By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
funkateer on 25 February 2011
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
funkateer said:
Kasz216 said:
funkateer said:

"See the recent phone rulings... it was ruled legal because the same steps needed to make use  of legal locked programs allowed piracy.

The piracy is still illegal, but not the jailbreaking iteslf."

As I understood the phone rulings, jailbraking the iPhone was deemed legal because the court ruled that locking the iPhone was not to protect copyright or security, but only to prevent competition of phone carriers. As such, it was also stated that jailbreaking an iPad is still illegal.

Phone carriers are obviously not involved in the PS3 case, so it's an entirely different matter.


I'd reread the  lawsuit... the ruling effects all mobile devices, and not just for use of phone carrier, but also "free aps" vs an "app store".

Or in this case "Hombrew" vs "Liscensed products."

Not all mobile devices, all mobile phones. It does not include iPads, for example.

Here are the 6 exemptions detailed:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/11/new-dmca-exemptions-granted

It says nothing about 'free apps vs app store' or 'licensed products vs homebrew'. It says nothing about geohots PS3 jailbreak being legal.


That's not the ruling you know... that's the last exemption run anwyay, it's not related to the Iphone suite.

Here is it explained.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20011702-260.html

Aside from which, as for the PS3 jailbreaking to be legal or not, hasn't been ruled on yet.  However assuming things go to normal precedent it will be ruled legal.

Right now it's a big pile of "who knows, probably."

It'd be like if somebody Jailbreaked their cars firmware to run a free GPS system that works for cellphones.  Would it be legal?  Dunno, probably.

 

Now I know what your saying "User agreements!"

A) The Useragreement for this happens when you sign up for a PSN account... which Geohot never did.

B) User agreements themselves are seen as largely unenforceable outside of voiding someones warranty.  Hence why even if you said Sony a clearly modified chipped PS2, all they would do is send it back at your expense.  EULA's have pretty mcuh never been argued in courts because well... companies pretty much accept they would LOSE.  EULA's are more reasons to let people void warranties and try and scare people.


Regarding the iPhone case ruling, you have a point. I'm no lawyer and I'm not really in a position to claim which party will have the law on its side.

My main point in my 1st post was basically besides the point of what this courtcase will bring or even if Sony is smart in being so agressive (as I mentioned), but that there are still some compelling reasons of why it's not necessarily all that wrong that Sony protects what they've built, for example by making the platform closed in nature.

I like that I can buy a neat console under cost price, I like that security makes it safer for creative minds to invest huge amounts of money for making awesome games for me to enjoy. The article just intends to make Sony look like this big bad evil corporation bullying awesome creative kids, but fails to acknowledge that this same kid's PS3 hacks do nothing to help the entertainment industry (where imho the real creativity is) but mostly just harms it, even if only indirectly. Geohot doesn't seem to care about any of that but mostly seems to seek personal glory under some kind of forced pretence of "freedom for all" which he thinks he's "the personification" of. His work isn't really that worthwhile when there are open platforms available that are much better suited to homebrew.

Perhaps Sony will lose their legal battle with geohot & friends. They will have made a big costly mistake then, but it will not only be a blow for Sony. Yet another stream of emulators and some homebrew stuff just isn't worth it to me.

And for the record, I'm not talking about EULA's at all, nor am I disputing that they aren't worth much in court.