By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Geohot Pleading with Community for Donations in PS3 Jailbreak Case

Xen on 21 February 2011
Kasz216 said:
Xen said:
Kasz216 said:
Xen said:
Kasz216 said:
Xen said:
Kasz216 said:
Xen said:
Kasz216 said:
Xen said:
Kasz216 said:
Xen said:
dsister said:
Xen said:

Nobody's doing any homebrew for it, too.


Geohot released it to the public in late Dec, or Jan(<-- I know that's when he released 3.55)? There is already quite a bit of homebrew

http://www.ps3hax.net/2011/01/signed-ps3-homebrew-list-and-download/#axzz1EcyBD9Ey

http://psx-scene.com/forums/f178/ps3-backup-managers-emulators-homebrew-list-68925/

I'm assuming it isn't against the rules to post links to homebrew

Ports of stuff the the PC does infinitely better. Emulators of stuff on consoles suck, tried it myself. Servers don't really hold a point.

Other then, you know... not everyone wants to hook up a computer to their TV, but people may want to run this stuff on their TV.

In general you just seem to be selfrationalizing.  Whether it's your previous use of hacking or your new dislike for it... I can't say.

Yeah, because hacking your console is so much easier than hooking up your PC to your TV. What are you even talking about? Did you try either? Because I tried both. Solder shit like with gen6 and some gen7 items, or simple VGA or HDMI connection instead? Exploits or simply connecting?

Hacking is only good with room for benefit. There is NONE here. Self-rationalizing? I don't really get the definition, English is my 3rd language.


You are basically saying "I am against this hacking because it doesn't offer anything I want."

There is plenty of benefit here... it's just nothing that benefits or interests you personally.

Hacking your console once can be seen as less trouble then having to drag your computer into your living room EVERY time you want to do that... don't you think?  If your tech savy anyway.

 

Here is another benefit.  With OtherOS active again, people can again build cheap supercomputers out of PS3s.

No, I am against it because it's nothing that was ever of popular demand in even older consoles... do you know what the average person looking for in a console wants? *cough* backups. When the PS2 was hacked with all the various modchips, the latter were quickly cloned, and while not even working 100%, they all booted backups just fine. The matrix infinity, O2, DMS4 Pro, Crystal Chip, and all others vanished and died rapidly after the clones were offered. Do you know what functions they offered? Forcing video modes, fixing the screen in PS1 imports, and - lo - booting homebrew from various media!

Most of the clones couldn't do ANY of those - mars, early mid modbos, Apple, Duo, etc... guess which killed which? The $10-20 cheaper clones massacred their sources even without having most of their sources' features fully working - modbos were adapted after the infinity team went away, probably catering to the miniscule crowd that needs more than just pirated games.

Those are facts, you can check PSX-scene for those massive "clone wars" (no pun, darth if you're even looking)

The ones that build supercomputers get their PS3's specially modified. The famous USAF didn't get affected in any way. Why would the 10 consumers that need HOME supercomputers buy 10 PS3's to create such even be a factor in this argument? Ah, and why would you be moving your PC away from there all this time? If you're a constant user, wouldn't you instead keep it there? Besides, did you do modding? In most cases, it's far tougher than putting your cable inside your TV.

The PS3 was a console that never needed a hack, end of. All of the things you suggest, are either uneeded by the VAST MAJORITY that is/was satisfied by Sony's services (until people started fucking with games) or are already done better on other devices.


Er... try telling that to the USAF.

We checked in with the Air Force Research Laboratory, which noted its disappointment with the Sony decision. "We will have to continue to use the systems we already have in hand," the lab told Ars, but "this will make it difficult to replace systems that break or fail. The refurbished PS3s also have the problem that when they come back from Sony, they have the firmware (gameOS) and it will not allow Other OS, which seems wrong. We are aware of class-action lawsuits against Sony for taking away this option on systems that use to have it."

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/05/how-removing-ps3-linux-hurts-the-air-force.ars

With this hack, the USAF can in fact now replace said computers.

Again, you've ignored the fact that modding could be tougher ONCE but provides the benefit of not needing to replace anything.

 

Also the VAST MAJORITY of people were happy with ANY unhacked console.   You just didn't used to be a part of that group!

I'll admit being wrong, there - but I did know their systems are specifically modified, hence the assumption.

Also, I don't really get what kind of replacing you're talking about. Lastly, this time, due to the PS3's abundance of functions, the minority left is far smaller. It's just not as important anymore.

Read what the USAF guy said.  When systems break or fail, they won't be able to replace them.  That means not only with new super computer cluseters be able to be made, but the ones already made with be less effective as systems break down and fail... which they will.

As for it being "far smaller" where's your poof?  Outside of... you.   How much smaller is far smaller?

Why isn't it important anymore, again, outside of the fact that it doesn't benefit you.

Where's my proof? Gaming boards all over the place. The ones that modded their consoles for imports back in the day or the ones that did so for enhanced media capabilites on their consoles (I.E XBMC for Xbox/SMS for PS2)... oh, whoops, neither needs to do that anymore. Seriously, just read the threads about either and how both are now SIMPLE.

I read what he said, and admitted to being wrong from that. Anything I missed?

You said you didn't understand "replacements"... the custom firmware enabling linux would allow them to replace their systems that are broken down, and also allow others who want to build supercomputers and such.

So your proof is... antecdotal website postings about the reasons some people modded their console, and that makes the group someone "vastly smaller"?

Ignoring the fact that there in fact could be other reasons as well... and those were just the primary but not only reasons.  Also, anetdotal random postings from probably a half dozen people or so isn't exactly what i'd call proof?

Ignoring you know, nobody was using the PS2 or gamecube hacks for things like... Super computers.

Okay, got it. Well, yeah, that's probably one good there.

Half a dozen? As if. Check out SnesOrama, Giantbomb, Gamefaqs, etc. My proof is internet buzz. When somebody wants an emulator for his SNES rom, nobody recommends him a console one or adds it on to their PC one saying "this is better with a controller!". They are also all far less popular and are usually meek PC ports.

Ah, and how much people you know/heard of that build supercomputers in their homes? I'd say... half a dozen. Technology is proportional, and if people really wanted supercomputers out of them, they;d try something - you can hack linux into PS2/Xbox/GC - all three suck since nobody really cares. So did the PS3 one.

Er.. that doesn't really prove your point.  I... don't see why you think it would... unless people were rampantly promoting Gamecube and PS2 emulators back in the day?

A class action lawsuit disagrees with you.  Fun fact by the way.  Sony is being sued under the same law as one of the thigns they are suieng Hotz under... it's even being held in the same court system.  In fact their lawsuit against Hotz has hurt their Other OS lawsuit... because well, their reasoning in both cases in contradictory.

Much like you... Sony is trying to have it both ways as it suits them.

Sony hasn't broken copyright laws or performed aiding and abetting... they are defending their product, just like any company that sued people over their products.

The people filing the Linux lawsuit should've taken the time to improve their Linux on the system instead. Also the reverse about buzz - the thing is, barely anybody cared or used them.



Around the Network
Xen on 21 February 2011
voty2000 said:
Xen said:

He broke copyright code by modifying and distributing his CFW, and what he has made available in face of signing codes for people can easily is, in legal terms, "aiding and abetting".

In other words, he is guilty as sin. Let people do what they want with their devices? Alright. As long as it doesn't compromise others, but hey, that's all it achieved so far. Do whatever you want, however, don't break the law. He did.


He hasn't been convicted yet so you can't say he broke the law.  This will set a precedent and I sure hope he wins, so I can do what I want with what I buy.

And not do what YOU want with what others buy, but this is what his codes allow.



Kasz216 on 21 February 2011
Wagram said:
voty2000 said:
Wagram said:
voty2000 said:

I don't pirate jack so don't say I do.  I'm simply for consumer rights and can't fathom how people support Sony on this.  I hope Sony bricks consoles with pirated games as well, just not people with modded consoles.  If nothing illegal is on it, Sony should leave it alone. Sony should only go after the piraters, not Geohotz.  He hacked the device and there should be nothing illegal about that and hopefully the courts rule in his favor or else consumers will loose the rights to do what they want with devices they own. 

I'm not simply calling you out with my original statement, but you know as well as I do that most the people in this thread could have cared less about pirating before the PS3 was hacked.   

He was fine up until the moron decided to SHARE it with everyone else. If he kept this to himself we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It should be, and probably will be, perfectly legal to share what he did.  He opened up the system to allow consumers to do what they want with what they own.  As long as he did not pirate he should be left alone.  What others do with what he did is not his fault.

Lol. Then I guess I should give nuclear bomb schematics to under developed countries. I'm not the one that's going to use them.

Atomic bomb schematics you say?

http://www.serendipity.li/more/atomic.html

Like, if you can give nuclear bomb schematics to under developed countries....

nobody legally will stop you.



Jay520 on 21 February 2011
Wagram said:
voty2000 said:
Wagram said:
voty2000 said:

I don't pirate jack so don't say I do.  I'm simply for consumer rights and can't fathom how people support Sony on this.  I hope Sony bricks consoles with pirated games as well, just not people with modded consoles.  If nothing illegal is on it, Sony should leave it alone. Sony should only go after the piraters, not Geohotz.  He hacked the device and there should be nothing illegal about that and hopefully the courts rule in his favor or else consumers will loose the rights to do what they want with devices they own. 

I'm not simply calling you out with my original statement, but you know as well as I do that most the people in this thread could have cared less about pirating before the PS3 was hacked.   

He was fine up until the moron decided to SHARE it with everyone else. If he kept this to himself we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It should be, and probably will be, perfectly legal to share what he did.  He opened up the system to allow consumers to do what they want with what they own.  As long as he did not pirate he should be left alone.  What others do with what he did is not his fault.

Lol. Then I guess I should give nuclear bomb chematics to under developed countries. I'm not the one that's going to use them.

Exactly, He knew that there are millions of pirates on the internet, but he decided to put it there anyway. And then he brags about it. What did he expect?



Xen on 21 February 2011
Kasz216 said:
Xen said:
voty2000 said:
LivingMetal said:

You guys just need to stop making excuses and just see the truth of geohot being a malicious enabler.  Legality, common sense, and his personal actions point towards this.  It's just sad some of you would trade the love of gaming for a vendeta against Sony.  Your loss of character, not mine.


Just listen to the arguments.  It's about consumer rights to use their devices how they want.  Few if anyone are defending piracy, which is illegal.  The majority are defending their right to do what they want with what they bought.  I have no vendeta against Sony because I'm not retarded enough to pledge loyalty to any multi-national gaming company that could care less about me, only my money.  You're the one with loss of character for taking a stance for a corporation that wants to take away consumer rights.  Fight the pirates, not the modders.  It's a simple concept.

He broke copyright code by modifying and distributing his CFW, and what he has made available in face of signing codes for people can easily is, in legal terms, "aiding and abetting".

In other words, he is guilty as sin. Let people do what they want with their devices? Alright. As long as it doesn't compromise others, but hey, that's all it achieved so far. Do whatever you want, however, don't break the law. He did.

Actually, if he's "guilty as sin" chances are that means Sony is too and will lose the Other OS lawsuit.

B. SCEA’S Statements in Hotz.

In Hotz, SCEA sued several PS3 users for injunctive relief and damages in connection with their purported unauthorized access to and copying of SCEA’s proprietary PS3 technology. In the complaint, SCEA claimed privity of contract with the defendant PS3 users, although the users did not purchase their PS3s directly from SCEA, but rather at retail. SCEA’s complaint in Hotz (attached to the RJN as Exhibit A) states, in pertinent part, as follows:

15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant for the following reasons, among others:

(a) On information and belief, Hotz has purposely availed himself of the benefits of this district by doing business with PayPal, Inc., a company located in San Jose, California. Specifically, Hotz has utilized his PayPal account to solicit and obtain financial benefits in connection with the unlawful conduct alleged herein. Hotz is also subject to personal jurisdiction pursuant to the PlayStation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement (“PSN User Agreement”), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. On information and belief, Hotz has used software updates delivered by SCEA for one or more PS3 Systems he is using. To obtain such software, users must consent to the terms and conditions of the PSN User Agreement, which require that both parties submit to personal jurisdiction in California and further agree that any dispute arising from or relating to this Agreement shall be brought in a court within San Mateo County, California.

53. All PS3 System users who have used software updates delivered by SCEA for the PS3 System are bound by the PSN User Agreement or similar agreement. A copy of the PSN User Agreement is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. On information and belief, Defendants herein have consented and are subject to the terms of the PSN User Agreement or similar agreement.

92. SCEA is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants agreed to the terms of the PSN User Agreement or similar agreement and entered into that contract or similar agreement with SCEA. The PSN User Agreement or similar agreement is a written contract that limits their use of the PS3 System, related hardware, and related code, including restricting access and governing allowable uses.

97. SCEA has contractual relationships with users of the PlayStation Network.

SCEA further claims in its Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order to Show Case Re: Preliminary Injunction, and Order of Impoundment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support (“TRO Motion”), filed on January 11, 2011, that “Hotz is bound by the ‘Playstation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement.’” RJN, Exhibit B. The Court ultimately issued the TRO sought by SCEA. RJN, Exhibit C. Thus, in Hotz, SCEA itself argues that SCEA maintains contractual privity with all PS3 users, which supports plaintiffs’ breach of implied warranty claim, and contradicts arguments made by SCEA in its motion to dismiss that claim.

Maybe I'm stupid, but doesn't that work against him?



Around the Network
voty2000 on 21 February 2011
Wagram said:
voty2000 said:

It should be, and probably will be, perfectly legal to share what he did.  He opened up the system to allow consumers to do what they want with what they own.  As long as he did not pirate he should be left alone.  What others do with what he did is not his fault.

Lol. Then I guess I should give nuclear bomb chematics to under developed countries. I'm not the one that's going to use them.

Actually many underdeveloped countries have schematics to make some nuclear weapons, they just can't get the resources to do it.  The supply of Uranium is strictly controlled and building a facility is no small task.  if someone builds a facility to enrich uranium it will be big and it will be found.  Getting hold of schematics to build a Nuke is not that hard, they have been around since the late 40's.   Also, a country can't go steal uranium from a Nuclear power plant because that uranium is not pure enough to make a nuclear bomb.  Getting a hold of good amounts of enriched Uranium is the reason why North Korea hasn't made a decent nuclear bomb. They made a small piece of crap that would cause very little damage.  Thanks for using the nuclear bomb analogy because there are many flaws in it. 

I am now glad I took Intro. to Nuclear Engineering in college.



Kasz216 on 21 February 2011
Xen said:
Kasz216 said:
Xen said:
voty2000 said:
LivingMetal said:

You guys just need to stop making excuses and just see the truth of geohot being a malicious enabler.  Legality, common sense, and his personal actions point towards this.  It's just sad some of you would trade the love of gaming for a vendeta against Sony.  Your loss of character, not mine.


Just listen to the arguments.  It's about consumer rights to use their devices how they want.  Few if anyone are defending piracy, which is illegal.  The majority are defending their right to do what they want with what they bought.  I have no vendeta against Sony because I'm not retarded enough to pledge loyalty to any multi-national gaming company that could care less about me, only my money.  You're the one with loss of character for taking a stance for a corporation that wants to take away consumer rights.  Fight the pirates, not the modders.  It's a simple concept.

He broke copyright code by modifying and distributing his CFW, and what he has made available in face of signing codes for people can easily is, in legal terms, "aiding and abetting".

In other words, he is guilty as sin. Let people do what they want with their devices? Alright. As long as it doesn't compromise others, but hey, that's all it achieved so far. Do whatever you want, however, don't break the law. He did.

Actually, if he's "guilty as sin" chances are that means Sony is too and will lose the Other OS lawsuit.

B. SCEA’S Statements in Hotz.

In Hotz, SCEA sued several PS3 users for injunctive relief and damages in connection with their purported unauthorized access to and copying of SCEA’s proprietary PS3 technology. In the complaint, SCEA claimed privity of contract with the defendant PS3 users, although the users did not purchase their PS3s directly from SCEA, but rather at retail. SCEA’s complaint in Hotz (attached to the RJN as Exhibit A) states, in pertinent part, as follows:

15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant for the following reasons, among others:

(a) On information and belief, Hotz has purposely availed himself of the benefits of this district by doing business with PayPal, Inc., a company located in San Jose, California. Specifically, Hotz has utilized his PayPal account to solicit and obtain financial benefits in connection with the unlawful conduct alleged herein. Hotz is also subject to personal jurisdiction pursuant to the PlayStation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement (“PSN User Agreement”), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. On information and belief, Hotz has used software updates delivered by SCEA for one or more PS3 Systems he is using. To obtain such software, users must consent to the terms and conditions of the PSN User Agreement, which require that both parties submit to personal jurisdiction in California and further agree that any dispute arising from or relating to this Agreement shall be brought in a court within San Mateo County, California.

53. All PS3 System users who have used software updates delivered by SCEA for the PS3 System are bound by the PSN User Agreement or similar agreement. A copy of the PSN User Agreement is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. On information and belief, Defendants herein have consented and are subject to the terms of the PSN User Agreement or similar agreement.

92. SCEA is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants agreed to the terms of the PSN User Agreement or similar agreement and entered into that contract or similar agreement with SCEA. The PSN User Agreement or similar agreement is a written contract that limits their use of the PS3 System, related hardware, and related code, including restricting access and governing allowable uses.

97. SCEA has contractual relationships with users of the PlayStation Network.

SCEA further claims in its Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order to Show Case Re: Preliminary Injunction, and Order of Impoundment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support (“TRO Motion”), filed on January 11, 2011, that “Hotz is bound by the ‘Playstation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement.’” RJN, Exhibit B. The Court ultimately issued the TRO sought by SCEA. RJN, Exhibit C. Thus, in Hotz, SCEA itself argues that SCEA maintains contractual privity with all PS3 users, which supports plaintiffs’ breach of implied warranty claim, and contradicts arguments made by SCEA in its motion to dismiss that claim.

Maybe I'm stupid, but doesn't that work against him?

It's not legal Precedent or anything.  It's Sony's arguement in HIS case.  Though yes if true, it works against him... and also sony.  If they find HIM guilty that also means Sony is guilty in the Other OS case.

Compare that to their arguement in the Other OS case.... which actually helps Hotz case... and no doubt will be used as evidence that even Sony doesn't believe what they are saying.

They are argueing that Hotz is guilty because Sony has continueing privity with all of their customers... and is argueing they are not guilty in the OtherOS case because their is no privity between them and their customers.

In otherwords... even SONY believes they are wrong in one of the two cases they are involved in... they just aren't willing to say which and hope they get ruling in their favor in both ways.

 

"MR. PIZZIRUSSO: Okay. The reason why we allege we are in privity is because of the fact that there is an express warranty. And implied warranties flow from express warranties, Your Honor. This is all part of the same kind of relationship here.

THE COURT: Okay. Let's do it this way. I understand that part of your argument. What other arguments do you have on the privity issue on implied warranty?

MR. PIZZIRUSSO: Well, let's look at one of the exhibits to Carter Ott's declaration in support of this motion. It's Exhibit B, Your Honor. Exhibit B says this is the system software license agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PIZZIRUSSO: -- that they say controls here. We've said -- they have said, "Take judicial notice." We oppose that.

But to the extent the Court is going to take judicial notice, you should read the whole thing. Because, what it says is this agreement between a consumer -- I'm reading. The "between a consumer" part isn't in there. But this agreement is a contract with SCE. So the license agreement that Sony contends applies here, they say is a contract between them and the plaintiff. So if you're in a contract with Sony, we think that's privity.

Then they say, "SCE and its licensors reserve the right to bring legal action in the event of a violation of this agreement." So they're saying, "We can sue you, but you can't sue us because we're not in privity." That's one.

Number two, you know, I'm not in the other PlayStation case. I don't know what they alleged in terms of the direct dealings. But here we allege there are many. As part of the package that you buy when you buy the PlayStation, you are buying firmware updates; you are contacting Sony; you are going onto the PlayStation Network....

So just to be clear, Your Honor, we allege there's privity in the express warranty which creates privity in implied warranty. We allege that there are direct dealings between Sony, including the transfer of funds. And we elect that their own documents that they say control here create a privity. They say we are in contract with you.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PIZZIRUSSO: So that's privity."



voty2000 on 21 February 2011
Xen said:
voty2000 said:
Xen said:

He broke copyright code by modifying and distributing his CFW, and what he has made available in face of signing codes for people can easily is, in legal terms, "aiding and abetting".

In other words, he is guilty as sin. Let people do what they want with their devices? Alright. As long as it doesn't compromise others, but hey, that's all it achieved so far. Do whatever you want, however, don't break the law. He did.


He hasn't been convicted yet so you can't say he broke the law.  This will set a precedent and I sure hope he wins, so I can do what I want with what I buy.

And not do what YOU want with what others buy, but this is what his codes allow.

But Geohotz did not control other peoples devices, which is why I support him.  He simply modded.



Xen on 21 February 2011
voty2000 said:
Xen said:
voty2000 said:
Xen said:

He broke copyright code by modifying and distributing his CFW, and what he has made available in face of signing codes for people can easily is, in legal terms, "aiding and abetting".

In other words, he is guilty as sin. Let people do what they want with their devices? Alright. As long as it doesn't compromise others, but hey, that's all it achieved so far. Do whatever you want, however, don't break the law. He did.


He hasn't been convicted yet so you can't say he broke the law.  This will set a precedent and I sure hope he wins, so I can do what I want with what I buy.

And not do what YOU want with what others buy, but this is what his codes allow.

But Geohotz did not control other peoples devices, which is why I support him.  He simply modded.

He gave people the means for all that crap. That is why I don't.



voty2000 on 21 February 2011
Kasz216 said:

Atomic bomb schematics you say?

http://www.serendipity.li/more/atomic.html

Like, if you can give nuclear bomb schematics to under developed countries....

nobody legally will stop you.


Beat me to it, and great link.