Sony Threatens Permabans for PlayStation 3 Hackers

[Royas]

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.

No, it tells you that (for example) Sony CLAIMS you don't own the software, or at least a copy of the software. Not that you don't actually own it. There is a huge difference between what a corporation claims in an attempt to circumvent consumer protection laws and what the law actually says. Sony and MS and all the rest just love it when people take the EULA as the final word, but it doesn't work like that in the real world. And I guarantee, none of them want this tested in real court. Losing that case would be crippling for them, they'd much rather it exist in the current fugue state of uncertainty. They can get away with more when things aren't clearly defined.

 

[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?

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.

A product being permanently on the shelf has nothing to do with this. If they don't revoke licenses then what exactly is the difference between a license and ownership?

If the state lacked the power to revoke your drivers license, it would hardly be considered a license.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

@Piracy: This is where I disagree. I've got a homebrew enabled Wii, I use it every day as a media player that I can hook up to an old standard def TV and the stereo attached, since my laptop has HDMI output but nothing that works with that kind of older equipment. I've never pirated a Wii game, even though it's fully possible. All I'd have to do is download an app for the homebrew channel. But I don't do that, because I don't want to. I'm perfectly happy just having working youtube, shoutcast, and personal media collection access added to the system[footnote]Technically the Wii has youtube access without installing homebrew, but it runs in their opera browser, and the Wii isn't fast enough to run even the stripped down version of flash well enough to smoothly play video. The homebrew apps get around that by playing the videos in a separate player, the way the youtube app for the iPhone works.[/footnote]. There are plenty of people like me out there, that people like you, who don't explore this stuff, don't realize exist. But just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean it's not out there. It just means you're missing out on some awesome software.

@Banning people from the PSN: Doing that is legally okay, if morally still pretty bullshitty. But it's okay because the PSN is an external network with it's own license agreement, and it's provided as a service. Your argument was that it was okay because you own the PS3 hardware but not the software built in to it, which is absolute crap, and also a justification that works just as well for Sony bricking your hardware by disabling the operating system as it does for Sony banning you from the PSN.

 

[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

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.

Linux & back-compat were merely examples of Sony's disregard for the customers that created them in the first place.

& I didn't mean to sound like I was saying software piracy isn't dishonest(although it would be naive to ignore the difference with physical theft); what I meant was that bricking an actual physical console for supposed theft (rooting software is not piracy, nor does it imply piracy) is actually strikingly similar to physical theft, in that one now no longer has access to their property that they did buy

& for the record, I don't think Microsoft or Apple ever remotely deactivated a device for cracking the software; warranties were voided, understandably, & updates were denied, also acceptable. They didn't jack your stuff

 

[NightHawk21]

Although I still think this is the wrong way to handle things, I can see why Sony is doing this, at least somewhat in relation to the permaban. Still it has me worried that they say permaban but it sounds like they plan to brick the console. Bricking the console I'm not okay with. That is no longer Sony's and honestly if they brick it, they should get sued. Also I'm wondering how this can fly? Didn't we just have a ruling in the US that jailbreaking was legal?

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.

Well this is just wrong. As someone who still touched their ps3 when this hack was coming out this hack did nothing that would let you hack the PSN servers. Servers were hacked in a more traditional way, so sorry to disappoint you but you're wrong.

 

[newwiseman]

In other news the latest hacked firmware includes spoofing the ID information of the latest legit firmware, SONY could not be reached for commit but did issue another threat and we're hearing reports that they are telling console development to pick up the pace. /sarcasm

 

[Tanakh]

I'm not going to defend people who pirate but it still seems like a wrong thing to do to Brick a system that someone has bought and paid for. What you are calling a permaban i am reading as disabling the PS3 entirely, so forgive me if i got that bit wrong. A permaban from live/online/whatever i am quite behind, i mean why bother allowing pirates to play with the shinies, taking away something someone has paid for though...i cant get behind that

I am reading the same as you did; this doesn't seem like a perma ban but a bricking of the PS3 caught in any non sony sanctioned activity. However the OP title and writing seems to imply it's only a PSN permaban, so... who knows.

 

[Daymo]

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

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

If you brought a PS3 with backwards compatablity they can't take it away from you, that was a hardware thing, they removed it to make the PS3 cheaper.

 

[Trishbot]

All I know is some of my favorite moments with video games were whipping out the old Game Genie, Gameshark, or Action Replay and fiddling with the systems (making my Gamecube region-free to play awesome Japanese-only games!) or tinkering with the game's for my own personal entertainment (going to the secret island in Goldeneye, changing Link's tunic color to gold, flying in Mario Sunshine, etc.)

Sony, though, in particular, is pretty awful about letting you play YOUR system and YOUR games the way YOU want to play them. And, truthfully, they have zero right to brick your system and make it unusable. They can point to their EULA's, but consumer protection laws trump their EULA's, and most sane judges have agreed that a "contract" you often didn't know existed when you bought the product is largely invalid, despite them trying hard to make you THINK they, the company, have more power than you do. Well, they don't.

Yes, pirating is illegal, but there's nothing illegal about tampering with a system you've already purchased. Play it normally, add homebrew, or use it as a football; it's your system, and even if Sony disapproves of you using it as a football, they can't legally ban you for using it in a way they don't like.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

So Sony is just now doing what Microsoft has been doing for years? woopido.

That's why people usually have 2 360s one for online and one to play pirated games.

FYI this is only going to nab the would be piraters and hackers because anyone who hacked their PS 3 on their own knows they can change their PS 3 MAC address.

 

[Zombie_Moogle]

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

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

If you brought a PS3 with backwards compatablity they can't take it away from you, that was a hardware thing, they removed it to make the PS3 cheaper.

Yes, but for a time after removal of the hardware, they added software backward compatibility, & then took it back out in a firmware update to push PSN sales

 

[Lunar Templar]

*quircks eyebrow*

they expect this to work? really? lol, uh huh ... good luck with that Sony

 

[Verkula]

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

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

If you brought a PS3 with backwards compatablity they can't take it away from you, that was a hardware thing, they removed it to make the PS3 cheaper.

Yes, but for a time after removal of the hardware, they added software backward compatibility, & then took it back out in a firmware update to push PSN sales

Um, nope they didnt, they never released a software for BC.

 

[Zombie_Moogle]

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

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

If you brought a PS3 with backwards compatablity they can't take it away from you, that was a hardware thing, they removed it to make the PS3 cheaper.

Yes, but for a time after removal of the hardware, they added software backward compatibility, & then took it back out in a firmware update to push PSN sales

Citation needed. I've owned a PS3 since near launch, and I never heard of any such thing.

You might be correct, actually. Sony did file a patent for PS2 software emulators for the PS3, but I can't find anything on them implementing it

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

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

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

If you brought a PS3 with backwards compatablity they can't take it away from you, that was a hardware thing, they removed it to make the PS3 cheaper.

Yes, but for a time after removal of the hardware, they added software backward compatibility, & then took it back out in a firmware update to push PSN sales

Citation needed. I've owned a PS3 since near launch, and I never heard of any such thing.

You might be correct, actually. Sony did file a patent for PS2 software emulators for the PS3, but I can't find anything on them implementing it

here is the article on that said topic but remember it's sony and they don't keep their promises.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/94231/ps3-software-backwards-compatibility-patent-filed

 

[lancar]

If you're stupid enough to connect a hacked PS3 to the internet, you deserve to be banned. If you wanna fiddle with it, keep it off the grid.

 

[mjcabooseblu]

I'm not going to defend people who pirate but it still seems like a wrong thing to do to Brick a system that someone has bought and paid for. What you are calling a permaban i am reading as disabling the PS3 entirely, so forgive me if i got that bit wrong. A permaban from live/online/whatever i am quite behind, i mean why bother allowing pirates to play with the shinies, taking away something someone has paid for though...i cant get behind that

I can get behind it. The terms of use states that they can totally do that if they catch you violating any of its rules. It's like the people bitching that they couldn't use Netflix on their XBOX even though they "only pirated games." When you bought the hardware, you also entered into an agreement not to break the rules, and your privilege to use the service hinges on honoring that agreement.

 

[AwesomeDave]

i'd have no problem even if they were bricking systems.... don't like the limitations of the system? dont buy it.... wanna run linux, or have a kick ass media server, or something else along those lines? buy a computer, not a console...



Captcha: Wide Berth: Just like my ass!!!

 

[GonzoGamer]

The only thing that this leaves hovering around in my mind is:
What features do you get when Sony supports (if that's what you call it) your PS3?
What features do you get when you hack your PS3?

I'm not saying I'm going to hack mine, I'm just saying that I'd like to see a comparison.