Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]

[Baresark]

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.

But, if the software is not purchased with the console, they are selling a device that won't work unless they give you the ok. You don't buy a computer but not own Windows 7. You own the right to use it, update it as you see fit, or not update it, write programs that run on it, etc. You don't buy a car without an engine, it's illegal to sell it as a working functioning car without it.

Edit: They do not change the core software with custom firmware, the core is all there, but they simply remove locks the prevent you from using it completely. This was what the iPhone jailbreaking court case was over, and Apple lost that one. I'm hoping it's the same here.

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.

I'll tell you exactly why, and this is a point that I have made so many times. It's because you purchase the system and THEN are made to sign an EULA, BEFORE you can actually use it. That is the part where they take advantage of their customer base. There are plenty of people out there that should simply as for a refund, and Sony should give it to them. But they wouldn't, would they?

If you sign an EULA before you fork over your money, then it's out of peoples hands, but since you don't, people purchase it with the understanding that you actually own the system and all things represented thereof.

So, keep scratching your head, and I hope you get it soon before you hit grey matter. I would hate to lose someone to debate against to brain damage. =P

PS. All bolds are representative of emphasis placed by myself. This way, even if you leave out all the extraneous other words, you can skim and see my point.

 

[Ranorak]

Ha there! Sony!
Now your website is down for 2 days!
Take that!

Fight the power!

Seriously Anonymous, you're the current age equivalent of making prank calls and ordering pizza's to fake addresses. Sony doesn't care the website goes down.

 

[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.

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.

No it's not. Because...you can sell your PS3. How does that make sense?

 

[JDKJ]

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.

Yes, they make no claim of ownership whatsoever to the hardware. But we can't say that and then go on to say what we can or can't do with the software that they do claim to own. That makes no sense, not even in English much less law. The hardware isn't at issue, the software is.

And you can argue whatever you want but that alone doesn't make it a winning argument. If you read the EULA that came with the PS3 that had the OtherOS feature, I'm sure you'll see where it says that Sony can modify post-sale the PS3 software in nany they choose and that it also say you can't modify their software in any way you may choose. As jacked up as it is to the consumer, they did reserve the right to remove features from their software after you've bought their console and they did reserve the right to prohibit you from modifying their software so as to replace a removed feature.

 

[Dastardly]

I totally agree
Penny for your thoughts

I'd love to weigh in, but I can't get at YouTube videos during the day. What's the link about?

 

[jonyboy13]

Well, this is going to be amusing.

 

[Vanbael]

Anonymous is basically invincible.

So yeah.

So what ? Sure people cant catch all of them but here is the thing, they cant do jack shit.
Oh noes DDoSing a site, the horror. They like to think they make a difference, but they waste more of their time, acomplishing nothing, I find it funny and sad. Sony wont care, they wont be effected, but anon can atleast pretend they are important, thdy are nothing irl, and a pest on the interenet. Aside from knocking site down for about 2 days, they havent done anything.

I am getting tired of hearing about them.

Yeah, this time is more of Anonymous getting in the way of things. Seriously, do they really think they can kill a business just by killing their website? Not really if its like Sony, because they will continue to sell in retail and will still make an income.

As far as these concerns go, Anonymous is basically getting in the way of things. Geohot is a dumbass for posting the rootkey on the internet, Sony has a right to be concerned because of pirating that can result from this, Geohot needs to grow some brains that range from outside of taunting Sony and actually defend himself in a legal argument. I don't care how it turns out, its been long overdue that something like this needs to be settled.
And Anonymous needs to stay the fuck out of this and just go work on something that might make a difference and would make them public heroes. Like I don't know, hack the Libyan dictator's network why don't you try (if the Libyan government has one).

 

[dkyros]

illegal or not they have a core goal that drives their actions. i respect that as its not a trait seen too much anymore

 

[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.

No it's not. Because...you can sell your PS3. How does that make sense?

It's part of the same set of rights. I guess a better example would be the film studio telling you that you couldn't cut up your own reel of film to make 35mm slides, but it's kind of hard to think of someone actually wanting to do that. What Sony is saying here is that you don't own the product that you paid for, it's just a glorified rental. The same logic they use to say hacking is illegal could be used to keep you from selling the system; in fact, I have some older products with an EULA that explicitly says you can't resell the product; it's a stipulation that is just as invalid as what Sony is trying to pull here.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

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.

Legality and Ethicality are two different things. It might be legal to sue someone for millions when they work a blue collar job, but does that make it right? Yes, Anon's hacking was illegal in BOTH cases, but it seems more justifiable in the westboro cases.

Oh, and try to keep this civil. You don't don't see me insulting anyone, so kindly don't insult me.

 

[infinity_turtles]

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.

I agree with you, car comparisons are pointless. Lets compare this to another piece of intellectual property that tends to fall under licensing and copyright. Music. What has happened is the equivalent of someone remixing a song, releasing a program that can modify the original song into the remix version(not releasing the remix itself, since you have to have a PS3 to jailbreak it), and then explaining their method of pulling individual track layers and what they specifically changed for their remix. And they of course exported it into a different sort of soundfile than it came as, to give it expanded functionality.

I don't think anyone has ever been sued for doing that.

 

[RvLeshrac]

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

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.

No it's not. Because...you can sell your PS3. How does that make sense?

He misspoke. More like buying a reel of film, then being told that you're only allowed to make a movie with it if you first obtain the approval of the company what sold you the film.

 

[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.

But, if the software is not purchased with the console, they are selling a device that won't work unless they give you the ok. You don't buy a computer but not own Windows 7. You own the right to use it, update it as you see fit, or not update it, write programs that run on it, etc. You don't buy a car without an engine, it's illegal to sell it as a working functioning car without it.

Okay, let's break this down. Is the problem that he is not allowed to do whatever he want with a console that he bought? Note, he does still not own the software that runs it. If yes, why is that a problem?

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

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 understand Sony's trepidation, but I don't agree with them.

I see your point but it's... Complicated.
Isn't the Sony software in the PS3 copyrited and secret and stuff? If so then I say you're probably not allowed to screw with it.
I'm sure it would be in the agreement that everyone signs when they buy the console or set it up or something.

Of course it's complicated, it's very complicated. I surely don't understand all the details. Still, from what I can tell, modding your console isn't (or shouldn't) be illegal, so long as you don't do anything illegal with it. I'm tentatively on Geo's side, but I certainly understand Sony's point of view.

 

[CommanderKirov]

Meanwhile at Sony.

 

[klaynexas3]

i think this fight is a lesser of two evils type fight. while i do like anon, they fight for what's usually right, and i do see the reasons to fight for, that the ps3 is the owners property, so they should be able to tinker with it. but also, it brings in too many pirates and allows illegal processes to go on. that's why i see sony as also being right in this. this isn't a simply right vs. wrong, this is a human vs. human fight, two powers, both flawed, both perfect. that's what this is.

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

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.

I'm not 100% convinced of that. Still, I completely understand Sony's point of view, I just happen to think they're being reactionary. If nothing illegal is being done with the mod, there's no reason to be upset, and as far as I know Sony hasn't proven that anything illegal has been done.

 

[aashell13]

Whatever the merits of the case, I find anon's political judgement questionable. Launching these attacks, regardless of their success, will give Sony additional room to paint itself as the victim of the situation.

 

[michael87cn]

I side with sony on this case because they are just trying to protect their interests and their customers.

Like I said before they wouldn't care what people do to their PS3s if they couldn't connect to the internet with them.

If you were a smart hacker you would see this and a big warning sign not to mess with your PS3 and just find something else to tinker with. There are dozens of consoles out there that don't connect to online services.