By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
noname2200 on 12 January 2011
Edit Thread
steverhcp02 said:


Well the problem is whether you want to put your head in the sand on purpose or not we all know why this "homebrew" was made. You only break it down to the fundamental level because we all know why he did it and it wasnt for legal reasons, so thats really the lamest argument for this guy and others like him. Its not like he upped his toasters wattage to cook bagels faster and voided the warrenty, he created malicious software with the intent on playing games for free, no sense in trying to mask it as anything different.

There are many users on this very site who have installed homebrew onto their other videogame systems.  I won't speak for them, but I'd venture to guess that many of them will be happy to tell you just how wrong you are in accusing them of only doing so to pirate games.  Whether you like it or not, there ARE several legal uses for homebrew,and I'm willing to bet the people here who've used them feel a little insulted by your accusation.

steverhcp02 said:

 

If im not mistaken, 3rd parties and such file requests to develop software for the PS3, sony gets royalties IE they control what goes in and thsu out of the PS3 brand/image. If this person created alterations with the intent on bypassing the legal purchase of software (which he did) then there are not only terms violations im sure with the PSN and online connectivity (which there are) but also with the fact that the aforementioned software that will eventually be pirated falls on Sonys doorsteps.

Can you prove this in any way, shape, or form?  Keep in mind that "I would only use this to pirate games!" is not evidence in any sense of the term.  If you can offer me anything to support the idea that the defendants had the intent which you ascribe to them, then I will join you in condemning him.  Don't keep me waiting.

steverhcp02 said:

Ill supply an analogy, if i make a meth lab in my basement but dont make meth, i build and supply the lab but my brother uses it an dmakes it im still guilty for "opening the door" so to speak. You think i can go in front of a jury or judge and defend myself, say "its my property, i bought these tubes and this legal equipment, got the burners legally i cant help that he made the stuff"?

Yes.

Yes you can.

Unless the state proves that you provided those materials with the intent of furthering a crime (i.e. manufacturing meth), then the jury would have to find you Not Guilty of the crime of conspiracy.  In light of how all of that equipment has several legal uses, even when used in tandem, the state can not simply convict you for someone else's criminal use of your property.

steverhcp02 said:

The bottom line is this douche and other people whose intent for doing these things hurts potential sales in an industry that sorely needs it and people depend on to feed their families, that should be enough for any civilized, logical and mature human being to not support this guy or any other people like him.

Again, you're walking into a court of law and ascribing an intent to someone without bothering to offer evidence to support your assertion.  If you can offer such evidence, I am willing to hear it.  But neither you nor Sony has done so yet.  Sony may ultimately do so: that's what the discovery process is all about.  But while I'm only halfway through their motion, they haven't offered a shred of such evidence yet.