The Other PS3 Hacker Is (Probably) Headed to Jail

[Dogstile]

Wonderful how Sony doesn't even need to win the court case, they just need to throw so much money at it that a man can't afford to defend himself.

Love how money can buy the law.

This man fixed a broken product, the PS3, which Sony deliberately broke.

It's like if your car manufacturer turned off the stereo in your car because they were worried some people might use it to play pirated music and then sent you to prison for fixing it!

Thats a stupid example. Stereo's can be easily bought at a radioshack or best buy, and replace the old one LEGALLY. Why does everyone resort to using cars as an example for software piracy.

So he bought a replacement and they sued him, the analogy still works. It doesn't matter how he did it, he restored functionality to a broken product.

A closer to home analogy, Microsoft block internet access from every windows PC because of the fact that pirates use the internet. You bought a windows PC with the expectation that you'd be able to access the internet. You circumvent that you get sued.

No in fact, in real life the example does NOT WORK! Nowadays you dont get in trouble for fixing your own engine. You dont get in trouble for changing your own tires, and you wouldnt get in trouble for replacing the radio and speakers with some nice subwoofers. None of that works. Unless there are roadblocks at every street corner where a company man from the manufacturer checks your car to make sure its still all authentic, its an unrealistic scenario.

So, you're saying that because they can take away a feature online, its ok, as long as they don't do it physically?

I get what you're trying to say, but otherOS was always authentic until sony were like "YEAH LETS TAKE A FEATURE WE ADVERTISED HEAVILY AWAY NOW".

Edit:

Oh, and lol, computer science student here. If I wanted to pirate games, i'd use this handy thing called a PC, because its easier.

PS3? Computer science students use them as servers.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

Wonderful how Sony doesn't even need to win the court case, they just need to throw so much money at it that a man can't afford to defend himself.

Love how money can buy the law.

This man fixed a broken product, the PS3, which Sony deliberately broke.

It's like if your car manufacturer turned off the stereo in your car because they were worried some people might use it to play pirated music and then sent you to prison for fixing it!

Thats a stupid example. Stereo's can be easily bought at a radioshack or best buy, and replace the old one LEGALLY. Why does everyone resort to using cars as an example for software piracy.

He didn't commit any acts of software piracy. He modified a device he purchased to restore an advertised feature which was removed without notification or consent. Do you have any evidence that he ran, or even intended to run, pirated software? No? Then get off your high horse and start talking about the actual issue of this man's case instead of the larger situation of which you perceive it to be representative and for which you have decided to blame him (an action roughly as ridiculous as blaming a maker of wrenches because the tools they produced were used to commit a crime).

The idea that aftermarket modifications performed by an individual on a product they have payed for and legally own is inherently criminal is an inherently destructive one which serves no purpose other than to advance the cause of large corporations against private individuals who often lack the resources to defend themselves (as in this case).

YOu want me to talk about the issue? No. I almost refuse to at this point. Its a stupid issue and I cant believe people even defend this guy. There. Happy? Im so tired of this subject. These people are not freedom fighters. They are just whining that they cant run linux on their consoles and play hacked games, and other people defend them saying that illegal games isnt the main purpose when that is blatant lies. Thats all I have to say about that.

You have no idea what you're talking about. First: Modifying the console still isn't a crime, so why is it being treated like one? Shouldn't only people who have been proved to have actually pirated software be the one's receiving punishment? Second: I know many people (most of them computer science students) who bought PS3s to run Linux and never even considered playing games on them, legal or otherwise. They were actually quite popular for use as servers and even desktops because of their high processing power relative to their cost. These people now effectively had bricks, so they fixed them. They're programmers who run Linux. That's what they do. Do you have any proof that all Linux users were in it for piracy? I didn't think so. You do seem to want it treated as a legal fact though, that seems pretty dangerous. Just so you know, the guy who figured out how to enable piracy through the other OS option only did it about a week before they took the option out. That means that everyone running Linux for the three years before that really were just running Linux beyond a shadow of a doubt, and running away because you don't have any actual logic or evidence to defend your position won't change that.

Look, I didnt know Linux was around that long, but the world is full of people who are less than pure. Im not saying everyone who uses Other OS is gonna be stealing games, but you cant tell me there wont be people trying to. It probably should have been better if they found a compromise, like trying to fix the programming allowing the pirating. I dunno. All I know is you allow it as is and it opens up for pirating. No company would just ignore that.

If you really "didn't know Linux was around that long" you are clearly computer-illiterate and should probably leave these discussions to people with at least a little programming knowledge (I refuse to believe anyone could have studied programming and not know what Linux is).

Your argument is basically two-fold: That anything that may be used to facilitate crime should itself be criminal and that companies are well within their rights to pursue any action against their customers in order to maintain profits. Regarding the former point I would suggest that, if this were the case, there's a long line of weapons manufacturers and authors of murder-manuals (yes they exist, and yes they are protected by law, at least in the US) who should be facing jail time before they get to the hackers. Regarding the latter point, I do not dispute that it is in Sony's interest to stop piracy and that they should take action toward this end, but I take issue with the idea that they are within their rights to damage the property of their customers in pursuit of this goal. Preventing piracy is all well and good, but private individuals have rights too and they should not casually be brushed aside.

 

[gunner1905]

That has nothing to do with what I said. Besides, the guy did something illegal and deserved what he got. He's not some freedom fighter to be put on a pedestal. The other OS was taken away over a year ago. Get over it. And just because SOME people wont use it for piracy doesnt mean you can just ignore the fact that a majority of people probably will.

How do you know what he did is illegal, the case haven't been decided yet. Even in the end jailbreaking the iPhone was decided to be legal. So, how do you know it's illegal.
And so what if some people use it for piracy, that's like saying:
-we should ban cars cause people could run over people with it.
-we should ban guns cause people can shoot other people with it.
-we should ban knives cause people can stab other people with it.
-we should ban PCs cause people (ie Lulzsec) can hack other people with it.
-we should close The escapist cause people can insult other people through it.
-we should stop the internet cause there's child porn on it.
-we should ban iphone jailbreaking cause people can pirate apps with it. (jailbreaking is legal by the way, by law)
I could go on and on.

PS I just stated that much examples cause I know you would say that my example doesn't relate i just give you the option to see which one to you would relate to this

Then why do you feel the need to hack the damn thing when you know you're just going to get in trouble for it?
Because a feature that appealed to a small audience was removed, means that the entire thing is now broken?

So being a small audience doesn't make you a customer. They have PAID for those features, they deserve to have it (without needing to choose between otherOS or PSN) cause they have paid to have ALL OF THOSE FEATURES.
That's like saying "right, you're a minority why should I care if you're discriminated."

 

[DoctorPhil]

I hate Sony now, just sue the fuck out of people for doing what they want with their own property untill they have no money left to defend themselves. Reminds me of Activision.
I hope that if he goes to court, there's a sensible, rational judge sitting on the other end.

 

[Actual]

Wonderful how Sony doesn't even need to win the court case, they just need to throw so much money at it that a man can't afford to defend himself.

Love how money can buy the law.

This man fixed a broken product, the PS3, which Sony deliberately broke.

It's like if your car manufacturer turned off the stereo in your car because they were worried some people might use it to play pirated music and then sent you to prison for fixing it!

Thats a stupid example. Stereo's can be easily bought at a radioshack or best buy, and replace the old one LEGALLY. Why does everyone resort to using cars as an example for software piracy.

So he bought a replacement and they sued him, the analogy still works. It doesn't matter how he did it, he restored functionality to a broken product.

A closer to home analogy, Microsoft block internet access from every windows PC because of the fact that pirates use the internet. You bought a windows PC with the expectation that you'd be able to access the internet. You circumvent that you get sued.

No in fact, in real life the example does NOT WORK! Nowadays you dont get in trouble for fixing your own engine. You dont get in trouble for changing your own tires, and you wouldnt get in trouble for replacing the radio and speakers with some nice subwoofers. None of that works. Unless there are roadblocks at every street corner where a company man from the manufacturer checks your car to make sure its still all authentic, its an unrealistic scenario.

Lol now I'm confused, are we actually on the same side of this argument and not realising it?

Yes of course no-one would be punished for fixing their own car, that's my point. Why should you be punished for fixing your own console?

Wonderful how Sony doesn't even need to win the court case, they just need to throw so much money at it that a man can't afford to defend himself.

Love how money can buy the law.

This man fixed a broken product, the PS3, which Sony deliberately broke.

It's like if your car manufacturer turned off the stereo in your car because they were worried some people might use it to play pirated music and then sent you to prison for fixing it!

Not gonna lie I doubt everyone bought the ps3 for that killer version of yellow dog linux. You make it seem like sony bricked the system so it can't play games period. While I'm against what sony did to the ps3, it kinda is unfair to rant and rave about a feature not everyone ran out and bought the system for in the first place. It's like if microsoft advertised a feature on windows 7 that barely anyone noticed and they removed it and people freaked the hell out over it.

You have a point. We do forget to mention that only a small portion of the PS3 customers bought it for OtherOS. But a small portion of a huge number is still a large number.

And should we ignore customers rights just because there aren't very many of them?

So let's say Microsoft removed video editing from Windows, not a lot of people use that. And those who did being quite tech savvy just worked out a way around Microsoft's block and installed video editing software. Do you think Microsoft could sue those people? No of course they couldn't, so why is this situation different? Because Sony can hide behind the "pirates use it" shield.

Off for dinner, thanks for the debate gents.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

Wonderful how Sony doesn't even need to win the court case, they just need to throw so much money at it that a man can't afford to defend himself.

Love how money can buy the law.

This man fixed a broken product, the PS3, which Sony deliberately broke.

It's like if your car manufacturer turned off the stereo in your car because they were worried some people might use it to play pirated music and then sent you to prison for fixing it!

Thats a stupid example. Stereo's can be easily bought at a radioshack or best buy, and replace the old one LEGALLY. Why does everyone resort to using cars as an example for software piracy.

So he bought a replacement and they sued him, the analogy still works. It doesn't matter how he did it, he restored functionality to a broken product.

A closer to home analogy, Microsoft block internet access from every windows PC because of the fact that pirates use the internet. You bought a windows PC with the expectation that you'd be able to access the internet. You circumvent that you get sued.

No in fact, in real life the example does NOT WORK! Nowadays you dont get in trouble for fixing your own engine. You dont get in trouble for changing your own tires, and you wouldnt get in trouble for replacing the radio and speakers with some nice subwoofers. None of that works. Unless there are roadblocks at every street corner where a company man from the manufacturer checks your car to make sure its still all authentic, its an unrealistic scenario.

You are getting close to understanding what we are talking about but not quite there. I pose a question to you then...

What if they could? What if they had software in every car that could tell exactly what piece of hardware is being used at any one time and then that information is being sent to GM/Ford/Toyota and whenever someone changes it (or hacks it) the police come and take your car away or something? Is that what you want corporations to be able to do to us? Cause that's what we are letting Sony do to us.

Ok, I get the point. Im not thoroughly convinced though that property rights of a car and property rights of a console are in anyway the same, because software rights are involved.

Cars run software too, you know. Besides, how is physically modifying your car different from modding the software on your system. The only reason things like this can happen is that we don't have any clearly defined rights of digital property, only IP laws that were never intended to function on their own (property laws take precedence over IP when dealing with physical property), so whoever has the money and power can basically do whatever they feel like.

With this in mind, how about I amend the hypothetical: The car company sends out a software update that stops you from playing any music in your car, despite the hardware still being intact, because some people play illegally downloaded music in their cars. You hack your car and cause the device to work again, so the corporation sends the police to come and lock you up because you can't afford to fight them in court. Everyone is okay with it because piracy is obviously the only thing anyone would ever want the music player in their car for, and anyone who says otherwise is just a pirate putting on a show. That's what's happening here.

Im tired of this argument. It just goes around in a circle every time I talk to someone about it. Physically owning the car means its yours. You gotta do paper work with the DMV and crap but thats it, unlike the software on a PS3 where you dont own the coding. Why is that so hard to grasp? (look, i gotta leave. I couldnt make this any better).

You physically own the PS3. You own the hard drive and the processor with the code on it. You don't own the rights to distribute the code or use it to make your own products, but that copy on your hard disk is yours (or would be, if we had any kind of digital property law) and you are within your rights to alter it the same way you would your physical property. If Sony were leasing you your copy of their software, they needed to say so and provide a contract to that effect.

 

[gunner1905]

Wonderful how Sony doesn't even need to win the court case, they just need to throw so much money at it that a man can't afford to defend himself.

Love how money can buy the law.

This man fixed a broken product, the PS3, which Sony deliberately broke.

It's like if your car manufacturer turned off the stereo in your car because they were worried some people might use it to play pirated music and then sent you to prison for fixing it!

Thats a stupid example. Stereo's can be easily bought at a radioshack or best buy, and replace the old one LEGALLY. Why does everyone resort to using cars as an example for software piracy.

So he bought a replacement and they sued him, the analogy still works. It doesn't matter how he did it, he restored functionality to a broken product.

A closer to home analogy, Microsoft block internet access from every windows PC because of the fact that pirates use the internet. You bought a windows PC with the expectation that you'd be able to access the internet. You circumvent that you get sued.

No in fact, in real life the example does NOT WORK! Nowadays you dont get in trouble for fixing your own engine. You dont get in trouble for changing your own tires, and you wouldnt get in trouble for replacing the radio and speakers with some nice subwoofers. None of that works. Unless there are roadblocks at every street corner where a company man from the manufacturer checks your car to make sure its still all authentic, its an unrealistic scenario.

You are getting close to understanding what we are talking about but not quite there. I pose a question to you then...

What if they could? What if they had software in every car that could tell exactly what piece of hardware is being used at any one time and then that information is being sent to GM/Ford/Toyota and whenever someone changes it (or hacks it) the police come and take your car away or something? Is that what you want corporations to be able to do to us? Cause that's what we are letting Sony do to us.

Ok, I get the point. Im not thoroughly convinced though that property rights of a car and property rights of a console are in anyway the same, because software rights are involved.

Cars run software too, you know. Besides, how is physically modifying your car different from modding the software on your system. The only reason things like this can happen is that we don't have any clearly defined rights of digital property, only IP laws that were never intended to function on their own (property laws take precedence over IP when dealing with physical property), so whoever has the money and power can basically do whatever they feel like.

With this in mind, how about I amend the hypothetical: The car company sends out a software update that stops you from playing any music in your car, despite the hardware still being intact, because some people play illegally downloaded music in their cars. You hack your car and cause the device to work again, so the corporation sends the police to come and lock you up because you can't afford to fight them in court. Everyone is okay with it because piracy is obviously the only thing anyone would ever want the music player in their car for, and anyone who says otherwise is just a pirate putting on a show. That's what's happening here.

Im tired of this argument. It just goes around in a circle every time I talk to someone about it. Physically owning the car means its yours. You gotta do paper work with the DMV and crap but thats it, unlike the software on a PS3 where you dont own the coding. Why is that so hard to grasp? (look, i gotta leave. I couldnt make this any better).

You don't own the coding, but you do own a device which is marketed as able to run linux.
I know it's a grey area
1 you can't mess with the software
2 you have the right to otheros
the hackers infringe on 1 because they want 2 but does that make it legal, this case (or geohotz one) was suppose to decide that but sony is now buying the law.
jailbreaking iphones was recognized as legal so should this I think

 

[standokan]

And that's where Lulzsec comes into play.

 

[jakefongloo]

You know whats great about capitalism? If you get butt fucked by a company, you are not forced to buy from the company anymore. We just need more options, another company who makes game consoles that people could just look at the difference between them and say oh shit! This one doesn't lie to me. If only there were another choice....hmm

All sarcasm aside, I do think there should be a game console company capable of making a console that promises it can do what the Sony's awesome box can do then keep the promises. Not only would Sony then have to stop shitting in the mud, but the price would go down too in order to compete.

It baffles me why at this point anyone still cares about the PlayStation but I don't even have a horse in that race. I just believe that I feel a little validated in that the only reason Sony is still around is because there isn't anyone who can compete with them as of right now in the specifics.

 

[rickynumber24]

Wonderful how Sony doesn't even need to win the court case, they just need to throw so much money at it that a man can't afford to defend himself.

Love how money can buy the law.

This man fixed a broken product, the PS3, which Sony deliberately broke.

It's like if your car manufacturer turned off the stereo in your car because they were worried some people might use it to play pirated music and then sent you to prison for fixing it!

Thats a stupid example. Stereo's can be easily bought at a radioshack or best buy, and replace the old one LEGALLY. Why does everyone resort to using cars as an example for software piracy.

So he bought a replacement and they sued him, the analogy still works. It doesn't matter how he did it, he restored functionality to a broken product.

A closer to home analogy, Microsoft block internet access from every windows PC because of the fact that pirates use the internet. You bought a windows PC with the expectation that you'd be able to access the internet. You circumvent that you get sued.

No in fact, in real life the example does NOT WORK! Nowadays you dont get in trouble for fixing your own engine. You dont get in trouble for changing your own tires, and you wouldnt get in trouble for replacing the radio and speakers with some nice subwoofers. None of that works. Unless there are roadblocks at every street corner where a company man from the manufacturer checks your car to make sure its still all authentic, its an unrealistic scenario.

You are getting close to understanding what we are talking about but not quite there. I pose a question to you then...

What if they could? What if they had software in every car that could tell exactly what piece of hardware is being used at any one time and then that information is being sent to GM/Ford/Toyota and whenever someone changes it (or hacks it) the police come and take your car away or something? Is that what you want corporations to be able to do to us? Cause that's what we are letting Sony do to us.

Ok, I get the point. Im not thoroughly convinced though that property rights of a car and property rights of a console are in anyway the same, because software rights are involved.

Anyone who thinks car companies wouldn't shoehorn a car into a software license if their lawyers found a concrete way to get away with it is dangerously naive. Automotive companies would love to make it so that work on your car by anyone who hadn't paid them for the privilege of being a certified mechanic couldn't touch your car without voiding the warranty.

Anyone who thinks companies like that haven't been lobbying for software licenses that absolve the maker of all responsibility being standard and irrefutable is uninformed. Anyone who still thinks that after being assured that they are is in denial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Computer_Information_Transactions_Act is a bit old, at this point, but it's a good example. Two states passed it. Several other states passed laws declaring that companies couldn't construe the laws of those states to apply to things when used in their states.

 

[JWAN]

Ok so judging by the posts on this website all he has to do to defend himself is to say.
"Its not illegal to modify my system because Sony never said I couldn't"
If that's all he needed to say then how the fuck did he go bankrupt with legal fees?

 

[ecoho]

Then why do you feel the need to hack the damn thing when you know you're just going to get in trouble for it?

This man fixed a broken product, the PS3, which Sony deliberately broke.

Because a feature that appealed to a small audience was removed, means that the entire thing is now broken?

while it may not be "broken" it is in a way maimed cause for those who bought it for that purpose what Sony did was just wrong. Still is. Now what i want to see is someone in the US (not cali cause for some reason the justice system over there cant take their heads out of their ass) to jailbreak it and then have a good lawyer who will point out that "jailbreaking" is perfectly legal and the only thing sony can do is deny service to their network as it is the customer's property and they can do what ever the hell they want with it.

 

[icame]

Glad to hear it. Fuck these people, they deserve everything that comes to them.

 

[JWAN]

Hes not the guy who robbed the place hes just the guy who knocked in the front door. Making him at most an accomplice but this still doesn't explain why he spent so much money on legal fees when he could have used a state represented legal person or represented himself. If his case was so airtight it doesn't make sense that hes broke.

 

[FamoFunk]

If he kept his mouth shut (or hands from keybord) he wouldn't be going to jail.
I bet tonnes of PS3 users do this but don't go on the internet about it, and end up in jail.

 

[Pearwood]

It's not a coinicidence that this jailbreak thing happened less than a month before the PSN hack, let the dirty fucker go to jail.

 

[bakan]

It's not a coinicidence that this jailbreak thing happened less than a month before the PSN hack, let the dirty fucker go to jail.

The PSN hack was an answer to the law suits not a sympton of the hack, because that are two different things hacking the console architecture and breaking into PSN...

And I think some people are mixing up the 'jailbreakers' and groups like lulzsec

 

[Quiotu]

What he was doing was illegal.

They gave him several warnings and took away all his computer equipment MULTIPLE TIMES.

He kept doing it.

He's now going to jail.

This guy got all the chances in the world to take the hint, but apparently he's willing to go to jail for it. Well, now we'll see if he really IS willing to go to jail for it. He played chicken and lost. Move on.

 

[Prometherion]

Its legal for someone to buy a car and add whatever moddifications to the car they want, then tell the world how they did it.

But its illegal to buy a ps3 and even dare to mod it.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Its legal for someone to buy a car and add whatever moddifications to the car they want, then tell the world how they did it.

But its illegal to buy a ps3 and even dare to mod it.

It's not illegal to mod a PS3, you just can't publicly release keys that will let you jailbreak it.

Basically, keep it to yourself and you don't go to jail.