Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]

[Emergent]

Err, no it isn't. To use your scenario, it's like saying that people shouldn't make explosives at home, because someone could get hurt.

I don't really think the second analogy is any more or less apt than the first. Depending on where you live, there's a pretty good chance you are allowed to make explosives in your home, and to clean your house, or whatever.

 

[ShadowKirby]

Thing is you are free to do what you want with a piece of equipment you bought. If you want to hack it so you can use other programs on it, fine, you can do that. But....the issue is different when you start circulating codes etc to others across the internet. I really wish these idiots would be arrested and put away, fined or whatever. They do things selfishly and not for the good of the people.

Can i ask why exactly ? What is wrong with sharing what you've learned? Just because some, pre defined law? What if the law is fundamentally wrong? Was Galileo Galilei wrong when he supported heliocentric theory? Was inquisition right only because the law allowed them to be right?

The main idea is to let the knowledge be accessible by everyone, what then people do with that knowledge is their own responsibility. Would you ban chemistry classes because someone could use that knowledge to kill others?

You want to know example of withholding knowledge... look at China, look at any dictatorship that limit's access to information. How is this different?

To say what is happening here and what is happening in China is the same is kind of fucking insulting to the people who are actually silenced by the Chinese government. Denouncing lack of human rights and knowing how to pirate games because you're cheap is far from being the in the same ballpark.

 

[SinisterGehe]

Sigh... Someone give anon a fucking book or a comic something, that unruly child should be sent to sit in the naughty corner for fucking forever.

Geohot didn't merely mod their box, he exposed it completely risking the safety of other customers. And now Anon says it is OK!... What?

Someone should go and hack the every single persons PS3's who bothers to call them selfs anon and render them completely useless bricks and then ask "You happy now? You fought for the cause that gave me these weapons, now I am hurting you with them? How do you feel now..."

And Sony a big "evil" corporation must be wrong because it is a big evil corporation. I am sure they are cooking something to prevent this shit. I am going to laugh my ass off if anon goes and breaks the PS3 online system. I bet they will be popular after that, specially if they leak all the account data and stuff also. I bet people are so going to cheer for them.

And people...
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH SONY, DO NOT BUY A PS3. It is not like you must have one or anything, if you hate them so much. STOP USING THEIR PRODUCTS!

 

[le picklez]

Sigh... Someone give anon a fucking book or a comic something, that unruly child should be sent to sit in the naughty corner for fucking forever.

Geohot didn't merely mod their box, he exposed it completely risking the safety of other customers. And now Anon says it is OK!... What?

Someone should go and hack the every single persons PS3's who bothers to call them selfs anon and render them completely useless bricks and then ask "You happy now? You fought for the cause that gave me these weapons, now I am hurting you with them? How do you feel now..."

And Sony a big "evil" corporation must be wrong because it is a big evil corporation. I am sure they are cooking something to prevent this shit. I am going to laugh my ass off if anon goes and breaks the PS3 online system. I bet they will be popular after that, specially if they leak all the account data and stuff also. I bet people are so going to cheer for them.

And people...
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH SONY, DO NOT BUY A PS3. It is not like you must have one or anything, if you hate them so much. STOP USING THEIR PRODUCTS!

I thought anonymous's beef was sony getting the personal information of tons of PS3 users, not suing whatshisface. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

 

[Malk_Content]

i think sony is the bad company here
i have been seriously concidering getting a ps3
but it feels like i should wait for this situation to sort itself out
i aggree with anon because of stupid overpriced DLC that does not need be overpriced in the first place

i think that modifying the console to play pirate games is wrong but these days when a Half a game DLC charged at the full price of a game makes me think they desrve it!

DLC was devloped to ensure that devlopers get paid in some way for games that get sold secondhand and i am fine with that but charging half the price or the full price of a game for half a game is wrong when the game is charged at full price in the first place
if the game was sold at half the price and the DLC makes the other half they would not look like they are milking the money tree too much

and i even think that any DLC that is sold seperatly should come with a trial period so people can really tell if they want it rather than buy and get pissed of with it

i am just going to continue expanding my PSone and PS2 collection at the moment
i see no reason to get a current gen console right now i rather play console games from the past where they focused on the game and gameplay not fancy graphics and DLC

Not picking on you or anything, everything else to be being argued back and forth already and I had thoughts straight away upon reading this.

How is Sony at fault for DLC prices? I can understand many other reasons for calling Sony a bad company (I don't agree with most, but can see the point of view.) DLC costs the same on all platforms, PC, PSN or xbox live. Sony didn't decide this, developers (publishers) did and the market allowed it. My experience with the PSN has been wonderful, lots of games have free trials and almost every game that does DLC in episodes lets the first one go for free.

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

doesn't /b/ have anything else better to do? But hell I watched the video and laughed my ass off, i do agree but i have more issues myself to take care.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Not liking the outcome is not the same as the outcome being "wrong." Your slippery slope example, however, doesn't stand up. Microsoft giving Fox a monopoly on news with their devices would be an example of "collusion," which is already illegal without the technological considerations.

I honestly don't think that the government is competent enough to stop "collusion." Companies make deals with each other all the time, so there's no guarantee that they would be able to stop something like that.

What happens if the company doesn't even make a deal. Maybe it's owned by someone like Rupert Murdock, and it just bans you from accessing wikileaks? How would the government stop that?

Sony's PS3 is not a phone or television or radio. It's a computer designed only to play proprietary software. Saying, "You can only play Sony-approved games on this Sony device" isn't as unreasonable as people are making it. Now, they've already been down this road with the iPhone, and we all know how that ended. Time will lead this down the same path.

(But really, it makes sense that these companies would want to limit what people put on the device. For one, it protects their substantial investment in the product as a platform for selling more products. That's the right of a person that invents something, as far as I've seen history demonstrate (at least until patents expire). For another, it ensures that people aren't downloading problematic, untested software from people who aren't accountable for those mistake, and then Sony is drowning in customer service complaints regarding that software.)

Saying "you can only play Sony-approved games on this Sony device... without voiding the warranty or access to our online service" is perfectly reasonable, I agree. However, saying that you absolutely cannot do something to a piece of hardware that you bought and own is not. The warranty and online service are both ongoing services that you must meet certain conditions in order to benefit from, so Sony has every right to deny them to you if you break those conditions.

There are a lot of people that do know what this is about, and they still don't care. The fact that you can hear so "many" voices right now is because you're on a website frequented by videogamers, in a topic specifically about this problem. As a result, it's going to seem like everyone cares. They don't.

Um... I didn't say that a lot of people care, and I am certainly aware that this sight represents only a small minority of gamers. What I said was that I think that it is possible that many PS3 owners who are unaware may very well care if you explain to them that they don't have the right to do what they want to the PS3 that they bought and own. For example, I don't particularly want to paint flames on the Honda that I own, but I would still be really pissed if Honda told me I couldn't. It's just the very principle that some company has the hubris to tell me that I can't do whatever I want (that doesn't endanger public safety) with something that I legally own, not rent, but legally own.

But I draw a big bold line between "convenience when using a product" and "basic human rights." Regarding a product, you don't truly have any "rights." You have conditional privileges. Your "rights" as a consumer are simple: You deserve to be given adequate and truthful information before you buy a product, and adequate and timely service afterward (including avenues through which to make grievances known). That's it.

This isn't an issue of "rights." It's an issue of "wants." Now, in all likelihood the law is going to come down and say, "Once you buy the thing, you can modify it however you want... but Sony has the right to deny customer service or online access if you do." It'd be a fair and reasonable outcome, and it's the most likely.

I hate to break this to you, but ownership is a right. In fact, it's one of the most fundamental rights. Now I agree with you that Sony also has a right to deny customers their ongoing online services and their warranty because those are contracted services, and thus the consumer must uphold their end of the contract. However, you do not just have the privilege to do what you want with something you legally bought and own, you have the right to do so. If someone wants to mod their PS3 to run Linux they can expect to not be able to get online or to get their console fixed by the company, but Sony has no right to come into their home and take their console away from them... it's their console, and it's been their console ever since they bought it.

But Sony's tactics thus far? They're the same steps any small one-man operation would take to protect an investment. The legal team is doing what every good legal team in the history of ever has done: they're looking at every option available to them to ensure they cover their bases completely.

That isn't a very good argument. Someone doing whatever they can to win does NOT justify their actions. Sure you can expect it, but the Geneva Convention still looks down upon people using chemical warfare to win.

This isn't some David and Goliath tale that warrants Anonymous's heavy-handed "activism" on behalf of a population that didn't elect them and can't hold them accountable.

Erm... I'm pretty sure that this guy vs. the multimillion dollar legal team of Sony is about as close to a David and Goliath battle as you can get. This is a huge company singling out an individual to crush in order to make an example of them. Don't try to sugar coat it. Sure, he might be guilty and stupid, but there's more at stake here than just him. Legal precedents are very important, nothing is cut and dry. By winning this case companies all over will have a new legal precedent that will allow them to trample all over the consumer's rights of ownership. I'm afraid that the slippery slope argument is far from being fallacious in regards to the legal system, because each precedent can lead to even more liberal precedents.

If you think that the government is able to shut down trusts and prosecute "Collusion" efficiently, you're living in la la land. This isn't a Bull Moose government. This is a government where no politician is elected and able to keep their jobs without pandering to lobbyists, democrat and republican alike. We bail corrupt banks out and give companies like BP a slap on the wrist.

 

[Keava]

End of the day the hacker argument is they should be able to do what they like with a product they own. That i can agree with. But sharing the information is what goes against the law and the product. Especially as it will lead to pirating. Years ago you had to make backup copies of games on the Amiga, this was allowed. But is giving these copies out to friends considered ok? Would the game company be wrong in complaining about this?

Amazing how you people get so defensive at the very thought of piracy. Let me state it one more time for those who are obviously way to ignorant to understand basics - Hackers Scene has little do with kids downloading games from torrent.

The whole case of Sony vs GeoHot has nothing, and i repeat, nothing to do with piracy. It's about a big company shutting down features of the hardware you and many other's own legally. It's like one day a guy from Ford or Toyota would came to your house and took out airbags out of your car, and then when you would figure out on your own how to put them in again, and spread the happy news around the world they would sue you.

Sure piracy is illegal but using that argument in this case is just nonsense. Maybe let's ban internet all together because potentially it is big part of the piracy problem? How far are you mindless sheep-people willing to go to defend companies rights to interfere with your own privacy?

There is no law that i know of that makes sharing information illegal. Furthermore the Universal Declaration of Human Right's that's supposedly respected in US grants freedom of information and any attempts to limit it should be considered censorship.

Copyrights, as in actual intellectual property protection laws, have nothing to do with this case. All those 'evil' hackers did was publishing a root key code that the company did not share with you only because it considers you a potential criminal. How does it fit into whole presumption of innocence?

 

[Therumancer]

End of the day the hacker argument is they should be able to do what they like with a product they own. That i can agree with. But sharing the information is what goes against the law and the product. Especially as it will lead to pirating. Years ago you had to make backup copies of games on the Amiga, this was allowed. But is giving these copies out to friends considered ok? Would the game company be wrong in complaining about this?

Amazing how you people get so defensive at the very thought of piracy. Let me state it one more time for those who are obviously way to ignorant to understand basics - Hackers Scene has little do with kids downloading games from torrent.

The whole case of Sony vs GeoHot has nothing, and i repeat, nothing to do with piracy. It's about a big company shutting down features of the hardware you and many other's own legally. It's like one day a guy from Ford or Toyota would came to your house and took out airbags out of your car, and then when you would figure out on your own how to put them in again, and spread the happy news around the world they would sue you.

Sure piracy is illegal but using that argument in this case is just nonsense. Maybe let's ban internet all together because potentially it is big part of the piracy problem? How far are you mindless sheep-people willing to go to defend companies rights to interfere with your own privacy?

There is no law that i know of that makes sharing information illegal. Furthermore the Universal Declaration of Human Right's that's supposedly respected in US grants freedom of information and any attempts to limit it should be considered censorship.

Copyrights, as in actual intellectual property protection laws, have nothing to do with this case. All those 'evil' hackers did was publishing a root key code that the company did not share with you only because it considers you a potential criminal. How does it fit into whole presumption of innocence?

I agree with you to some extent. You have to understand that Sony's actions to begin with were out of them being concerned about hackers though. That's why they care. I also very much doubt that Geohotz didn't realize this.

Overall though, I think Sony is still wrong, because with this kind of behavior the cure is worse than the crime. Especially when media industries are making billions of dollars every year (yes, some go down and fail, but that's how it is with every industry). The industry being corrupt and greedy does not make piracy right (ie it's two wrongs), but punishing the general base of users and consumers is ridiculous.

Simply put, I think the industry does not need to crack down on piracy to be successful, it's gotten this far with it. Until such a time as someone invents the "magic bullet" to solve the problem, they need to back off, because really all they are accomplishing is to slot off regular users.

 

[SanguineSymphony]

Something tells me that I, in some way, will get screwed in someway by this. "Sony releases an ass ton of patches" or "Hackers release customer information" is the tag lines I'm looking for in the future.

*SIGH* that's what I am expecting too..

 

[eva243]

I am against piracy, but if you own a console and want to mod the hell out of it then go a head it is your console. I think sony is in the wrong. Big time companies should support their fans, even if their fans are playing with their toys in the wrong way, not proceed to sue them because they want to color outside the lines. So I support Anonymous whole heartedly in this :/

The funny thing is that Anonymous is like the modern super heroes of the day only with the internet rather than burglars, or the joker XD

 

[Dastardly]

I honestly don't think that the government is competent enough to stop "collusion."

Agreed, but beside the point. It's hard to enforce, but that doesn't mean it's not illegal and unethical.

Saying "you can only play Sony-approved games on this Sony device... without voiding the warranty or access to our online service" is perfectly reasonable, I agree.

We're in clear agreement on this point. I just think it's up to the courts to say it once and for all, and I believe they will. On the way to that inevitable conclusion, though, I don't begrudge Sony's legal team using every legal method at their disposal to get a favorable ruling. That's what lawyers are paid to do.

I hate to break this to you, but ownership is a right. In fact, it's one of the most fundamental rights.

Ownership is not a "right." Rights are unconditional. Ownership is conditional. To be obvious, I don't "own" a car unless I pay for it and the seller gives it to me. If the seller refuses to sell or I refuse to pay, I cannot own that car. If I lease the car, there's a whole other contract. I don't suddenly have a right to own that car. If I finance the car, technically the bank owns the title, despite the fact that I might behave as though I own the car.

Ownership is a legal construct and a commodity, when it comes to many things. The obvious exceptions are your own body and mind. I own something because:

1) the original owner set conditions for the transfer of ownership,
2) I met those conditions to the satisfaction of the original owner,
3) the law provides that once this exchange is complete, I'm now the rightful owner

What we can debate here is whether or not Sony is allowed to say, "You don't actually own this," on a license that is only viewable after the financial transaction. If the EULA was made available at the point of sale, things would be very different (and far less convenient, too).

However, you do not just have the privilege to do what you want with something you legally bought and own, you have the right to do so.

A reminder that this is dependent on the terms of the transfer of ownership. See the current Bethesda/Interplay war as an example of how murky these things can be. But, again, what we can easily argue is that the license to which a customer agrees should be made available before such time as the customer is unable to return the product for a full refund.

That isn't a very good argument. Someone doing whatever they can to win does NOT justify their actions. Sure you can expect it, but the Geneva Convention still looks down upon people using chemical warfare to win.

The difference is that Sony's lawyers are using every legal means at their disposal. They're not doing anything illegal. It's not about "do whatever you can to win." It's about "do whatever you're allowed to do to win."

Erm... I'm pretty sure that this guy vs. the multimillion dollar legal team of Sony is about as close to a David and Goliath battle as you can get. This is a huge company singling out an individual to crush in order to make an example of them. Don't try to sugar coat it.

I'm not sugar coating either side, but you're sugar coating GH's side of things. Sony didn't arbitrarily pick this "little guy" to "make an example."

"David and Goliath" is a story about an invading army's giant champion being put down by the nearly-defeated defender's young, but Godly and confident underdog. It's a story about good triumphing over evil even when evil seems more powerful. Neither side is "good" or "evil" in this.

If anything, it's more like "Jack and the Beanstalk." Jack wasn't maliciously trying to rob the Giant, but he did break into the guy's house uninvited. Jack basically spit in the giant's eye. And sure, the giant could have handled things better, but so could Jack. (More modern tellings paint the giant as the necessary bad guy, who was just waiting for the opportunity to "grind bones into bread," but that's not how it all started out)

I'm just not on the "Sony is being evil" bandwagon here. The lawyers are doing what they should by being thorough, and hopefully so are GH's lawyers (seems that they are, but they're not under the same media scrutiny at the moment). Lawyers aren't paid to believe in the cause. They're paid to defend it.

And what if they win? Many people will stop buying from Sony. Another company will step in and offer better terms in order to win those sales. Other people, for whom this licensing presents not one bit of problem will continue with Sony. Every step Sony takes to enforce that crazy control will just drive more people away. Nintendo and Microsoft will learn swiftly from that mistake. It's not going to be the end of the damn world.

As long as everything is being handled in line with the code of law, the evidence seems to support "customer rights" coming out on top. We can't pretend that the legal system shouldn't be used properly just because we're afraid the other guy might win.

 

[Fox242]

Anonymous can kiss my ass. They aren't defenders of freedom, they're just of bunch of jack asses who attack anyone they please. Why are they defending Geohot? Look at the guy! He's another hacker jerk off whose efforts will probably lead to other hackers ruining other people's consoles. I honestly can't stand hackers.

I also love how Anonymous has taken the Guy Fawkes mask wearing V as their symbol. It's funny considering that Guy Fawkes was not about freedom at all; he simply wanted to replace Protestant oppression in Britain with Vatican domincance.

 

[Keava]

Show me a case where sony came to a persons house and ripped out a part of there console that the person bought? Companies always take out stuff from products to save money, but they dont see a product based on features that it doesnt have. Any idiot would research a product to see what it has over other products.

How about the v3.21 firmware update that disabled Other OS, and another one v3.50 firmware update that disabled majority of the non licensed by Sony usb peripherals.

 

[Illyasviel]

If Hotz did it to allow Linux, do you really believe he thought when he was posting it to the internet for all to share that the people most interested in having it would be people who wanted to run Linux? No, he didn't. He knew full well that 99% of the people who downloaded it were doing so in order to play pirated games. He knows as well as I do that the number of people who want to run Linux on a PS3 can fit in a Mini Cooper.

Oh cool, you can read GeoHot's mind? What's his favorite color? Does he like ice cream? What is he going to hack next? ... Oh wait, you can't read his mind? You have no idea what he knows? Oh, okay then. I was excited about your awesome powers for a minute, too.

And in any case, the fact that some people will use it to pirate doesn't mean GeoHot should be held responsible. Somebody using something you did to do illegal activities doesn't make you guilty. It makes THEM guilty. Tell Sony to actually go sue the people who wrote programs that would allow piracy on the PS3 when used with the root key and then I'll support them. But they aren't doing that, are they?

Boo, suspended. That's bullshit. Among everybody who posted, only Emergent and JD probably really had actual knowledge and background in what they were talking about. Their discussion is beneficial to all of us. Unfortunately, I don't have a legal background ( I am a VP and follow Internet rights activism closely so I learn all my law from those two areas ) so I can't really take up JD's reigns either. I take the evening off to fix my computer and this is what happens.

The primary purpose of the PS3 is not to run Linux but to play games. This is a fact. Everybody and their grandmother, including Geohot, knows that by far, the number one use of any hack of the PS3 will be to pirate games. Don't try any games regarding that fact. I've run four different Linux distros and every single computer I installed Linux onto cost equal to or less than the PS3 I purchased. So why specifically purchase a PS3 to run Linux? And if you do? You weren't forced to install the patch. You could've just declined the update. Than your Linux box would be untouched.

Why are so many people so adamant that the crack is to restore Linux? Is it because that's what Geohot said? Because people lie you know. Geohot could be lying! A revelation that will go down in history I'm sure. I could tell you that a keyboard is actually used to play lacrosse until I'm blue in the face and I'd still be lying.

There are tons and tons of reasons why Sony shouldn't sue people one at a time and that they should sue Geohot. First, suing individuals doesn't work because the means and methods are still available. You cut off the head of the snake. If you think suing one guy, who is a complete asshole and arguably a criminal, is bad for PR, wait until you sue a hundred "innocent" Joe Blows. Subpeonas also cost money. Like USD350 a pop or something? That's what I remember reading somewhere. You'd need a new subpeona for each individual depending on where you file them, and then you'd have to deal with all the legal bullshit over and over and over again, especially motions to quash due to targeting individuals out of your court of choice's jurisdiction. And Geohot is responsible. No, a gun manufacturer is not responsible if a gun they make is used in a murder. They aren't the point of sale. They have no control on who gets the gun; they hand the guns off to a third party point of sale. Geohot, however, does. He is the point of sale. Geohot is much closer to the guy who sells guns criminals and escaped convicts all day. When half the guns he's sold end up as the weapon in homicides, guess who else the feds are going to go to.

Hearing Geohot and Anonymous thought of defenders of humanity or "personifications of freedom" makes me sick. It spits in the face of true civil champions.