o_O.Q said:
"Sony keeps the right to kick modded consoles out of its network" 1. They should also have the right to attack any threats to their software or to the games that hard working people toil to create "Modding doesn't necessarily mean crime, piracy, malicious hacking or cheating" "forbidding honest people from owning them doesn't stop criminals" 3. i disagree if theres a situation where the weapons can be successfully prevented from being obtained by either ( stop the source ) then both will do without... which was sony's plan i would have to assume |
1. Attacking an actual threat is a thing, attacking what COULD be a threat, but could not be too, indiscriminately, goes beyond their rights ad violates the rights of those not threatening it. You cannot report to the Police whoever owns a weapon, accusing all them of planning to kill you, whoever is innocent of your accusations, most probably the vast majority of them, would sue you and you'd be condemned to compensate them, or even closed in an asylum, should your form of paranoia be considered dangerous.
2. Virtual machines are used in contexts more critical than a console, Sony could have found a viable way to keep Linux and make its honest users happy without offering pirates an easy backdoor. Not rewriting the vulnerable part of the hypervisor, suing those that reintroduced the lost functions and just hoping pirates wouldn't break through the weak point anyway, even without GeoHot, was just wishful thinking and by no means an effective defensive strategy.
3. Criminals could obtain weapons anyway. In my country, like in many others in the world, people cannot legally own automatic weapons, at most semi-automatic, but criminals always had them anyway. Stopping the source is utopian, criminals could even build them by themselves. And in the case of HW and SW, as they aren't deadly weapons, limiting honest users rights would not only be ineffective to stop pirates, just like it isn't in the weapons case, but it would be plain unjust. Imagine if Sony's presumed strategy were considered legally acceptable, companies (but also privates) could have practically everything made forbidden, as almost everything can be used for crime, if a criminal wants to. You could beat to death somebody using a cured ham or a stockfish, for example, should we forbid them? A brick or a stick can be deadly weapons. And OMG! We got knives in our kitchens! And how many people are killed by cars every year? So no, companies must fight criminal use of things against them, not things themselves or people using them for harmless and honest purposes. And as I wrote in previous points, bettering security is the only effective strategy, criminals and pirates don't give a damn about further prohibitions, as what they do is already forbidden now.
