Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I disagree with the fact that people shouldn't be allowed to mod their products because they might use it for piracy. That's like saying we shouldn't sell people knives because they might cut others.

I agree in theory. But there's a potential to really screw up other people's gaming experience since that modded product can still intermingle with a greater community. There's a balance here that Sony is likely trying to preserve. The majority of PS3 gamers are just folks who want to plug into the community and have fun interacting (I'm guessing). A modded box can really stink that up.

If some guy modded his car with armor plating and gun turrets, the cops wouldn't let him drive it to work. And if they did, I sure as hell wouldn't want to see him every day on my morning commute. Sony (the police) is trying keep the public roads (their online gaming experience) clear of tanks (modded boxes) to protect the general public (dumb gamers like me who don't mod boxes).

Good of you to bring up a car comparison, because I was just about to do the same: Sony's attitude towards modding is eerily similar to a company like Ford selling you a car with the promise that you may do whatever you wish to its engine/tires/whatever, but later has a huge recall. At this point you are informed that your sweet 500hp engine doesn't really belong in a Ford...what do they make again? Focus? Anyway, they take out your sweet 500hb engine and put the old one back in. But somebody doesn't like that, and scraps the piece o' shite engine that Ford makes, whereupon he gets sued. Granted, his suited up car could be used to illicit activities such as street racing or drug running, but the burden of proof is on Ford to show that their actions of at best questionable legality are valid, and that all "modders" are only doing so to partake in illegal activities. Before I end up confusing anybody but myself, replace every instance of "Ford" with "Sony," and "engine" with "OS."
I'm for Anon on this one. I kinda hope they stick to humiliating Sony, and not punishing their customer base, cuz I wouldn't want my information leaked all over ze net...

Where that analogy fails is that there is nothing in the Ford that is copyrighted or licensed to you for use with the understanding that you can't modify it. The Ford is yours free and clear (assuming you have title to it). Do with it whatever you want assuming that you're not somehow running afoul of some law somewhere (like removing the headlights and driving it in the middle of the night). The software in the PS3, unlike your Ford analogy, is copyrighted and merely licensed to you for use with the understanding that you can't modify it. You're comparing an apple to an orange.

But if Ford decided to license the car like that, it still wouldn't hold up; this court case is a chance to get a court of law to say "you know, these EULA things are unconscionable contracts, and are clearly invalid. Stop trying to enforce them." It's not as far fetched as it sounds, either; EULAs almost never hold up when they reach a court of law, they just don't make it that far very often because of how much money the software publishers have to throw at lawyers, who then tie up the proceedings long enough to keep their BS from getting called. What we have here is an opportunity to give some rights back to consumers. How can you possibly be against that?

Unfortunately, EULAs aren't as unconscionable or invalid as you claim and there are a number of court decisions upholding their validity and enforceability. They may not be "fair" and may be horribly one-sided but that alone doesn't make them unenforceable as a matter of law. That just makes them a shitty deal for the consumer. But just because a deal is a shitty one doesn't make it an unenforceable one.

It's highly dependent on the EULA in question; for every case where one gets upheld, there's another case where it gets thrown out. The type of EULA involved in boxed game purchases is absolutely an unconscionable form of a contract of adhesion, as is what Sony is trying to get Geohot under, assuming he's telling the truth about not having signed up for a PSN account. Even if he did, it's still not a definite win for Sony.

That's not true. You can look up any EULA online now. Hell, I can probably walk into a video game store and request to look at a copy of the EULA before purchasing anything. The EULA is not the shrink wrap contract it used to be. You can find a way to read it without spending a penny on anything. Geohotz can say he didn't sign up for the PSN and didn't agree to the EULA, but Sony could easily state that they have it up for free on their website to read at anytime. It's also in the box before you turn the damn thing on so there's no excuse for Hotz here.

I'm not sure if even that holds up; sure, you can find the contract if you seek it out, but it's so far separated from the actual purchase that it's still a shrinkwrap contract. To put it this way, if the local GM dealership sold you a car which you paid for in full with cash, without making you sign anything but the registration, you drove the car off the lot, and then once you tried to start it up again to leave your house, it refused to start unless you agreed to an entirely different contract, would the fact that the contract was available on a website that the dealership neglected to tell you existed make it any less of a shrinkwrap contract?

I really think the car analogies need to stop as they really don`t work here. Listen when you drive a car off the lot, you`ve used the car. That`s why cars lose 15% in their value as soon as their off the lot. The difference is that when you buy a PS3 you don`t have to agree to anything until you turn on the console and try to use online. You could buy a PS3, look at the EULA online before opening the box and return the PS3 if you don`t like the EULA. We live in a world where you can find ALL EULAs online. Its called clicking on the support page of any website linked to an electronic product that has online capabilities. You can`t exactly say the same thing about cars which is why these analogies need to stop.

The only material difference between car sales and videogame sales is the price difference. To counter your point about cars losing %15 of their value as soon as you drive them off the lot: Videogames do too. They're impossible to return for a full refund after they've been opened -- which you have to do to see the EULA, because let's face it, the online version may as well be on the moon for all the good it does at the actual time of purchase -- and if you try to trade it in as used, I can guarantee that you will lose a whole lot more than %15 of your money. If I listened to every person who said that comparing videogames to other products was comparing apples to oranges, I wouldn't have a single product left to compare them to, because apparently they are completely unique in both the legal and the material world. Of course, if this were the case, none of the laws we're arguing here would apply, because nothing applicable would have been written yet. This clearly isn't the case, so to the gaming community as a whole, please stop acting like videogames are incomparable to any other product on the face of the planet.

You completely missed my point. Again with the comparison of cars to electronics in general, not just video games, you have to use a car to leave take it off the lot. The same cannot be said about electronics. You can take them home after purchase. Put it on your table. NOT open the box. Look up the EULA online. (For a PS3, iPhone, or whatever). Disagree without having to click on anything. Take it back to the store. And get all your money back. I never said videogames were incomparable. You just have to compate them with the right things. Like I said PS3s and iPhones both have EULAs. Which are online. And besides it's not like breaching the EULA is the only thing Hotz is accused of here.

And you're missing my point: the companies don't exactly advertise that you can find the EULA online -- in fact, barring a major DRM system that they have to notify you about, the boxes almost never say anything about a contract beyond the initial purchase. If they clearly wrote on the box "go to this website before you open the product" it would be a more defensible position, but as it stands, opening the shrink wrap being like driving the car off the lot is a pretty darned apt comparison.

 

[Emergent]

In 90% of cases, I'm on Anonymous's side; but in this case, I think that they're wrong.

That's quite fair of you. It may be worth noting, though, that Anon isn't so much as defending GeoHot's right to hack Sony's software as the rights of everyone else involved not to have their personal information turned over to Sony when they themselves are not in court and have not even been charged with a crime.

It's a fine distinction, maybe too fine for many members of this forum to really wrap their heads around, but it is there nonetheless.

 

[Giddi]

thinking it in terms of legality, anonymous is participating in illegal activities.
thinking in terms of good vs bad, sony appears to be wearing the horns and anonymous is the knight in shining armor.

i strongly support those who wish to modify their own equipment, and ignoring any form of legality and politics, i can certainly see anonymous's point of view. sony is outright abusing the system.

I disagree.

This isn't WikiLeaks, where somebody is actually trying to do a service to the public by lifting the veil on some shady stuff that the government does; this is somebody attacking a corporation because it tries to make money.

(snip)

Corrupt politicians are just trying to make money too you know... ;o)

 

[SodaDew]

Im not one to agree with Hacking (please don't hurt me Anonymous) but Sony should have just don't what every gaming company would, just ban... a lawsuit is overdoing it... Anonymous is sure becoming VERY popular in the modern news.

 

[Flauros]

This is pretty sad. Not even funny. Bunch of 13 year old script kiddies and some 30 year old fat guy trying to impress people with his 1337 skills. Why attack sony? Is that even...a cause? Is it funny?

Trying to make names as uber hackers "were anonymous, dur dur" that means their 1337, obviously

 

[Giddi]

Not even reading the post. Anonymous is a bunch of cocks who don't care for the legal system i hope they die. The end.

You're right. Don't ever question any types of authority. Go along with everything you are told to do, it's safer without independent thought.

And let me guess, if we just let guys like Geohot and Anon run around and hack/modify whatever they want they'd install world peace and uncover the magic cancer cure that the Government is secretly hiding because they somehow make money out of keeping it hidden?

I didn't say let them, I'm not saying you should join them either, just don't be so quick to dismiss their message just because their level of "cock" or their actions are misguided (ok, "misguided" may be an understatement).

 

[JDKJ]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip/quote]

snip/quote]

snip

snip

LoL, my favorite bit is how you had no idea about it till I called you on it. But, that is how we learn. I can admit when I'm wrong, though that just means I have to edit my arguments from here on in. It's all good. I had fun with this back and forth, but I need to get ready for work. Cheers and thanks for the mentally stimulating debate. I look forward to our next back and forth.

Wrong, again. This isn't the first time I've been forced to dissuade a member of the Escapist community that console EULAs aren't much different than PC operating system EULAs by pasting the Windows7 EULA. I can go back to my profile's list of posts, dig it out and re-post it, if you don't believe me. Or, alternatively, you can save me the leg work by visiting my profile and digging it out yourself from my list of posts. There ain't but 800 or so posts. Should be an easy find.

I never said it was different. I just know that I am allowed to create my own software for the PC so long as it isn't malicious in nature and knowingly causes harm to other people's systems.

I think you may have confused my post with someone else's though.

I may have misinterpreted the substance of your post but I did not confuse you with another poster. You asserted a fact, followed immediately by asking a question by stating "no one locks out the features on a PC with software, why is it different with Sony" (despite the absence of a question mark, I assumed it was a question). I pointed you to the fact that Microsoft's EULA for Windows7 does indeed by its terms "lock out" the possibility of some user-created features and, in so doing, makes their OS's EULA remarkably similar to Sony's console EULA. Am I missing something?

Ah, I see. Point taken. It is different in the one regard that is talked about in this case though. You can create software that you can install onto your PC and distribute for others to install, without getting permission from Microsoft.

Yes, I'd imagine you can if you truly do create your own software. But that isn't what Hotz did -- or, at least, claims to have done by his own public admissions. He reverse engineered Sony's software then modified it and made publicly available the means to do so when he made his crack file available for download on his weblog. And those are things that Sony expressly prohibited a licensee from doing.

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

EULA that come in boxed products that are sold sealed are not viable EULA's they have to be agreed upon before the purchase not after, the whole thing of take it back for store credit is bull you should get a full cash refund not to mention they actually have to be fair to both parties and follow the laws in each territory the are sold in , no were on these boxes do they say to read a license agreement. Everyone knows that EULA's are bullshit in the software industry they just put them there to keep 99% of the people in check with misinformation.

 

[Emergent]

And preforming DDoS Attacks is gonna change the world? It's one thing to question authority it is another to be a nuisance to it.

To put it frankly, it just might. Anon doesn't seriously believe it's changing Sony's mind by attacking their site. This is a publicity stunt designed to raise awareness of an issue, a tried and true tactic of nonviolent (key word) protest, and one that has historically been proven effective in the long run.

In a sense, Anon is being exactly as childish as the American founding fathers and their supporters where during the original Boston Tea Party. They've even went so far as to hide their identities while performing their nonviolent protest: dressing up as guy fawke or hiding your identity behind a firewall is essentially the same as disguising oneself as an indian.

Finally, please remember that, to date, no one has actually had anything but their feelings hurt by Anon. Even that little girl who got harassed by /b/ at 4chan experienced, at worst, the modern equivalent of prank phone calls (something one is always leaving themselves open to when using public internet forums and sites like youtube, regardless of circumstances).

 

[WanderingFool]

Yeah trust Anonymous to attack anyone who doesn't worship hackers as gods...

Why the fuck has nobody put a bullet in them yet?

Because it's impossible.

How? Just shoot anybody in a Guy Fawkes mask.All you need are some bullets and a gun (and you can reuse the gun)

Kill a few and their bravado ought to go down a few notches.

Not that simple.

I agree, and I would like to make note of the end of V for Vendetta.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

Have Sony released a rootkit removal tool to remove the spyware rootkits that were hidden in the rootkit removal tool they were forced to issue to remove the spyware rootkits hidden on their audio CDs yet, and if so, does it contain a spyware rootkit?

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

And when did he agree to that license? He could of pulled the software directly of the PS3 without ever seeing a license. The burden of proof is on Sony and so far I have seen no proof of him agreeing to any license other than Sony saying he did.

 

[marioandsonic]

It's just like what Extra Credits said.

"Sony, a word to the wise: DO NOT tangle with the kind of people who install Linux on their Playstations! Trust me. You are wasting your time."

 

[Lood NL]

Imagine this:

Someone buys himself a new car so the car is officially his property.
Then he installs an illegal nitro-system in his car so he can go way faster than allowed.
When the police pulls him over confronting him with his modifications being potentionally dangerous for other road-users, do you think he can say: "It's my property, so I can do with it whatever I want."?
Same thing with the PS3. Allowing people to modify their consoles would have the effect that people use it to steal software from Sony or other PS3-users, and maybe even get access to people's private information.
Would you want to have someone steal your downloaded games and get your name, last name, adress and ZIP-code?

 

[JDKJ]

EULA that come in boxed products that are sold sealed are not viable EULA's they have to be agreed upon before the purchase not after, the whole thing of take it back for store credit is bull you should get a full cash refund not to mention they actually have to be fair to both parties and follow the laws in each territory the are sold in , no were on these boxes do they say to read a license agreement. Everyone knows that EULA's are bullshit in the software industry they just put them there to keep 99% of the people in check with misinformation.

If you think that in-the-box EULAs are not enforceable, you should read the case of Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (New York Supreme Ct. App. Div. [Aug.] 1998). If you're too busy to do so, I'll give you the Reader's Digest version: the court found that a shrink-wrapped EULA resulted in a binding contract being formed when the purchaser retained the software for longer than the 30 day "approve or return" period.

 

[utopaline]

Anon is always interesting.

Here's the thing, I agree with what Sony is trying to do, I just don't agree with how they are doing it. They are unable to detect and deactivate modded boxes(I'm assuming this is the case) so they go after the people that help other mod. Microsoft seems to have a better way of looking at it. Fight it with updates, hire the hackers to work for you to help make security better (think ban hammers and the new disc format) MS seems to find a way to make it hard to do, while Sony figures they can just sue the people that figure stuff out.

Then Sony will try to say that the modding is what is causing them to lose so much money and not sell software. I call BS on that before they even say anything, they have been bleeding from the PS3 since launch. the 360 has been modded since like 3-6 months in and is still going strong. Just saying, spend the money you are spending on lawyers and make some great games that people can buy and play.

Also I agree, mod all you want, but stay offline, it ruins it for us all

uto

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Imagine this:

Someone buys himself a new car so the car is officially his property.
Then he installs an illegal nitro-system in his car so he can go way faster than allowed.
When the police pulls him over confronting him with his modifications being potentionally dangerous for other road-users, do you think he can say: "It's my property, so I can do with it whatever I want."?
Same thing with the PS3. Allowing people to modify their consoles would have the effect that people use it to steal software from Sony or other PS3-users, and maybe even get access to people's private information.
Would you want to have someone steal your downloaded games and get your name, last name, adress and ZIP-code?

Again, breaking an invalid contract is not the same as breaking the law. As for the rest: It's on Sony to keep that kind of thing from happening, even when the tools are readily available. There's some pretty serious hacking tools available for the PC, yet the online gaming communities are quite healthy, because there actually are effective countermeasures available; it's Sony's own fault if they were too stupid to set up a proper online infrastructure.