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

CellarDweller

New member
Dec 18, 2008
7
0
0
To be honest, I think no matter who wins we all lose, the next generation of console will be more expensive and all the controls added on as people abused the openness of the initial software will be there right from the off.

I think a lot of the "Yay! Sony" and "WooHoo Hacker!" comments come from fanboys from whatever camp, not realising that this case will have knock on effects on all consoles in the future, whichever way it goes.
 

mabrookes

New member
Dec 5, 2010
16
0
0
JDKJ said:
RvLeshrac said:
JDKJ said:
CptCamoPants said:
You don't RENT a PS3 you BUY one. Hence it's YOUR property. Sony has absolutely no legal right to tell you what you can and can't do with your property.
Edit: If Sony wins then I'm going to start selling toasters and putting notices on it that you cannot use it for anything other than pouring melted butter into it. If someone tries to put bread in them then I'LL SUE THEM FOR ALL THEIR WORTH
That's incorrect. You haven't bought the software in a PS3 and it is not your property. That software is intellectual property owned by Sony and which Sony has merely licensed to those who purchase and use their console. This fact is clearly spelled out in the the PS3's EULA. With all due respect, the suggestion that because you've bought a PS3, you've also bought all the intellectual property rights to the software therein that Sony may have held prior to sale is a laughable suggestion. After all, that would mean that you and everyone else who bought a PS3 now owns the copyrighted software therein. That's a practical -- and legal -- impossibility.
Sony's claim is that you neither own the hardware *nor* the software, because they aren't separable. Imagine a world where you no longer own anything you purchase, and are required to only do specific tasks with those items.

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

etherlance said:
RvLeshrac said:
etherlance said:
RvLeshrac said:
etherlance said:
I'm sure this guys intentions are all, sunflowers and happy butterfly rainbows, but the truth is quite simple:


If he wins this case, other people will use it to defend themselves when they do something similar. Soon after, PSN will shut down due to hundreds of people hacking into it while screaming out:

"IT'S LEGAL, IT'S LEGAL IT'S MY PROPERTY I'LL DO WHAT I WANT WITH IT YOU CAN'T STOP ME"!

No one will play the games online or use multiplayer because others will be hacking their consoles to give themselves the advantage online, but hey it's okay children cause it's their property and it's legal right?


So in short I hope he loses the case or else otherwise it's gonna hurt EVERYONE!
Because the existence of incredibly simple 360 hacks has rendered Live completely unusable, rite?
For a few unfortunate people, yes it has in fact.
"A few unfortunate people" hardly sounds like a systemic issue that will destroy the service.
You can't get a zombie apocalypse without one or two infected to start it off.

These things always start small and then get bigger over time.
Then why hasn't the issue gotten wider in scope over time? There are only a few, very specific, titles which suffer from wide-spread cheating, despite the 360 having been broken wide open for years.
That's incorrect. Sony, by the terms of it's EULA, reserves ownership in the PS3's software and firmware for which they have copyrights, nothing more. Accordingly and for example, the plastic chassis in which a PS3 is housed is your property and if you want to modify that aspect of your PS3, go right ahead and do so (although doing so will probably void any warranty you may have had). That's yours, free and clear. But the software and firmware aren't.

A license never grants rights of ownership. That's what makes a license distinguishable from an outright purchase. A license shouldn't be confused with an outright sale. The two are by no means the same. If you want to outright purchase Sony's copyrights to the software and firmware in a PS3, I suspect that'll cost you just a lil' bit more than the price of a PS3.
You're just being deliberately dumb now. Where has anyone said anything about copyright? It is a console. You can not profit from or sell that software or any part of it , that is true - but there is no reason you can not do whatever the hell else you want with it for yourself. I could hack Windows to pieces if I had the ability and did not sell it or profit etc.

Even if it was a licence, for it to be binding you would have to agree before a purchase anyway not sell something then make demands once they have it, so it is nonsense.

My microwave has software running it (most electronic products do) and the microwave maker owns the copyright to it but I can guarantee they would not be successful in suing me if I hacked it to do what I want, and notice how there is no licence system there - yet they do still own the copyright so that excuse is redundant for Sony.
 

Cyberjester

New member
Oct 10, 2009
496
0
0
Orcus The Ultimate said:
Control of your console is everything to Sony! If they lose this, the floodgates open!!
It's beyond control of the console. There's money. If you have the rootkey then you can load any software you want, including games. Given that Sony priced their console at a loss and hoped to make all the money off of games, that is a very, very bad thing for them.

Another is how the legal system is set up. It's all based on what came before. So far MSFT have gotten sued after someone violated their EULA and got kicked (remember that idiot who didn't shut up about being homosexual and how were were all homophobes, fags, etc, etc?), now this dude has violated Sony's EULA and has successfully got off free.

Given that laws on electronics and computing in general is very much being crafted as we speak, the precedent so far is that the EULA means absolutely nothing. So if Sony and MSFT were taken down, and they're some of the largest companies going around (apart from Ma Bell and Apple), every other company releasing software is going to be much more reluctant to.. Lots of things, means you could reverse engineer Kapersky and release it as your own, who cares that the EULA says you can't.

Then there's the idea that someone uses a PS3 to hack some thing. Unlikely, but if Sony can control what's on the console, they have legal immunity. Now you can put whatever you want on the console and it comes up as official. That sort of thing is how you get viruses everywhere in the PC world. Drop a worm in the repositories and make sure it's labeled as official and urgent.
 

Orcus The Ultimate

New member
Nov 22, 2009
3,216
0
0
Cyberjester said:
Orcus The Ultimate said:
Control of your console is everything to Sony! If they lose this, the floodgates open!!
It's beyond control of the console. There's money. If you have the rootkey then you can load any software you want, including games. Given that Sony priced their console at a loss and hoped to make all the money off of games, that is a very, very bad thing for them.

Another is how the legal system is set up. It's all based on what came before. So far MSFT have gotten sued after someone violated their EULA and got kicked (remember that idiot who didn't shut up about being homosexual and how were were all homophobes, fags, etc, etc?), now this dude has violated Sony's EULA and has successfully got off free.

Given that laws on electronics and computing in general is very much being crafted as we speak, the precedent so far is that the EULA means absolutely nothing. So if Sony and MSFT were taken down, and they're some of the largest companies going around (apart from Ma Bell and Apple), every other company releasing software is going to be much more reluctant to.. Lots of things, means you could reverse engineer Kapersky and release it as your own, who cares that the EULA says you can't.

Then there's the idea that someone uses a PS3 to hack some thing. Unlikely, but if Sony can control what's on the console, they have legal immunity. Now you can put whatever you want on the console and it comes up as official. That sort of thing is how you get viruses everywhere in the PC world. Drop a worm in the repositories and make sure it's labeled as official and urgent.
a very good argument you build up there, but i was just saying this for fun...
 

Michael Lesaca

New member
May 1, 2011
1
0
0
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.
 

Phantom Echo

New member
Mar 3, 2011
25
0
0
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.)