Sony Threatens Permabans for PlayStation 3 Hackers

[Zombie_Moogle]

Remember those people who bought a PS3 for the Linux support? or for backward compatibility?

Yeah, but they're not the majority. Most people bought their PS3 to play new games. The "buying a PS3 for Linux" argument died years ago when Sony took out Linux from the PS3. It's not like they duped anyone into buying a PS3 after that. Same can be said for backwards compatibility. They were nice features to have but no primary to the PS3.

Sony & a lot of other companies have it in their heads that they still own the thing they just sold you

Sony owns the software. They didn't sell that to you. The sold you the hardware.

Anyways the vast majority of people using the decryption codes are surely NOT using them to get back their Linux support or backwards compatibility so those are not even an issue that can be argued.

Yes, we bought the hardware, & from what it sounds like they may be bricking that too if anyone has the audacity to use their property in a way Sony disapproves of. Devices are cracked for any number of reasons. If you were to want to put linux on your PS3 (which is entirely reasonable, given they were advertised with that ability), that bares no additional cost to Sony. They wanna void my warranty, fair enough; but don't tell me you're in the right to remotely shut off my console.

If piracy counts as theft despite no physical property being taken, than this is breaking & entering at least

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

You own a copy of Windows.

A better example would be, when you buy a microwave, do you own the entire microwave or just the hardware parts? I think most people would agree that you own the entire microwave. Only in the game industry does this "you don't own the software inside" BS fly.

You own a /copy/ of Windows OS. That's why the word "copy" is a part of "copyright" -- literally the right to make copies. It's no different than books. If you buy a book, you own that copy of the book. What you don't own is the right to make further copies of it. Software is in the same class of copyrightable products. The software companies are just peddling this licensing crap to try to get around some basic consumer rights, like the right of first sale, that are supposed to protect us from greedy corporations.

You're both wrong. The Windows OS EULA states that Windows is licensed not sold.

You can look up the EULA for any Windows OS and read it for yourselves, but it clearly states that the OS is not your to do whatever with. No matter how BS you think it is.

 

[medv4380]

Nice, Sony can go head and ban them, but only if they want to loose visibility of what the hackers are doing. A custom firmware will allow the user to bypass the PSN, and reloading valid firmware would make them look legit if they want to log back on. This is just an idle threat to dissuade some from joining the hackers.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

You own a copy of Windows.

A better example would be, when you buy a microwave, do you own the entire microwave or just the hardware parts? I think most people would agree that you own the entire microwave. Only in the game industry does this "you don't own the software inside" BS fly.

You own a /copy/ of Windows OS. That's why the word "copy" is a part of "copyright" -- literally the right to make copies. It's no different than books. If you buy a book, you own that copy of the book. What you don't own is the right to make further copies of it. Software is in the same class of copyrightable products. The software companies are just peddling this licensing crap to try to get around some basic consumer rights, like the right of first sale, that are supposed to protect us from greedy corporations.

You're both wrong. The Windows OS EULA states that Windows is licensed not sold.

You can look up the EULA for any Windows OS and read it for yourselves, but it clearly states that the OS is not your to do whatever with. No matter how BS you think it is.

And when do you see the EULA? If you said "after the contract of sale has already been completed," you'd be right. You don't even see the stupid thing until you're already in the process of installation. In other words, after you've already bought the software. For it to really be a license, they would have to make you sign it in order to buy it in the first place, like you do when you lease an apartment. They can call it a license all they want, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Epona]

You own a copy of Windows.

A better example would be, when you buy a microwave, do you own the entire microwave or just the hardware parts? I think most people would agree that you own the entire microwave. Only in the game industry does this "you don't own the software inside" BS fly.

You own a /copy/ of Windows OS. That's why the word "copy" is a part of "copyright" -- literally the right to make copies. It's no different than books. If you buy a book, you own that copy of the book. What you don't own is the right to make further copies of it. Software is in the same class of copyrightable products. The software companies are just peddling this licensing crap to try to get around some basic consumer rights, like the right of first sale, that are supposed to protect us from greedy corporations.

You're both wrong. The Windows OS EULA states that Windows is licensed not sold.

You can look up the EULA for any Windows OS and read it for yourselves, but it clearly states that the OS is not your to do whatever with. No matter how BS you think it is.

LOL, right the EULA says you don't really own it. Good one.

I own every copy of Windows from 95 forward and Microsoft has never told me that my license has expired nor will they ever, despite what BS they put in their EULA. A permanent license = ownership.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Remember those people who bought a PS3 for the Linux support? or for backward compatibility?

Yeah, but they're not the majority. Most people bought their PS3 to play new games. The "buying a PS3 for Linux" argument died years ago when Sony took out Linux from the PS3. It's not like they duped anyone into buying a PS3 after that. Same can be said for backwards compatibility. They were nice features to have but no primary to the PS3.

Sony & a lot of other companies have it in their heads that they still own the thing they just sold you

Sony owns the software. They didn't sell that to you. The sold you the hardware.

Anyways the vast majority of people using the decryption codes are surely NOT using them to get back their Linux support or backwards compatibility so those are not even an issue that can be argued.

Yes, we bought the hardware, & from what it sounds like they may be bricking that too if anyone has the audacity to use their property in a way Sony disapproves of. Devices are cracked for any number of reasons. If you were to want to put linux on your PS3 (which is entirely reasonable, given they were advertised with that ability), that bares no additional cost to Sony. They wanna void my warranty, fair enough; but don't tell me you're in the right to remotely shut off my console.

If piracy counts as theft despite no physical property being taken, than this is breaking & entering at least

Theft no longer requires physical property being taken.

Its been like that for a while, what with identity theft and such. I'm not saying its cool what Sony is doing but people have to get this idea out of their heads that we completely own what we buy these days. You don't even own the OS that let's you look at the words I'm typing to you. That's licensed. You don't own the firmware on your cellphone, tablet, PC, or gaming system. The only reason Apple allows jailbreaking on iPhones is because A) its was made legal, and B) it sold more iPhone to people who didn't want to wait for deal to be made with phone companies other than Verizon at the time. More money for them.

Sony on the other hand has to make sure that publishers don't lose money putting games on their console. Any game pirated isn't a loss for Sony directly, its a loss for publishers, which then give Sony shit for not having a secure console.

Sony isn't handling it the best way, but what there are doing does make some sense. This isn't about Linux or backwards compatibility anymore. Its about not having publishers go to the competition.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

You own a copy of Windows.

A better example would be, when you buy a microwave, do you own the entire microwave or just the hardware parts? I think most people would agree that you own the entire microwave. Only in the game industry does this "you don't own the software inside" BS fly.

You own a /copy/ of Windows OS. That's why the word "copy" is a part of "copyright" -- literally the right to make copies. It's no different than books. If you buy a book, you own that copy of the book. What you don't own is the right to make further copies of it. Software is in the same class of copyrightable products. The software companies are just peddling this licensing crap to try to get around some basic consumer rights, like the right of first sale, that are supposed to protect us from greedy corporations.

You're both wrong. The Windows OS EULA states that Windows is licensed not sold.

You can look up the EULA for any Windows OS and read it for yourselves, but it clearly states that the OS is not your to do whatever with. No matter how BS you think it is.

And when do you see the EULA? If you said "after the contract of sale has already been completed," you'd be right. You don't even see the stupid thing until you're already in the process of installation. In other words, after you've already bought the software. For it to really be a license, they would have to make you sign it in order to buy it in the first place, like you do when you lease an apartment. They can call it a license all they want, but that doesn't make it so.

The EULA is in that paper booklet you get from the plastic case you get your copy of Windows in. Sorry but you can also read it online if you really feel worried about it. Point is it's there. I'd had this same argument with people when Geohotz was playing the hero as he was getting sued by Sony. And what happened? A week or two after Sony drops the case against him, PSN got hacked and shutdown, no one was willing to admit that they were wrong about how leaking PS3 security codes could bend them over a table and they paid for it with their credit card info.

I'm not going to say that Sony is handling this well, but I'll be damned if I'm going to defend people abusing the codes.

 

[Epona]

You own a copy of Windows.

A better example would be, when you buy a microwave, do you own the entire microwave or just the hardware parts? I think most people would agree that you own the entire microwave. Only in the game industry does this "you don't own the software inside" BS fly.

You own a /copy/ of Windows OS. That's why the word "copy" is a part of "copyright" -- literally the right to make copies. It's no different than books. If you buy a book, you own that copy of the book. What you don't own is the right to make further copies of it. Software is in the same class of copyrightable products. The software companies are just peddling this licensing crap to try to get around some basic consumer rights, like the right of first sale, that are supposed to protect us from greedy corporations.

You're both wrong. The Windows OS EULA states that Windows is licensed not sold.

You can look up the EULA for any Windows OS and read it for yourselves, but it clearly states that the OS is not your to do whatever with. No matter how BS you think it is.

And when do you see the EULA? If you said "after the contract of sale has already been completed," you'd be right. You don't even see the stupid thing until you're already in the process of installation. In other words, after you've already bought the software. For it to really be a license, they would have to make you sign it in order to buy it in the first place, like you do when you lease an apartment. They can call it a license all they want, but that doesn't make it so.

The EULA is in that paper booklet you get from the plastic case you get your copy of Windows in. Sorry but you can also read it online if you really feel worried about it. Point is it's there. I'd had this same argument with people when Geohotz was playing the hero as he was getting sued by Sony. And what happened? A week or two after Sony drops the case against him, PSN got hacked and shutdown, no one was willing to admit that they were wrong about how leaking PS3 security codes could bend them over a table and they paid for it with their credit card info.

I'm not going to say that Sony is handling this well, but I'll be damned if I'm going to defend people abusing the codes.

So tell me smart guy, why doesn't Microsoft just revoke all those Windows XP licenses so people will be forced to upgrade?

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

LOL, right the EULA says you don't really own it. Good one.

I own every copy of Windows from 95 forward and Microsoft has never told me that my license has expired nor will they ever, despite what BS they put in their EULA. A permanent license = ownership.

If a permanent license meant complete ownership than we would be able to have a homebrew Windows OS that you didn't need to pirate Microsoft Office or Photoshop onto. The license is permanent yes, but you can't say you own a damn thing if you can't modify it in unlimited ways.

You can modify a car you own to have a spoiler and bigger speakers, you can modify a house you own to have an intricate Christmas lighting system, but you can't change a license of a Windows OS and call it legal. That's the way MS has it placed.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

You own a copy of Windows.

A better example would be, when you buy a microwave, do you own the entire microwave or just the hardware parts? I think most people would agree that you own the entire microwave. Only in the game industry does this "you don't own the software inside" BS fly.

You own a /copy/ of Windows OS. That's why the word "copy" is a part of "copyright" -- literally the right to make copies. It's no different than books. If you buy a book, you own that copy of the book. What you don't own is the right to make further copies of it. Software is in the same class of copyrightable products. The software companies are just peddling this licensing crap to try to get around some basic consumer rights, like the right of first sale, that are supposed to protect us from greedy corporations.

You're both wrong. The Windows OS EULA states that Windows is licensed not sold.

You can look up the EULA for any Windows OS and read it for yourselves, but it clearly states that the OS is not your to do whatever with. No matter how BS you think it is.

And when do you see the EULA? If you said "after the contract of sale has already been completed," you'd be right. You don't even see the stupid thing until you're already in the process of installation. In other words, after you've already bought the software. For it to really be a license, they would have to make you sign it in order to buy it in the first place, like you do when you lease an apartment. They can call it a license all they want, but that doesn't make it so.

The EULA is in that paper booklet you get from the plastic case you get your copy of Windows in. Sorry but you can also read it online if you really feel worried about it. Point is it's there. I'd had this same argument with people when Geohotz was playing the hero as he was getting sued by Sony. And what happened? A week or two after Sony drops the case against him, PSN got hacked and shutdown, no one was willing to admit that they were wrong about how leaking PS3 security codes could bend them over a table and they paid for it with their credit card info.

I'm not going to say that Sony is handling this well, but I'll be damned if I'm going to defend people abusing the codes.

Couple of things here: one, Geohotz had absolutely nothing to do with the PSN getting hacked. He made it possible to run homebrew on the hardware, not to hack into their servers. That was done with good old fashioned PCs.

Two, even if it's in the booklet, where is the booklet kept? Inside the package, which you can't open until after you've already bought it. And putting it online doesn't help either, unless you're buying it online. The fact remains that you aren't shown the agreement until after money has already changed hands. You can go look it up if you know it exists and you really want to, but that doesn't change the fact that in a very real sense, it has absolutely nothing to do with your purchase until you've already bought and paid for the software. And please, wake up. This is an attack on your consumer rights. Quit praising companies for doing it. You're reminding me of Uncle Ruckus[footnote]the black white supremacist[/footnote] from The Boondocks.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

You own a copy of Windows.

A better example would be, when you buy a microwave, do you own the entire microwave or just the hardware parts? I think most people would agree that you own the entire microwave. Only in the game industry does this "you don't own the software inside" BS fly.

You own a /copy/ of Windows OS. That's why the word "copy" is a part of "copyright" -- literally the right to make copies. It's no different than books. If you buy a book, you own that copy of the book. What you don't own is the right to make further copies of it. Software is in the same class of copyrightable products. The software companies are just peddling this licensing crap to try to get around some basic consumer rights, like the right of first sale, that are supposed to protect us from greedy corporations.

You're both wrong. The Windows OS EULA states that Windows is licensed not sold.

You can look up the EULA for any Windows OS and read it for yourselves, but it clearly states that the OS is not your to do whatever with. No matter how BS you think it is.

And when do you see the EULA? If you said "after the contract of sale has already been completed," you'd be right. You don't even see the stupid thing until you're already in the process of installation. In other words, after you've already bought the software. For it to really be a license, they would have to make you sign it in order to buy it in the first place, like you do when you lease an apartment. They can call it a license all they want, but that doesn't make it so.

The EULA is in that paper booklet you get from the plastic case you get your copy of Windows in. Sorry but you can also read it online if you really feel worried about it. Point is it's there. I'd had this same argument with people when Geohotz was playing the hero as he was getting sued by Sony. And what happened? A week or two after Sony drops the case against him, PSN got hacked and shutdown, no one was willing to admit that they were wrong about how leaking PS3 security codes could bend them over a table and they paid for it with their credit card info.

I'm not going to say that Sony is handling this well, but I'll be damned if I'm going to defend people abusing the codes.

So tell me smart guy, why doesn't Microsoft just revoke all those Windows XP licenses so people will be forced to upgrade?

They don't revoke licenses.

Come on think this through. MS will just stop selling Windows XP(if they haven't already) and then cease support for it. Just like they did to Windows 95 and 98 and so on. You find me a new copy of Windows 95 on a shelf and tell me you can successfully install it, then I'll eat my words.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

LOL, right the EULA says you don't really own it. Good one.

I own every copy of Windows from 95 forward and Microsoft has never told me that my license has expired nor will they ever, despite what BS they put in their EULA. A permanent license = ownership.

If a permanent license meant complete ownership than we would be able to have a homebrew Windows OS that you didn't need to pirate Microsoft Office or Photoshop onto. The license is permanent yes, but you can't say you own a damn thing if you can't modify it in unlimited ways.

You can modify a car you own to have a spoiler and bigger speakers, you can modify a house you own to have an intricate Christmas lighting system, but you can't change a license of a Windows OS and call it legal. That's the way MS has it placed.

It doesn't work that way because you're buying a copy, not a copyright. Tell me, do you have the right to modify books if you buy them, even though they don't have a license agreement? The answer is no, because that's covered as a derivative work under copyright law. EULAs are not needed to do what you're saying they do, because copyright law already covers all that. Software companies use them because copyright law has limitations in place to protect consumers, and software companies don't like not being able to run roughshod over people.

Edit: By "modify books" I mean "write your own version of it and publish it," which is what you're implying with modifying windows. Obviously you can do whatever you want with your own copy (write on it, tear out pages, whatever), just like you can do with the disc your copy of windows comes on.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Couple of things here: one, Geohotz had absolutely nothing to do with the PSN getting hacked. He made it possible to run homebrew on the hardware, not to hack into their servers. That was done with good old fashioned PCs.

Two, even if it's in the booklet, where is the booklet kept? Inside the package, which you can't open until after you've already bought it. And putting it online doesn't help either, unless you're buying it online. The fact remains that you aren't shown the agreement until after money has already changed hands. You can go look it up if you know it exists and you really want to, but that doesn't change the fact that in a very real sense, it has absolutely nothing to do with your purchase until you've already bought and paid for the software. And please, wake up. This is an attack on your consumer rights. Quit praising companies for doing it. You're reminding me of Uncle Ruckus[] from The Boondocks.

I'm not praising companies for "attacking consumer rights". I'm lambasting people who defend pirates.

I'm also telling you that the reality of the situation is that you don't own the software you buy in a lot of cases. Sorry but that's how patches and updates happen. There is no bubble of "owning what you buy". And you honestly should not have a problem with it if you haven't modded a PS3 to pirate or own an illegitimate Windows OS. This isn't an attack on consumer rights, its getting rid of people who are abusing the software. If you're not on that category, then what are you worried about. Sony won't ban you from using your PS3 is its not modded. And if it is, well then don't go online and game with it. That's the risk you take when you mod a console. Modded 360s have existed since launch, but most of them can't access LIVE.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Couple of things here: one, Geohotz had absolutely nothing to do with the PSN getting hacked. He made it possible to run homebrew on the hardware, not to hack into their servers. That was done with good old fashioned PCs.

Two, even if it's in the booklet, where is the booklet kept? Inside the package, which you can't open until after you've already bought it. And putting it online doesn't help either, unless you're buying it online. The fact remains that you aren't shown the agreement until after money has already changed hands. You can go look it up if you know it exists and you really want to, but that doesn't change the fact that in a very real sense, it has absolutely nothing to do with your purchase until you've already bought and paid for the software. And please, wake up. This is an attack on your consumer rights. Quit praising companies for doing it. You're reminding me of Uncle Ruckus[] from The Boondocks.

I'm not praising companies for "attacking consumer rights". I'm lambasting people who defend pirates.

I'm also telling you that the reality of the situation is that you don't own the software you buy in a lot of cases. Sorry but that's how patches and updates happen. There is no bubble of "owning what you buy". And you honestly should not have a problem with it if you haven't modded a PS3 to pirate or own an illegitimate Windows OS. This isn't an attack on consumer rights, its getting rid of people who are abusing the software. If you're not on that category, then what are you worried about. Sony won't ban you from using your PS3 is its not modded. And if it is, well then don't go online and game with it. That's the risk you take when you mod a console. Modded 360s have existed since launch, but most of them can't access LIVE.

And what I'm telling you is that software isn't really licensed, not in any real sense of the word. The software companies /claim/ it is in an attempt to get around basic consumer rights embedded in the notion of copyright. And sure, they can ban you from their online service. That's because it's a service. But they can't, say, brick your hardware. Because it's a product.

And who said anything about pirates? I'm talking about homebrew here. Because homebrew is amazing. Believe it or not, there are legitimate reasons to want to run unsigned code on a PS3, and it's done by more people than you might realize.

Edit: Hell, most of the furor over pirates is just software companies trying to get more control. Pirates aren't really a problem. They're an excuse for software companies to implement draconian control.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

LOL, right the EULA says you don't really own it. Good one.

I own every copy of Windows from 95 forward and Microsoft has never told me that my license has expired nor will they ever, despite what BS they put in their EULA. A permanent license = ownership.

If a permanent license meant complete ownership than we would be able to have a homebrew Windows OS that you didn't need to pirate Microsoft Office or Photoshop onto. The license is permanent yes, but you can't say you own a damn thing if you can't modify it in unlimited ways.

You can modify a car you own to have a spoiler and bigger speakers, you can modify a house you own to have an intricate Christmas lighting system, but you can't change a license of a Windows OS and call it legal. That's the way MS has it placed.

It doesn't work that way because you're buying a copy, not a copyright. Tell me, do you have the right to modify books if you buy them, even though they don't have a license agreement? The answer is no, because that's covered as a derivative work under copyright law. EULAs are not needed to do what you're saying they do, because copyright law already covers all that. Software companies use them because copyright law has limitations in place to protect consumers, and software companies don't like not being able to run roughshod over people.

Edit: By "modify books" I mean "write your own version of it and publish it," which is what you're implying with modifying windows. Obviously you can do whatever you want with your own copy (write on it, tear out pages, whatever), just like you can do with the disc your copy of windows comes on.

Software and books aren't comparable. Different sets of copyright laws.

If you modify a copy of a Windows OS in a way that MS has deemed wrong according to their EULA, you'll no longer be receiving support or updates for that copy of Windows. You also won't be able to install newer versions of things like Direct X, MS Office, etc. Happened to a friend of mine who had his PC fixed. The repair man installed an illegitimate Windows OS. He couldn't even install games he physically bought.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

LOL, right the EULA says you don't really own it. Good one.

I own every copy of Windows from 95 forward and Microsoft has never told me that my license has expired nor will they ever, despite what BS they put in their EULA. A permanent license = ownership.

If a permanent license meant complete ownership than we would be able to have a homebrew Windows OS that you didn't need to pirate Microsoft Office or Photoshop onto. The license is permanent yes, but you can't say you own a damn thing if you can't modify it in unlimited ways.

You can modify a car you own to have a spoiler and bigger speakers, you can modify a house you own to have an intricate Christmas lighting system, but you can't change a license of a Windows OS and call it legal. That's the way MS has it placed.

It doesn't work that way because you're buying a copy, not a copyright. Tell me, do you have the right to modify books if you buy them, even though they don't have a license agreement? The answer is no, because that's covered as a derivative work under copyright law. EULAs are not needed to do what you're saying they do, because copyright law already covers all that. Software companies use them because copyright law has limitations in place to protect consumers, and software companies don't like not being able to run roughshod over people.

Edit: By "modify books" I mean "write your own version of it and publish it," which is what you're implying with modifying windows. Obviously you can do whatever you want with your own copy (write on it, tear out pages, whatever), just like you can do with the disc your copy of windows comes on.

Software and books aren't comparable. Different sets of copyright laws.

If you modify a copy of a Windows OS in a way that MS has deemed wrong according to their EULA, you'll no longer be receiving support or updates for that copy of Windows. You also won't be able to install newer versions of things like Direct X, MS Office, etc. Happened to a friend of mine who had his PC fixed. The repair man installed an illegitimate Windows OS. He couldn't even install games he physically bought.

Actually, no, exact same set of copyright laws. It applies to books, movies, music, software, you name it. If you don't even understand that, you're arguing from a position of severe ignorance.

 

[Royas]

You own a copy of Windows.

A better example would be, when you buy a microwave, do you own the entire microwave or just the hardware parts? I think most people would agree that you own the entire microwave. Only in the game industry does this "you don't own the software inside" BS fly.

You own a /copy/ of Windows OS. That's why the word "copy" is a part of "copyright" -- literally the right to make copies. It's no different than books. If you buy a book, you own that copy of the book. What you don't own is the right to make further copies of it. Software is in the same class of copyrightable products. The software companies are just peddling this licensing crap to try to get around some basic consumer rights, like the right of first sale, that are supposed to protect us from greedy corporations.

You're both wrong. The Windows OS EULA states that Windows is licensed not sold.

You can look up the EULA for any Windows OS and read it for yourselves, but it clearly states that the OS is not your to do whatever with. No matter how BS you think it is.

The EULA does not trump consumer law. Terms in various contracts are invalidated every day of the year for being illegal, EULA's are no different. Right now, there is a mix of rulings at various levels of various courts on the legal validity of some parts of some EULA's, so saying "it's in the EULA" doesn't end the argument.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

And what I'm telling you is that software isn't really licensed, not in any real sense of the word. The software companies /claim/ it is in an attempt to get around basic consumer rights embedded in the notion of copyright. And sure, they can ban you from their online service. That's because it's a service. But they can't, say, brick your hardware. Because it's a product.

And who said anything about pirates? I'm talking about homebrew here. Because homebrew is amazing. Believe it or not, there are legitimate reasons to want to run unsigned code on a PS3, and it's done by more people than you might realize.

I'm not arguing that there are no legitimate reasons to run an unsigned code for the PS3, but the reality is that piracy is the main reason. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that most people are using this code to get their Linux and BC back, that's simply not the case.

And tell me where in the article it said that Sony was going to "brick" consoles? It clearly says, "Consumers running unauthorized or pirated software may have their access to the PlayStation Network and access to Sony Entertainment Network services through PlayStation 3 system terminated permanently."

No mention of bricking at all.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

The EULA does not trump consumer law. Terms in various contracts are invalidated every day of the year for being illegal, EULA's are no different. Right now, there is a mix of rulings at various levels of various courts on the legal validity of some parts of some EULA's, so saying "it's in the EULA" doesn't end the argument.

Saying its in the EULA doesn't end the argument, but it does hold credence to the fact that people get ample warning about modding their software. It also tells you that you don't own the software.

 

[Epona]

LOL, right the EULA says you don't really own it. Good one.

I own every copy of Windows from 95 forward and Microsoft has never told me that my license has expired nor will they ever, despite what BS they put in their EULA. A permanent license = ownership.

If a permanent license meant complete ownership than we would be able to have a homebrew Windows OS that you didn't need to pirate Microsoft Office or Photoshop onto. The license is permanent yes, but you can't say you own a damn thing if you can't modify it in unlimited ways.

You can modify a car you own to have a spoiler and bigger speakers, you can modify a house you own to have an intricate Christmas lighting system, but you can't change a license of a Windows OS and call it legal. That's the way MS has it placed.

You can change whatever you want in Windows. Where did you get this idea that it was a walled garden?

You need to understand what copyright means, it doesn't mean I don't own my copy of Windows, it means I can't make illegal COPIES of Windows.