Sony Gains Access to PS3 Hacker's PayPal Account


New member
Dec 25, 2008
s69-5 said:
I dunno. Other companies have gone so far as to brick hacked systems. Are they to blame for piracy?

Your circular logic doesn't work. It's because of the potential security risk from pirates that the features were removed. If not for the pirates, they'd still exist.

Sony isn't to blame for piracy. Pirates are.
PS3 Piracy before the removal of the other O/S feature: As close as makes no difference to being not bloody existent. Piracy after the removal of the other O/S feature: In full swing! Do you smell the irony?

Although I'm glad they closed up that "potential security risk". Seriously THANK YOU SONY! Because of your thoughtless and malicious actions many people are able to game for free now. People that might be suffering financially during these tough times. These people have Sony to thank for the piles of games sitting on their PS3 HDD. Thanks again to Sony now they will never have to budget another cent to game on their PS3s and that money can go to other things.

Finally as to your first point, if you are a company that is destroying the systems of those people who choose to modify their own legally bought hardware then you deserve to have your console and software pirated to hell and back. That being said I don't know of any consoles that are bricked upon detection of being modded (I know first hand there is always the risk of bricking your consoles) with the exception of the recent rumors surrounding the 3DS. And if those rumors are true then Nintendo will get nothing less than they deserve when, not if, that too is cracked and their entire library is just a mouse click away on the internet.


New member
Feb 24, 2011
Hope he fries. I hate hackers. The only reason Sony is doing this is to determin where the case will be tried. Hope he fries.......


New member
Sep 10, 2008
s69-5 said:
Dys said:
Oh, that's good I thought it had something to do with the fact that playstation 3s are sold at a loss, and various organisations mass buying them to run linux, not games. It's good that sony care consistently hate the rights of the end user, and some bullshit exploit that's going to let some really keen pirates avoid paying for games is definitely reason enough for sony to completely ignore their commitment to their paying customers. It would be stupid to behave in a way to benefit your customers (the overwhelming majority) when you could try and prevent a few dicks (the minority) from maybe copying some games.

I mean, it's not like the insanely high cost of blu-ray discs isn't an effective enough anti piracy measure to stop the average pirate from even's cheaper to just buy the damn games :\
What's with the outdated article?

You do know that Microsoft has instituted similar measures with the 360 right?
They will brick a hacked system. I think the OS removal is far less intrusive than an outright system brick, no?

Point is, these companies are well within their rights to protect their intellectual properties. If not for the pirates and hackers, we wouldn't need to worry about DRM, DMCA, system bricking and removal of potentially risky features.

Sony (and Microsoft) both acted well within their rights.

Can't say the same for the hacker.
The dated article is because it's dated news. They haven't released a new flagship handset so I've not got a more recent example, similarly since the option to easily install linux was removed from the playstations firmware, firms cannot buy a playstation 3 and network them for use as a supercomputer.

As I understand it, Microsoft only bricks systems of people who are caught hacking. That's limiting only those in the wrong, and does not threaten those of us who aren't assholes in the least (I also don't recall them sueing anyone for modifying the software on their xbox...if you brick it your warranty is voided and they wash their hands of you.....that's a little more appropriate than suing you and recording all of your unrelated personal information). I fail to see how a company is more within their rights to go back on a contract (when you buy a product with advertised features, such as an update to android 2.1 within the next 3 months, or an ability to install a specific system you enter a legally binding contract), when sony remove and advertised feature or previously agreed upon functionality, or fail to support a product as advertised. It means that their product is not considered to be of 'merchantable quality' and they are in breach of contract. I fail to see how that is any less immoral (or illegal) than someone reverse engineering their firmware and releasing it on the internet. Or than someone selling you a product with an explicit warranty, and then refusing to repair or replace that product should it fail within the limitations of said warranty....What next, playstion 4 has a 95% death rate after ~11 months of use, and sony can bullshit their way into not being liable for warrany?

Yes, it's a chicken and egg cycle, but at as I've said, the hackers who are arguably[footnote]Obviously there is a much stronger argument for misbehavior in hackers who's actions directly affect the ability of others to use the product, but that simply isn't what's happening in this scenario.[/footnote] acting in an immoral manner have not entered into any legal contract with me, that's between them and sony...Quite frankly I don't give two shits if sony manages to have the people who cheat in call of duty or distribute pirated material locked up for life. As soon as sony starts doing wrong by me (ie, an unrelated consumer) I'm obviously going to side against them, and discard any moral reservations I may have about compromising their product, that is to say, if they have breached their contractual agreements I have no moral qualms about dismissing mine. Microsoft may not like that I have installed open office on my windows based laptop (or that I recommend other people do the same), much in the same way that sony does not like geohot installing linux systems on his ps3 (and again, recommending other people do the same) but they have absolutely no right to stop's his damn computer! The same argument can be said of iphones with unsigned applications, cars with non stock engines/exhaust/differential/etc, televisions with non stock universal remotes and so on.


New member
Oct 20, 2010
Brad Shepard said:
Defense said:
Brad Shepard said:
Sony? Yea, Brad Shepard here, You got enough money to NOT CARE ABOUT THIS! Get off your cross of "Oh we have had a case of ze hacks!" And get the hell over it.
You're thinking of the Wii. Sony lost $300 on every 20GB PS3 at launch and the PS3 stopped bleeding money in July.
its not like the PS3 isn't there only means of income.
That doesn't mean that they weren't bleeding huge amounts of money for years.


New member
May 21, 2008
I personally will laugh if Paypal produces a fixed width text file, 1024-bit encrypted with no column definitions that only give numbers of accounts, and the numbers of money that was received by Hotz.

It would be awesome. Technically, they *are* providing the information, but the Subpoena is so broad, it doesn't mention that:

A. It needs to be decrypted.
B. It needs column definitions.
C. They need to explain the information at all.

Just giving you PayPal guys an idea. :)