from PSN; stop providing whatever service whose Term of Service I violated.
Sony, however, does not have the legal authority to restrict my ability to do whatever the hell I want with my PS3. That's GeoHotz's argument. He doesn't mind being denied access to Sony's PSN because a) it seems he doesn't use it and b) he would rather expand the capabilities of his system further than Sony's endorsed support allows. Sony is perfectly within their rights to deny him access to whichever of their services they want, but they have no legal standing to prevent the modification of GeoHotz's personal PS3 console or anyone else's.
The legal argument that an owner of a piece of property should be allowed to modify that piece of property is entirely sound. You can argue about whether or not it's a "good idea" for GeoHotz to be providing the hack to the public and the possible consequences thereof. But it's not illegal. If the modification is used to cause a crime, then it is the fault of the person committing the crime, not the creator of the modification. This is not Minority Report: crimes are only crimes if they're actually committed. The potential ability to commit a crime is not a crime. If someone pirates a game using this modification, then the crime is the piracy, not the ability to commit piracy.
To understand what "hacking" in it's most simple, benign sense, look at a book like Sneaky Uses for Everyday Things. Any time you use something for a purpose other than the one it was intended for, you could consider that "hacking".
Actually, you are. Emulators are hacks. They are a modification to the computer system that allows it to read the game's software and play it on a computer that was not designed to read and play those games. Final Fantasy X and XII were not intended to be played on laptops. There's nothing wrong with, or malicious, or illegal, about your ability to change your laptop to be capable of playing those games, but it's still considered a "hack".MattAn24 said:
It also seems that several people are missing the legal argument here. Nobody is disputing that Sony owns the copyright to the PS3 name, software or hardware. All those things have to do with protecting Sony from market competition. Those are the things in place that prevent another company from selling PS3s. Microsoft, for example, could not buy a PS3, reverse engineer it, and sell a Microsoft brand PS3. But that has nothing to do with the use of the console after it has been purchased.
Sony does not own my PS3 console because I purchased it from them and in their selling the product to me a legal transfer of ownership occurred. They are not legally permitted to come to my house and take it from me. They are not legally permitted to tell me when I can or can not play it, or what I can play or watch on it, because it is my machine. In this same vein, I am legally allowed to make any modification to it I want because it is no longer Sony's property. If I open the case and start fiddling with the hardware, then of course I'm voiding Sony's warranty. But that means they stop providing me warranty service because it's no longer the "device they sold me", it's an altered device and they may or may not know how to fix once I have tampered with it.
Sony provides a service- by way of the PlayStation Network- that continually updates software and firmware on the PS3. When I log on for the latest update, I give my consent for Sony to update that software/firmware, but I still retain absolute authority over my console. So if I don't want to let my software/firmware be updated by Sony, then I wouldn't have to. If their update would do something that I didn't like, such as removing otherOS support, then I wouldn't have to download that update. I have the legal right to opt-out of (violate) any ToS and EULA as long as I no longer wish to have access to those services.
Likewise, Sony also has the legal right to opt-out. If I were to do something with my PS3 that breached the ToS or EULA that Sony set forth, such as what GeoHotz did with the rootkey, then Sony has every right to stop supporting the device; ban me from PSN; stop providing whatever service whose Term of Service I violated.
Sony, however, does not have the legal authority to restrict my ability to do whatever the hell I want with my PS3. That's GeoHotz's argument. He doesn't mind being denied access to Sony's PSN because a) it seems he doesn't use it and b) he would rather expand the capabilities of his system further than Sony's endorsed support allows. Sony is perfectly within their rights to deny him access to whichever of their services they want, but they have no legal standing to prevent the modification of GeoHotz's personal PS3 console or anyone else's.
The legal argument that an owner of a piece of property should be allowed to modify that piece of property is entirely sound. You can argue about whether or not it's a "good idea" for GeoHotz to be providing the hack to the public and the possible consequences thereof. But it's not illegal. If the modification is used to cause a crime, then it is the fault of the person committing the crime, not the creator of the modification. This is not Minority Report: crimes are only crimes if they're actually committed. The potential ability to commit a crime is not a crime. If someone pirates a game using this modification, then the crime is the piracy, not the ability to commit piracy.
The problem Sony has is not that he messing with his PS3, it's that he's messing with his PS3 and then sending it to the internet. The online aspect of the game still belongs to Sony and they're responsible for what happens there. If this guy were to disable the internet capabilities then it wouldn't be a problem.
So why doesn't he need to follow the EULA again? Regardless of opinion, it DOES form a legal, binding contract between the owner of the hardware and the company. If the EULA has terms which are unacceptable, that I understand, but that's a very different story.
How about instead of fighting this kid they let him do what he wants/work with him so that he can still hack the ps3 but help stop cheating and piracyKorten12 said:
Thank you. A thousand times thank you. This is the most clearly stated post on the subject I have seen yet. I really hope people read this. I couldn't have said it better myself.DJROC said: