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).

See, here's the thing. The fact that a modded PS3 can screw up the online experience of other users that much shows that the PSN is a crappy system, because Sony didn't bother to implement simple things like anti-cheat and a kick/ban system. The tools to hack in PC games are all over the place, but actual hackers tend to be rare on active games, because the infrastructure is there to keep it under control. This should be a lesson to Sony: Consoles are not, nor have they ever been, safe from hackers simply on the merits of being consoles instead of PCs. Next gen, they need to implement proper anti-cheat support.

OT: I can't say that Anonymous' plan on this is the best course of action -- or even a good one -- but can we please stop painting Sony as anything but the devil incarnate in this? Geohot is standing up to the BS that consumers have had to take for way too long, and if he can keep this case going long enough, he may finally get a ruling that gives consumers some protections from predatory EULAs. I don't see how anyone who isn't an industry executive can see this as a bad thing.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Lets teach them hackers are in the right by hacking their sites! This won't give them more ammo or anything!

Boy, I love logic.

 

[Shycte]

Oh Anon, may you never stop not having anything better to do.

This line of thinking is wrong. It's not that they don't have anything better to do, what they are doing is worthwhile and comes down to the very rights guaranteed by the US constitution, that is the right to own property. They are making the argument you do not own the property you bought from them, they in fact own it and can dictate how you are or are not allowed to use it.

You might own the console itself, but you do not own the software that runs it and you are not free to do whatever you want with it. It's not that easy. No one is denying him the right to his property, they are denying him the right to fuck with theirs.

 

[Hawk of Battle]

I'm pretty sure when you take your ps3 online (or maybe even when you first set it up, can't really rememeber) you have to click one of those "I agree to the terms and conditions" things (which nobody ever reads, but really should probably) and I'd be very surprised if those terms and conditions DIDN'T say something about not pirating games and fucking around with the software that makes the console work.

So if you clicked those terms and conditions and then decided not to abide by them and start hacking/pirating stuff, then yes, you are breaking the law and Sony has every right to come down on you.

Whcih means Annonymous is probably wrong here. Yes you may have bought the console and can do whatever you want with it WITHIN THE TERMS AND AGREEMENTS, but you still aren't allowed to hack or pirate stuff. No matter which way the hackers want to swing it, they're breaking the law here.

 

[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 the court system, 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?

 

[Lokithrsourcerer]

anonymous are an interesting bunch the fact is they probably only really contain a handful of core members the rest of the crowed act as a human shield when things go a bit tits up.
for example do we actually think any of the people arrested in the US and UK in the "swoop" the other month were core members of anon or just modern day equivalents of "script kiddies" taking the fall.

Anonymous do do some good things, or at least draw attention to some important issues, hacking websites doesn't really make any changes but getting people world wide to look at say, the fucked up things Scientology does or the "cloak and dagger" activities of big business is good.

They are a bit like Macaulay Culkin in home alone 2 smashing the shop window to alert the authorities.
its not necessarily the best way to go about things but it can be effective if the timing is right.

they do differ from anarchists infiltrating protests and smashing windows etc because anon make an effort to explain their actions. Were as the "trouble makers" in most protests (at least in the uk) are muppets that have no real link to the issue being protested and are just "up for a ruck" with the law.

anarchists amuse me how can you have an anarchist organisation lol organised anarchy bit of an oxymoron

 

[JDKJ]

I love it how Hackers appear to think that hacking and causing damage to other people's property will somehow win over the public.

This is fucking stupid, regardless of which side you are on.

Not that I disagree completely with you, but people modifying their system to run custom made packages, isn't harming other peoples property. People purchase a PS3 with the understanding that they have purchased the system. I know I purchased the system with the understanding that I own it.

Also, not everyone who does this uses it for illegal activities such as piracy.

Oh Anon, may you never stop not having anything better to do.

This line of thinking is wrong. It's not that they don't have anything better to do, what they are doing is worthwhile and comes down to the very rights guaranteed by the US constitution, that is the right to own property. They are making the argument you do not own the property you bought from them, they in fact own it and can dictate how you are or are not allowed to use it.

OT: Sony are douche bags, it's true. I don't think they are abusing the system, but I do agree they are abusing their customers. You don't buy a car then no have a right to put in a new stereo system. You also have the right to enhance the engine so it's either more powerful/less fuel efficient, or more fuel efficient/less powerful. As soon as Ford said you weren't allowed to do that, everyone would be up in arms. This maintains itself as a niche debate based on the fact that so few people (in the grand scope of things) actually play video games.

That said, I feel sorry for people who are so small minded they refuse to see the bigger issue here. Everyone seems to think it's about piracy, but it stopped being about piracy a long time ago. Sony has no way of knowing who is or is not using these custom packages and firmwares for piracy, and who is not. Just like gun manufacturers don't know who is using guns to commit crimes and who are using them for self defense. You don't chase down the gun manufacturer every time someone gets shot, you chase down the criminal who committed the crime. But this has to be so different? When everything is said and done, our bureaucratic nightmare of an impotent legal system is going to be even worse.

All this is said with the very same understanding that piracy is wrong, and should not be allowed.

Why would you ever think that you purchased the software in a PS3 and that you own it when the license agreement that governs the software in a PS3 clearly states that it is only licensed to you for use and that Sony retains all rights of ownership to that software? Please explain that you me because I've scratched my head to a bald spot wondering why anyone would think they own the PS3's software when Sony has made it abundantly clear that they don't.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

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.

Not quite. Sony can copyright and limit the use of their software all they want, but they may not do the same to the hardware. Every user may freely remove the software and add their own (by removal I do mean completely 100% Sony software free), but connecting to PSN is obviously not guaranteed, and indeed Sony may outright deny it. It's a bit like jailbreaking your favorite Apple toy, because you do not like their own software. Furthermore, the PS3 was sold for a long time under the promise that users could install Linux under the "Other OS" option. It could very well be argued that hacking a PS3 is simply operating under the initial agreement.

Captcha: eAdet rrele. Could we please go back to using real words? I find this garbled mess of letters quite annoying.

 

[RvLeshrac]

Oh boy, Something tells me this is not going to end up pretty. I usually favor Anon with a lot of things, but this time it feels... off. Dunno how else to put it.

I think this might be why, it's why it feels off for me

SONY isn't abusing the legal system, they're USING the legal system. You might think what they're suing for is wrong, but if the judge allows the case to go through, it's because it's not abusing the legal system and a case can be made by both sides. You might not like what SONY is doing, but a legal battle is a viable option for SONY, they are using it, and if you don't understand that, tough.

I've supported Anon' MANY times in the past, including the WBC bollocks they went through, but they were right for that. WBC was pushing hate on the world. SONY is not abusing the legal system, they are simply using that method

Why is it that EVERY TIME someone twitches the wrong way, Anonymous goes "You are abusing the public and misusing all of this! We shall teach you a lesson!" like their donning batman's fucking cape? I can understand it if they get involved in an issue or two, but now they're hacking for the sake of hacking, they're watching everything going "Can we find a reason to hack for that? no...... How about that? ...... no....... OOooooh, lets do THIS!!!!"

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Either they were right in attacking the WBC and they're right in attacking Sony, or they aren't right in either case.

You can't pick and choose, as both are equally illegal. Adjusting your ethics based on how much you dislike one group makes you no better than the idiots at Westboro.

 

[JDKJ]

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.

 

[Frostbite3789]

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...

Neither of those things directly effects Ford or their earning potential, so they wouldn't care. This comparison is in no way apt. You're comparing apples and oranges and claiming they're the same thing, they aren't.

I agree with the poster who earlier said gamers always feel so repressed. It seems like every little thing is the worst thing to ever happen to us.

This is like saying that you bought a ticket to one movie, then when that movie is over, you can go to see another one. Because you bought the ticket to be inside the theater, you bought that. So you can stay inside the theater as long as you want and do whatever you want with it. Because hey, you paid money. You own the right to be there.

It's the same logic as people in LoL, who buy RP then say they shouldn't ever be banned because they spent money. It's moronic.

 

[michael87cn]

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).

Exactly.

Sony wouldn't care if there was no internet connectivity to the system.

 

[The Funslinger]

Personally, I think people have the right to do what they like with the console they bought, but if it extends to cheating the online systems, or reaching out to other people's consoles, then it goes too far.

 

[Mangod]

Yea, too bad that something like half of the forum no longer appears to actually care about confronting Sony in a civil manner and instead wants to pretend that people like GeoHotz and Anonymous are the hacker equivilents of Che Guevara (that famous South American Communist guy).

Why is Che Gueara so popular in the states again? I thought they hated the Commies.

As for Sony V. Anon, I'm not gonna side with either of them. Sony is to inquisitorial in this matter, and Anon is being a childish, resorting to brute force because they can't think of anything constructive.

I'm just gonna go and play Rayman 1 on my PS2 from back in the stoneages. That game is sweet

 

[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.

 

[Sephychu]

It's something of a lesser of two evils scenario.

Sony simply won't listen to reason, and nor will Anonymous. So the rest of us just have to sit here and wait while our thoughts and opinions are represented for us by people we've never met.

So, in a way, I suppose that's a perfect scale model of democracy.

 

[WanderingFool]

Oh boy, Something tells me this is not going to end up pretty. I usually favor Anon with a lot of things, but this time it feels... off. Dunno how else to put it.

I think this might be why, it's why it feels off for me

SONY isn't abusing the legal system, they're USING the legal system. You might think what they're suing for is wrong, but if the judge allows the case to go through, it's because it's not abusing the legal system and a case can be made by both sides. You might not like what SONY is doing, but a legal battle is a viable option for SONY, they are using it, and if you don't understand that, tough.

I've supported Anon' MANY times in the past, including the WBC bollocks they went through, but they were right for that. WBC was pushing hate on the world. SONY is not abusing the legal system, they are simply using that method

Why is it that EVERY TIME someone twitches the wrong way, Anonymous goes "You are abusing the public and misusing all of this! We shall teach you a lesson!" like their donning batman's fucking cape? I can understand it if they get involved in an issue or two, but now they're hacking for the sake of hacking, they're watching everything going "Can we find a reason to hack for that? no...... How about that? ...... no....... OOooooh, lets do THIS!!!!"

There is the law and there is what is right.

Yeah, I can tell that, but who is Anonymous to say what is right or wrong, and what gives them the right to play "executioner" or whatever role they put on while playing dress up. AS I mentioned, this is the Westboro, this isn't discrimination again human rights, this isn't racism, sexism, blah blah blah. This is a lawsuit because SONY feels wronged. If SONY loses, they lose, and they realize they were wrong. So what's all this "Eye for an eye" shit. This isn't going to show SONY a lesson, it's going to piss them off. It's going to make them try and hit hotz harder, and it's going to escalate.

You're right, there's what's legal, and what's right/wrong. And Anonymous should stick their nose in their own fucking business and now try to complicate or escalate this anymore than it has already. What they are doing isn't necessarily right, and it's not legal (assuming)

What I wanna know if what message are they trying to send? If Anon all hacked their own PS3s, that would be one thing. But they are hacking a domain belonging to SONY. They are trying to back a case of "You can hack your own equipment" and their method of backing this case is to CLEARLY hack someone else's property.

Yeah, they're SOOO in the right /sarcasm

Is is more a response to the quote you quoted, than to you, but...

There is the law and there is what is right.

What is Right is so fucking subjective. What is right to you and what is right to somebdoy else can be completely different. So I like what Celtic_Kerr said, whos to say Anonymous is on the "right" side? Your right side? my right side? or is it just their right side? You know what is really different about the law, and "what is right"? The law is a hell of alot more concrete, it can be altered and bent, but is a helluv alot less subjective than "what is right".

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

In complex matters of business and technology, the term "illegal" should carry almost no weight. People flock to defend one side or another based purely on the legality of their actions without stopping to think about who creates and applies the law. Legislators are, more often than not, politicians beholden to campaign contributors. Judges are, more often than not, equally beholden to the politicians who nominate/approve them. Corporations spend billions trying to influence the legal system, and they don't have the consumer's best interests in mind. Really, they've been working around the clock to erode the basic consumer rights that have existed almost since the dawn of commerce.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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...

Neither of those things directly effects Ford or their earning potential, so they wouldn't care. This comparison is in no way apt. You're comparing apples and oranges and claiming they're the same thing, they aren't.

I agree with the poster who earlier said gamers always feel so repressed. It seems like every little thing is the worst thing to ever happen to us.

This is like saying that you bought a ticket to one movie, then when that movie is over, you can go to see another one. Because you bought the ticket to be inside the theater, you bought that. So you can stay inside the theater as long as you want and do whatever you want with it. Because hey, you paid money. You own the right to be there.

It's the same logic as people in LoL, who buy RP then say they shouldn't ever be banned because they spent money. It's moronic.

It's more like buying an actual reel of film, and being told you can't sell it because it was only licensed to you for life, not actually sold. Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade.

 

[RvLeshrac]

*snip*

I agree with this totally. Sony could care less what you do to the console itself (Ex. If they were really on about people tinkering with the console they could go after the guy that makes them into laptops etc.) What they are fighting about is that GeoHotz was cracking their source code and security systems in the source code. If he would have made his own operating system and firmware they probably wouldn't have given 2 shits as long as it did not play their games or try to subvert their security for their games or try to connect to psn.

I'd appreciate it if people could actually learn something about the hacks, and what is necessary to perform them, before writing comments like this.

You can't have full access to the PS3 hardware without breaking the software, as the software is designed to lock you out of the hardware.

To return to all those car analogies, you know those big engine shields they put in place over BMW and Volvo engines? It isn't illegal to remove those, either.

To further return to the car analogies, sorry, but yes, most car manufacturers *do* licence a copy of software to you - the software included on the car's computer. Despite what they say to the contrary, it is perfectly legal to modify that software, as long as you aren't violating any safety regulations while doing it, and understand that doing so reduces their liability to $0.