University Professor Pledges Support for PS3 Cracker, Mirrors Jailbreak Files

[fletch_talon]

Yea...I am sure the compensation for the loss would be less than the cost of the law suit.

I'm far from an expert on law, and I'm not going to pretend to understand your example*. All I know is I've heard of people grouping together to hire a lawyer to fight a larger corporation. Consider how many people have the same issue with other OS removal. Now distribute legal fees evenly amongst them.

I don't know how feasible any of this is. It doesn't change the fact that harming the sales of uninvolved parties is not the solution to the problem.

*It kinda sounds like you were busted for using someone else's designs to make your job easier (and cheaper for the client) without their permission (but as I said this is an assumption based on limited understanding of the situation)

 

[TechNoFear]

I'm far from an expert on law, and I'm not going to pretend to understand your example*. All I know is I've heard of people grouping together to hire a lawyer to fight a larger corporation. Consider how many people have the same issue with other OS removal. Now distribute legal fees evenly amongst them.

The amount of damages that could be awarded, should you beat Sony's expensive legal team after years in litigation, is dependant on your loss.

I doubt it would be worth it..

It kinda sounds like you were busted for using someone else's designs to make your job easier (and cheaper for the client) without their permission (but as I said this is an assumption based on limited understanding of the situation)

I did not use anyone else's designs ect.

If anything I had done was remotely illegal GE would have sued.

 

[fletch_talon]

I'm far from an expert on law, and I'm not going to pretend to understand your example*. All I know is I've heard of people grouping together to hire a lawyer to fight a larger corporation. Consider how many people have the same issue with other OS removal. Now distribute legal fees evenly amongst them.

The amount of damages that could be awarded, should you beat Sony's expensive legal team after years in litigation, is dependant on your loss.

I doubt it would be worth it..

It kinda sounds like you were busted for using someone else's designs to make your job easier (and cheaper for the client) without their permission (but as I said this is an assumption based on limited understanding of the situation)

I did not use anyone else's designs ect.

If anything I had done was remotely illegal GE would have sued.

As I said, I'm no lawyer.
Your still conveniently skirting around the fact that "jailbreaking" the console and making the instructions available to the public hurts game devs as much, if not more than it hurts Sony.

 

[Mysnomer]

As I said, I'm no lawyer.
Your still conveniently skirting around the fact that "jailbreaking" the console and making the instructions available to the public hurts game devs as much, if not more than it hurts Sony.

I know, right? I mean, suddenly, they can't just crank out mediocre crap anymore, they actually have to put effort into making a game so compelling that it moves people. They have to utilize those 50 Gigabytes of storage on the Blu-Ray disc instead of haphazardly porting a game they made for the 360. They have to innovate. Or they could just throw their hands up in the air and make a multiplayer centric game. Whatevs, I'll just be over here, waiting for Wagic to get ported and be given online functionality.

Bottom line, if your game is good, people will buy it. If somebody pirates a game that is available at a good price, doesn't have burdensome security, and is actually a worthwhile game, then they are a hardcore pirate and should never have been your target market anyway.

 

[bridgerbot]

I'm not saying that he doesn't own his hardware, that's not what I'm arguing (I'm tempted to claim strawman, but eh). I'm saying that he he did whateveritwas he did to his hardware, which itself could probably be overlooked, but then proceeded to tell others how to crack security. The keyword here is security, and as far as I know, sharing a security break is illegal.

By saying be can't manipulate his "security", you are saying that he is limited to how he uses his hardware. This isn't "security" in the sense that it's a lock on Sony's door. It's a lock on his door, if he wants to break it, he has the right to.... he also has the right to share with others how he did it.

 

[Jumplion]

I'm not saying that he doesn't own his hardware, that's not what I'm arguing (I'm tempted to claim strawman, but eh). I'm saying that he he did whateveritwas he did to his hardware, which itself could probably be overlooked, but then proceeded to tell others how to crack security. The keyword here is security, and as far as I know, sharing a security break is illegal.

By saying be can't manipulate his "security", you are saying that he is limited to how he uses his hardware. This isn't "security" in the sense that it's a lock on Sony's door. It's a lock on his door, if he wants to break it, he has the right to.... he also has the right to share with others how he did it.

I dunno, security is just security to me. I'm not technical junkie, so I have no idea how they've cracked the PS3 or what they did to it. They claim that their programs can't be used for piracy, which I find dubious, and right now I think Sony is just extremely paranoid over this whole ordeal.

Like I said before, this all just sucks and nobody is going to win in the end except the pirates.

 

[fletch_talon]

As I said, I'm no lawyer.
Your still conveniently skirting around the fact that "jailbreaking" the console and making the instructions available to the public hurts game devs as much, if not more than it hurts Sony.

I know, right? I mean, suddenly, they can't just crank out mediocre crap anymore, they actually have to put effort into making a game so compelling that it moves people. They have to utilize those 50 Gigabytes of storage on the Blu-Ray disc instead of haphazardly porting a game they made for the 360. They have to innovate. Or they could just throw their hands up in the air and make a multiplayer centric game. Whatevs, I'll just be over here, waiting for Wagic to get ported and be given online functionality.

Bottom line, if your game is good, people will buy it. If somebody pirates a game that is available at a good price, doesn't have burdensome security, and is actually a worthwhile game, then they are a hardcore pirate and should never have been your target market anyway.

People pirated the humble indie bundle. A decent number of people at that. The games were obviously of high enough quality that these people wanted them, and you were literally able to pay whatever price you deem necessary.

Even if we ignore that example. There is no excuse for pirating readily available games (I do make concessions for out of print titles). If the quality is so bad (or you don't trust it enough to be good) or the price is too expensive, don't buy it, end of story.

Yet again I find myself talking to one of these people who truly think that pirates are some morally righteous group standing up to a corrupt industry. You're not, you're theives plain and simple.

 

[Mysnomer]

People pirated the humble indie bundle. A decent number of people at that. The games were obviously of high enough quality that these people wanted them, and you were literally able to pay whatever price you deem necessary.

Even if we ignore that example. There is no excuse for pirating readily available games (I do make concessions for out of print titles). If the quality is so bad (or you don't trust it enough to be good) or the price is too expensive, don't buy it, end of story.

Yet again I find myself talking to one of these people who truly think that pirates are some morally righteous group standing up to a corrupt industry. You're not, you're theives plain and simple.

I didn't say anything of the sort. What I said was that if someone pirates your game even when you do everything right, it simply means they never would have bought anyway, and you should not concern yourself over the piracy of the game. Yeah, there are unscrupulous people who pirated the bundle, so what? That doesn't mean that all pirates will pirate every game they play. Like all things, piracy exists on a spectrum. Some will pirate a big, expensive game they can't afford; some pirate games with restrictive DRM in protest; some pirate old games they can't get anymore; and then there are those who pirate everything. That last category should not concern anyone. Worrying about them will only have you running in circles and give you ulcers. If developers make a good game, it will sell. History bares this out. The HIB was pirated, yes, but are the developers hurting for it? I don't think so.

 

[fletch_talon]

People pirated the humble indie bundle. A decent number of people at that. The games were obviously of high enough quality that these people wanted them, and you were literally able to pay whatever price you deem necessary.

Even if we ignore that example. There is no excuse for pirating readily available games (I do make concessions for out of print titles). If the quality is so bad (or you don't trust it enough to be good) or the price is too expensive, don't buy it, end of story.

Yet again I find myself talking to one of these people who truly think that pirates are some morally righteous group standing up to a corrupt industry. You're not, you're theives plain and simple.

I didn't say anything of the sort. What I said was that if someone pirates your game even when you do everything right, it simply means they never would have bought anyway, and you should not concern yourself over the piracy of the game. Yeah, there are unscrupulous people who pirated the bundle, so what? That doesn't mean that all pirates will pirate every game they play. Like all things, piracy exists on a spectrum. Some will pirate a big, expensive game they can't afford; some pirate games with restrictive DRM in protest; some pirate old games they can't get anymore; and then there are those who pirate everything. That last category should not concern anyone. Worrying about them will only have you running in circles and give you ulcers. If developers make a good game, it will sell. History bares this out. The HIB was pirated, yes, but are the developers hurting for it? I don't think so.

You may not have said that, but it was heavily implied.
You basically said that Piracy was doing good by motivating devs to make better games at cheaper prices, or otherwise making them more attractive to the customers.

People assumedly pirate games because they wish to play them.
Are you suggesting if piracy was not an available option that the majority (who are able to do so) would not buy them?
Its a purely hypothetical situation, I realise its highly unlikely, if not impossible to eradicate piracy. I also realise there are people who pirate due to lack of funds or availability (I don't believe this validates their actions, but its relevant to your argument.

The problem is, there are also plenty of people who pirate games that are: fairly priced, readily available and that they know they will enjoy. For these people, the desire for the game is there, the only thing stopping them paying for it is the fact that its just as easy (if not easier) to pirate and is free.
If piracy were not an easy option (which as far as I can tell, it wasn't on the PS3) then these people (and I'd wager there's plenty of them) would buy games.

When Dev's make a good game, they may not need the extra sales that are lost through piracy, but I for one think they deserve them. Unlike pirates who don't deserve to play games they aren't willing to pay for.

So I'll say it again. It is not right to punish game developers for the actions of Sony, they may not be going bankrupt due to piracy, but they are missing out on the profits they deserve.

 

[Mysnomer]

I didn't say anything of the sort. What I said was that if someone pirates your game even when you do everything right, it simply means they never would have bought anyway, and you should not concern yourself over the piracy of the game. Yeah, there are unscrupulous people who pirated the bundle, so what? That doesn't mean that all pirates will pirate every game they play. Like all things, piracy exists on a spectrum. Some will pirate a big, expensive game they can't afford; some pirate games with restrictive DRM in protest; some pirate old games they can't get anymore; and then there are those who pirate everything. That last category should not concern anyone. Worrying about them will only have you running in circles and give you ulcers. If developers make a good game, it will sell. History bares this out. The HIB was pirated, yes, but are the developers hurting for it? I don't think so.

You may not have said that, but it was heavily implied.
You basically said that Piracy was doing good by motivating devs to make better games at cheaper prices, or otherwise making them more attractive to the customers.

It wasn't meant to be a praise of piracy so much a counterpoint to the argument of, "Those poor developers, all their money was stolen by piracy." The financially poor developers are not that way because of piracy, they are without money because they are without innovation and good business sense. The developers that are successful are successful in spite of piracy, not because they miraculously stopped it. Piracy does not cause poor sales, instead, a combination of tertiary elements, like game quality, are responsible for both piracy rates and legitimate sales.

People presumably pirate games because they wish to play them.
Are you suggesting if piracy was not an available option that the majority (who are able to do so) would not buy them?

Well, let's poll pirates to see what kind of pirate the majority is. I'm sure they'll be open and straight with us...oh wait. I'm saying that the sales are dependent on multiple factors, only one of which is the availability of piracy. But I think there are many customers who can be brought in by simple good business sense (Steam is a pretty good example here), and that the ones who can't should be completely ignored.

The problem is, there are also plenty of people who pirate games that are: fairly priced, readily available and that they know they will enjoy. For these people, the desire for the game is there, the only thing stopping them paying for it is the fact that its just as easy (if not easier) to pirate and is free.
If piracy were not an easy option (which as far as I can tell, it wasn't on the PS3) then these people (and I'd wager there's plenty of them) would buy games.

How do you justify this? How does that even make sense? You are treating video games like a necessity, where people are forced to have it. I mean, maybe, maybe, if you completely erased the very concept of piracy from existence, they would purchase a game. But that is not only a massive leap but utterly impossible. Realistically, piracy cannot be eliminated, and thus should be treated as a non-entity (barring a few creative ideas, like Arkham Asylum).

When Dev's make a good game, they may not need the extra sales that are lost through piracy, but I for one think they deserve them.

How is the view of Magical Christmasland, from your high horse? Sorry, that's a bit low of me, but this quote is a counterpoint based solely on opinion and appeal to morality. I'm a little hurt.

 

[fletch_talon]

It wasn't meant to be a praise of piracy so much a counterpoint to the argument of, "Those poor developers, all their money was stolen by piracy."

Congratulations. You countered a point that was never made. Developers are harmed by piracy. They make less money compared to if there was no piracy.
Of course I can't prove this, but logic tells us this. If people want games enough to pirate, then logically they would like them enough to buy them if piracy were not an option (again, talking about those with funds and availability).

The financially poor developers are not that way because of piracy, they are without money because they are without innovation and good business sense.

Business sense you could argue. Innovation... excuse me while I laugh.
Innovative games are frequently ignored. Sure they get great reviews and a few years down the line, people rave about them, but they still lag behind all the "play it safe" AAA titles.

And because their sales aren't as great as their competitiors, the piracy potentially hurts them more.

How do you justify this? How does that even make sense? You are treating video games like a necessity, where people are forced to have it.

Quite the opposite actually.
Pirates are the ones acting like games are a necessity. Can't afford it? Oh but they must have it anyway, so they steal it instead.

Pirates obviously want the games they pirate, yeah? I think we can agree on that. What would be the point of downloading a game that you weren't interested in playing? Not to mention the fact that its illegal.
Stands to reason then, that if piracy was not an option then the pirates that were capable of doing so, would buy at least some of the games they would otherwise steal.

Realistically, piracy cannot be eliminated, and thus should be treated as a non-entity (barring a few creative ideas, like Arkham Asylum).

a) As I've stated a number of times already, the PS3 was essentially piracy free prior to these groups cracking them. Piracy was not set to be an issue until they released their methods.

b) Bullshit. There is a reason piracy is illegal. Not only did someone (or many people) work hard to create something, only to have pirates use and enjoy it without paying them for the privelege (as you said its not a necessity or a right)
Its also not fair to the paying user. Maybe you can just ignore it, but it really gets my back up knowing that I'm paying for something that some amoral scumbag is getting for free.

Its the same thing that pisses me off seeing people steal from the store I work at (I work in retail). The theft doesn't really affect me, the company can afford it and so on. I just don't like thieves, whether they steal physical or digital stuff. The worst part is probably the fact that it is unecessary, they steal DVDs and shit.

How is the view of Magical Christmasland, from your high horse? Sorry, that's a bit low of me, but this quote is a counterpoint based solely on opinion and appeal to morality. I'm a little hurt.

Because god forbid someone try to appeal to morality. Morality and a belief in people getting what they deserve (both good and bad) is clearly a horrible thing.
They do deserve the extra sales and the money which comes from them. -Note the distinct lack of the words "I think"
Just like everyone who works hard to create a product or provide a service deserves to be paid for it by those who benefited from it.

By the way the view is lovely.

TL;DR
The PS3 was essentially piracy free.
These instructions will inevitably lead to piracy.
Game developers both good and bad, innovative or not will lose sales to piracy.

The actions of these groups and this professor are thus negatvely impacting a group uninvolved in the "other OS" issue that they claim to be fighting against.
Therefore, my orignal statement which you deemed fit to quote, is completely valid.

If you worked for a commission, say $20 for every [item] sold. You sell 10 items and your employer pays you $180. Is that ok?
Now I realise in that case its a lot easier to take your boss to court and sue his arse, than it is to prevent piracy. That's not a reason for it to be ignored. Injustice should be fought against regardless of futility.
Piracy won't be eradicated. At least not anytime soon. In the meantime I'd rather people didn't make it easier for those self entitled scumbags.

 

[ZephrC]

Good. I'm sick to death of companies spouting crap about how they can't make money if they don't screw over their customers, how they have a legal right to screw over their customers, how it's their job to screw over their customers, and how you must hate capitalism if you don't like it in the butt.

This wouldn't have happened if they hadn't pulled the ol' bait 'n switch with other OS, and yet there seem to be more people here defending Sony's douchebaggery than pointing out what douchebags they are.

But what do I know, I'm just some guy that thinks the whole idea of owning information is a bunch of complete bullshit made up by the recording industries of the last hundred years.

Oh wait... that's completely true. We've always had rules stating that a person or organization that comes up with an idea gets the first shot at making money off of it. That's cool. But people actually owning information? Sorry, I don't buy it. Just because you wrote it down doesn't mean nobody else is allowed to read it without handing you money. That's just stupid.

 

[Mysnomer]

-Snip-
Piracy won't be eradicated. At least not anytime soon. In the meantime I'd rather people didn't make it easier for those self entitled scumbags.

This, this is pointless. You're not interested in a solution to piracy, you're interested in punishment and moral righteousness. You don't care about the people who pirate, or why they pirate. You just want to lump them all into a pile, label them bad people, and be done with it. This is counter-productive and backward. I get it, though; it's understandable. I would love for the world to be black and white, with nothing in between. It would make life simple and easy, but such is not the case. And acting like it is the case will only hurt you in the long run.

 

[fletch_talon]

-Snip-
Piracy won't be eradicated. At least not anytime soon. In the meantime I'd rather people didn't make it easier for those self entitled scumbags.

This, this is pointless. You're not interested in a solution to piracy, you're interested in punishment and moral righteousness. You don't care about the people who pirate, or why they pirate. You just want to lump them all into a pile, label them bad people, and be done with it. This is counter-productive and backward. I get it, though; it's understandable. I would love for the world to be black and white, with nothing in between. It would make life simple and easy, but such is not the case. And acting like it is the case will only hurt you in the long run.

Ha.
This discussion was never about a solution to piracy. We both acknowledged at various points in the discussion that such a solution does not and will not exist in the forseeable future. Not to mention I don't recall ever suggesting punishing pirates. I said we should make it harder for them (DRM and console security) rather than ignoring the problem.

Funnily enough I'm all for the pirates getting more or less ignored by the law. Its the people making the files available who need to be targetted. I'm of the opinion that instead of sueing someone responsible for downloading one illegal copy of a game, sue the bloke responsible for distributing thousands of illegal copies.

I also never lumped all pirates into the same boat. I've made umerous acknowledgements as to the different reasons and motivations behind piracy.
I even specifically stated that I don't consider piracy a problem when it involves out of print games (ie. unavailable to buy, or available as second hand for sometimes incredible prices none of which goes to the devs).

I also acknowleged that there are people who, due to availability or lack of funds, have no alternative and would not buy games even if piracy wasn't an option.
However these people are still in the wrong.
You said it yourself. Games are not a necessity. If you can't afford to pay for games you either go without or play any of the thousands of decent quality free games available online. And availability is hardly a likely issue, since if you can pirate, you can use steam or similar digital distribution.

Fact of the matter is, piracy may not be black and white, but the shade of grey in between is not as extensive as you seem to think.

 

[Pickman23]

There is also the issue of the bait and switch tactics that Sony used with this device. They previously allowed Linux to be installed to the device and then reneged. |They previously had backward compatability on the device to the ps2 then they reneged. When the system was new and stuggling because of the insane price of the box and paucity of software for it Sony was selling it as the"Supercomputer Video Game DVD player that Walks The Dog and Takes Out the Garbage!" then when they start to get an install base they pull the football away knowing that the users dont have the money or the will to sue them over their frauds. Cracking the system open so that you can use it for what is was originaly advertised as seems more of a fair use issue than a copyright one.

 

[Phantom Echo]

It's a shame when corporations think that they can tell their customers what can and cannot be done with their products. It's fine, sure, when that product is a SERVICE... but when you're selling a piece of machinery, or a physical item, then there is a certain level of control you have to be willing to give up if you want to survive in this new age of hackers and crackers and "thieves".

The fact of the matter is that the COMPANY POLICY is what has to change... not the people... and if a company or other corporate entity (RIAA, I'm looking at you)... then it deserves to die, just like a species which failed to evolve and adapt to its environment. The days of CONTROL are dying, fast... and the more tightly governments, companies, and lawyers try to clench their fists... the more rapidly they lose what little support they have.

We'll see how this all plays out in the end, I'm sure.