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

Forums - Sony - Sony Forming Anti-Piracy Program

Kasz216 on 26 February 2011
phinch1 said:
Kasz216 said:
phinch1 said:
Kasz216 said:
phinch1 said:
Kasz216 said:
phinch1 said:
fordy said:


Once again, corporate interest. The only corporate interest that the law enforces are binding contracts, copyright etc. It's why we live in a Democracy, and not a Corporate Oligarchy

The software was actualy modded with the PS3 Update program, too, so it would be difficult to charge them with that.


ok, back to my point which you didnt answer, is it ok in every case to say "it's my property ill do what i want with it" even if it breaks rules/laws that end up with you in court, is that statment a mature excuse/response to say to the judge?

i just want a simple yes or no


The only reason you can't do something with your house is saftey/health reasons that invovle other people.

So yeah, it is a mature response to say "it's my property i'll do what I want with it" if it dosen't effect other peoples health and well being... because it's not illegal.


Its not just health and safety..... It can be something as simple as blocking a neighbours view, or the style not fitting in with the area, Yes councils can be that fussy, i guess you could go against them and carry on with it, just don't be upset if they find out and take action

I guess our views are just different, I don't think its a mature response and you do,  Neither of us or right or wrong, its just opinion

 

Actually, if they took you to court for that... they'd probably lose.  It's like sony in this case.  It's more about the threat then any actual legality of it.  They hope you'll backdown and not want to spend the money to fight.

Which is the real immature action.


Unless it's a REALLY big issue that really effects your neighbors.  Though such an effect would have to be very big to actually be enforcable.

90% of those claims are realy just bullying that isn't enforceable.

ok how about you buy a van, and you start putting home made red diesel in it, which is illigal..... is doesnt hurt anyone or have an effect on anyone else, but if you get caught using it your in trouble., which any car van or lorry can be pulled over at random and tested at any vosa stations all about the place.

Red Diesal hurts the enviroment, because it being cheap is going to increases your driving habits.  We don't really have that in the US though.  Red Dye for like, sulfurus fuel, but that's about it, and for enviroemntal reasons.


hacked consoles can hurt the gaming industry, we could go at this all day, neither of us are going to change our minds at least ill say thanks for not talking down to me or in a patronizing way like some fat guy in his avatar with blonde highlights

A) I'd say Prove it.  The majority of Scientific studies prove elsewise.  Aside from which, he didn't allow piracy in his firmware... and he went out of his way to try and stop piracy, which in of itself would put him in the free and clear.

B)  The gaming Industry isn't a person, or an en viroment.  Me making a better cookie the tolhouse hurts the cookie industry.  It espiecally hurts it if I publish my recipe online.  Still, not illegal.



Around the Network
fordy on 26 February 2011
phinch1 said:
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
Zkuq said:
Nomad Blue said:

And why/how would you no longer own a product you bought?

Obviously if someone else can tell what you may or may not do with the product you bought, you don't actually own it.


It's everywhere in life get use to it, if you buy your house and the land its on, you own it right? you want to build an extension on your land because its yours and you  can do what you want with it right? Wrong! you first have to get permision off the council, and if they say no to your idea of an extension you can't build it, ignoring them and doing so and you'd be breaking the law

You buy a lorry, its resticted to 60mph you want it to go faster, so you derestrict it.... i mean its your property you can do what you want with it! Wrong again , law stands in the way

I bought a dog.........stammped on its head til it died, I bought it i can do with it what i want can't i?


You cannot just do whatever you want to something you own if there are laws saying otherwise,
and if you do go and do it, Don't fricken cry about it when you get taken to court or arrested over it

ffs sake people grow up

Seriously, if you had at least half a brain, you juuust might be dangerous.

Now, let me tell you where your argument falls flat on it's face. See any resemblance to the examples that you provided? No? They're government regulated. Government regulate certain things for public interest.

Sony wanting to claim a sold PS3 as theirs is known as a CORPORATE INTEREST. Some laws are in place to protect corporations, yes (contract binding, copyright etc), but it is unlawful for Sony to claim ownership of your PS3 and regulate it in their interests. That is borderline monopolistic.

The police and courts aren't Sony's personal attack dogs, and you should not be promoting that they are. Spreading idiocy only creates more idiots.

By the way,  owning a house but still not being able to do certain things does not mean that you don't OWN the house. Sony are going for PS3 ownership, much like software licensing, you will have to buy a "PS3 license" which means you're allowed to rent a PS3 for use from Sony.

I never said that you don't own the house, I said you just can't do what you want with it...well technically you could, but if you get caught you'd be done for breaking the law, much like the case for modding the ps3 software


Once again, corporate interest. The only corporate interest that the law enforces are binding contracts, copyright etc. It's why we live in a Democracy, and not a Corporate Oligarchy

The software was actualy modded with the PS3 Update program, too, so it would be difficult to charge them with that.


ok, back to my point which you didnt answer, is it ok in every case to say "it's my property ill do what i want with it" even if it breaks rules/laws that end up with you in court, is that statment a mature excuse/response to say to the judge?

i just want a simple yes or no


You're not attempting to corner me with a loaded question.

Are you really that stupid, or do you need the whole analogy explained to you again? Read my original reply 2 points back where you only replied on the bottom paragraph, but not the rest that completely dismissed your argument.

It's not okay in EVERY case, but until I see ADEQUATE proof that he broke government laws (not corporate laws), then the argument can not stand.



Games4Fun on 26 February 2011

Good for Sony, I hope they take out all the hacker,cheaters, gamestealers. Though that is very unlikly I hope they make it less of a hassle for people who just want to have some fun and play fair. Perhaps, this will intice other console and game makers to take firmer stances. I could really care less if someone tinkers but if your tinkering includes cheating, pirating, etc you can go to hell.



phinch1 on 26 February 2011
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
Zkuq said:
Nomad Blue said:

And why/how would you no longer own a product you bought?

Obviously if someone else can tell what you may or may not do with the product you bought, you don't actually own it.


It's everywhere in life get use to it, if you buy your house and the land its on, you own it right? you want to build an extension on your land because its yours and you  can do what you want with it right? Wrong! you first have to get permision off the council, and if they say no to your idea of an extension you can't build it, ignoring them and doing so and you'd be breaking the law

You buy a lorry, its resticted to 60mph you want it to go faster, so you derestrict it.... i mean its your property you can do what you want with it! Wrong again , law stands in the way

I bought a dog.........stammped on its head til it died, I bought it i can do with it what i want can't i?


You cannot just do whatever you want to something you own if there are laws saying otherwise,
and if you do go and do it, Don't fricken cry about it when you get taken to court or arrested over it

ffs sake people grow up

Seriously, if you had at least half a brain, you juuust might be dangerous.

Now, let me tell you where your argument falls flat on it's face. See any resemblance to the examples that you provided? No? They're government regulated. Government regulate certain things for public interest.

Sony wanting to claim a sold PS3 as theirs is known as a CORPORATE INTEREST. Some laws are in place to protect corporations, yes (contract binding, copyright etc), but it is unlawful for Sony to claim ownership of your PS3 and regulate it in their interests. That is borderline monopolistic.

The police and courts aren't Sony's personal attack dogs, and you should not be promoting that they are. Spreading idiocy only creates more idiots.

By the way,  owning a house but still not being able to do certain things does not mean that you don't OWN the house. Sony are going for PS3 ownership, much like software licensing, you will have to buy a "PS3 license" which means you're allowed to rent a PS3 for use from Sony.

I never said that you don't own the house, I said you just can't do what you want with it...well technically you could, but if you get caught you'd be done for breaking the law, much like the case for modding the ps3 software


Once again, corporate interest. The only corporate interest that the law enforces are binding contracts, copyright etc. It's why we live in a Democracy, and not a Corporate Oligarchy

The software was actualy modded with the PS3 Update program, too, so it would be difficult to charge them with that.


ok, back to my point which you didnt answer, is it ok in every case to say "it's my property ill do what i want with it" even if it breaks rules/laws that end up with you in court, is that statment a mature excuse/response to say to the judge?

i just want a simple yes or no


You're not attempting to corner me with a loaded question.

Are you really that stupid, or do you need the whole analogy explained to you again? Read my original reply 2 points back where you only replied on the bottom paragraph, but not the rest that completely dismissed your argument.

It's not okay in EVERY case, but until I see ADEQUATE proof that he broke government laws (not corporate laws), then the argument can not stand.


That was pretty much all i was getting at, and that what the silly comments like the dog were about, all i was getting at, is that you can't cry its my property ill do what i want with it, to me (inserting personal opinion ((not fact here)) I don't think it is mature,



fordy on 27 February 2011
phinch1 said:
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
Zkuq said:
Nomad Blue said:

And why/how would you no longer own a product you bought?

Obviously if someone else can tell what you may or may not do with the product you bought, you don't actually own it.


It's everywhere in life get use to it, if you buy your house and the land its on, you own it right? you want to build an extension on your land because its yours and you  can do what you want with it right? Wrong! you first have to get permision off the council, and if they say no to your idea of an extension you can't build it, ignoring them and doing so and you'd be breaking the law

You buy a lorry, its resticted to 60mph you want it to go faster, so you derestrict it.... i mean its your property you can do what you want with it! Wrong again , law stands in the way

I bought a dog.........stammped on its head til it died, I bought it i can do with it what i want can't i?


You cannot just do whatever you want to something you own if there are laws saying otherwise,
and if you do go and do it, Don't fricken cry about it when you get taken to court or arrested over it

ffs sake people grow up

Seriously, if you had at least half a brain, you juuust might be dangerous.

Now, let me tell you where your argument falls flat on it's face. See any resemblance to the examples that you provided? No? They're government regulated. Government regulate certain things for public interest.

Sony wanting to claim a sold PS3 as theirs is known as a CORPORATE INTEREST. Some laws are in place to protect corporations, yes (contract binding, copyright etc), but it is unlawful for Sony to claim ownership of your PS3 and regulate it in their interests. That is borderline monopolistic.

The police and courts aren't Sony's personal attack dogs, and you should not be promoting that they are. Spreading idiocy only creates more idiots.

By the way,  owning a house but still not being able to do certain things does not mean that you don't OWN the house. Sony are going for PS3 ownership, much like software licensing, you will have to buy a "PS3 license" which means you're allowed to rent a PS3 for use from Sony.

I never said that you don't own the house, I said you just can't do what you want with it...well technically you could, but if you get caught you'd be done for breaking the law, much like the case for modding the ps3 software


Once again, corporate interest. The only corporate interest that the law enforces are binding contracts, copyright etc. It's why we live in a Democracy, and not a Corporate Oligarchy

The software was actualy modded with the PS3 Update program, too, so it would be difficult to charge them with that.


ok, back to my point which you didnt answer, is it ok in every case to say "it's my property ill do what i want with it" even if it breaks rules/laws that end up with you in court, is that statment a mature excuse/response to say to the judge?

i just want a simple yes or no


You're not attempting to corner me with a loaded question.

Are you really that stupid, or do you need the whole analogy explained to you again? Read my original reply 2 points back where you only replied on the bottom paragraph, but not the rest that completely dismissed your argument.

It's not okay in EVERY case, but until I see ADEQUATE proof that he broke government laws (not corporate laws), then the argument can not stand.


That was pretty much all i was getting at, and that what the silly comments like the dog were about, all i was getting at, is that you can't cry its my property ill do what i want with it, to me (inserting personal opinion ((not fact here)) I don't think it is mature,

Lucky your opinion isn't law.

I thought we were having an honest discussion on the legality of this. Sure, you are entitled to your opinion, but if someone points out it's flaws and yet you still try to argue it without meeting those arguments, how is that helping the discussion?



Around the Network
phinch1 on 27 February 2011
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
Zkuq said:
Nomad Blue said:

And why/how would you no longer own a product you bought?

Obviously if someone else can tell what you may or may not do with the product you bought, you don't actually own it.


It's everywhere in life get use to it, if you buy your house and the land its on, you own it right? you want to build an extension on your land because its yours and you  can do what you want with it right? Wrong! you first have to get permision off the council, and if they say no to your idea of an extension you can't build it, ignoring them and doing so and you'd be breaking the law

You buy a lorry, its resticted to 60mph you want it to go faster, so you derestrict it.... i mean its your property you can do what you want with it! Wrong again , law stands in the way

I bought a dog.........stammped on its head til it died, I bought it i can do with it what i want can't i?


You cannot just do whatever you want to something you own if there are laws saying otherwise,
and if you do go and do it, Don't fricken cry about it when you get taken to court or arrested over it

ffs sake people grow up

Seriously, if you had at least half a brain, you juuust might be dangerous.

Now, let me tell you where your argument falls flat on it's face. See any resemblance to the examples that you provided? No? They're government regulated. Government regulate certain things for public interest.

Sony wanting to claim a sold PS3 as theirs is known as a CORPORATE INTEREST. Some laws are in place to protect corporations, yes (contract binding, copyright etc), but it is unlawful for Sony to claim ownership of your PS3 and regulate it in their interests. That is borderline monopolistic.

The police and courts aren't Sony's personal attack dogs, and you should not be promoting that they are. Spreading idiocy only creates more idiots.

By the way,  owning a house but still not being able to do certain things does not mean that you don't OWN the house. Sony are going for PS3 ownership, much like software licensing, you will have to buy a "PS3 license" which means you're allowed to rent a PS3 for use from Sony.

I never said that you don't own the house, I said you just can't do what you want with it...well technically you could, but if you get caught you'd be done for breaking the law, much like the case for modding the ps3 software


Once again, corporate interest. The only corporate interest that the law enforces are binding contracts, copyright etc. It's why we live in a Democracy, and not a Corporate Oligarchy

The software was actualy modded with the PS3 Update program, too, so it would be difficult to charge them with that.


ok, back to my point which you didnt answer, is it ok in every case to say "it's my property ill do what i want with it" even if it breaks rules/laws that end up with you in court, is that statment a mature excuse/response to say to the judge?

i just want a simple yes or no


You're not attempting to corner me with a loaded question.

Are you really that stupid, or do you need the whole analogy explained to you again? Read my original reply 2 points back where you only replied on the bottom paragraph, but not the rest that completely dismissed your argument.

It's not okay in EVERY case, but until I see ADEQUATE proof that he broke government laws (not corporate laws), then the argument can not stand.


That was pretty much all i was getting at, and that what the silly comments like the dog were about, all i was getting at, is that you can't cry its my property ill do what i want with it, to me (inserting personal opinion ((not fact here)) I don't think it is mature,

Lucky your opinion isn't law.

I thought we were having an honest discussion on the legality of this. Sure, you are entitled to your opinion, but if someone points out it's flaws and yet you still try to argue it without meeting those arguments, how is that helping the discussion?

how are you helping by repeating kaz and buglebum, i took at least valid lessons from them and saw it from another point of view at least



fordy on 27 February 2011
phinch1 said:
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
Zkuq said:
Nomad Blue said:

And why/how would you no longer own a product you bought?

Obviously if someone else can tell what you may or may not do with the product you bought, you don't actually own it.


It's everywhere in life get use to it, if you buy your house and the land its on, you own it right? you want to build an extension on your land because its yours and you  can do what you want with it right? Wrong! you first have to get permision off the council, and if they say no to your idea of an extension you can't build it, ignoring them and doing so and you'd be breaking the law

You buy a lorry, its resticted to 60mph you want it to go faster, so you derestrict it.... i mean its your property you can do what you want with it! Wrong again , law stands in the way

I bought a dog.........stammped on its head til it died, I bought it i can do with it what i want can't i?


You cannot just do whatever you want to something you own if there are laws saying otherwise,
and if you do go and do it, Don't fricken cry about it when you get taken to court or arrested over it

ffs sake people grow up

Seriously, if you had at least half a brain, you juuust might be dangerous.

Now, let me tell you where your argument falls flat on it's face. See any resemblance to the examples that you provided? No? They're government regulated. Government regulate certain things for public interest.

Sony wanting to claim a sold PS3 as theirs is known as a CORPORATE INTEREST. Some laws are in place to protect corporations, yes (contract binding, copyright etc), but it is unlawful for Sony to claim ownership of your PS3 and regulate it in their interests. That is borderline monopolistic.

The police and courts aren't Sony's personal attack dogs, and you should not be promoting that they are. Spreading idiocy only creates more idiots.

By the way,  owning a house but still not being able to do certain things does not mean that you don't OWN the house. Sony are going for PS3 ownership, much like software licensing, you will have to buy a "PS3 license" which means you're allowed to rent a PS3 for use from Sony.

I never said that you don't own the house, I said you just can't do what you want with it...well technically you could, but if you get caught you'd be done for breaking the law, much like the case for modding the ps3 software


Once again, corporate interest. The only corporate interest that the law enforces are binding contracts, copyright etc. It's why we live in a Democracy, and not a Corporate Oligarchy

The software was actualy modded with the PS3 Update program, too, so it would be difficult to charge them with that.


ok, back to my point which you didnt answer, is it ok in every case to say "it's my property ill do what i want with it" even if it breaks rules/laws that end up with you in court, is that statment a mature excuse/response to say to the judge?

i just want a simple yes or no


You're not attempting to corner me with a loaded question.

Are you really that stupid, or do you need the whole analogy explained to you again? Read my original reply 2 points back where you only replied on the bottom paragraph, but not the rest that completely dismissed your argument.

It's not okay in EVERY case, but until I see ADEQUATE proof that he broke government laws (not corporate laws), then the argument can not stand.


That was pretty much all i was getting at, and that what the silly comments like the dog were about, all i was getting at, is that you can't cry its my property ill do what i want with it, to me (inserting personal opinion ((not fact here)) I don't think it is mature,

Lucky your opinion isn't law.

I thought we were having an honest discussion on the legality of this. Sure, you are entitled to your opinion, but if someone points out it's flaws and yet you still try to argue it without meeting those arguments, how is that helping the discussion?

how are you helping by repeating kaz and buglebum, i took at least valid lessons from them and saw it from another point of view at least

 

Yes, a points that's had it's flaws explained multiple times, yet you seem to use the term "grow up, people"



phinch1 on 27 February 2011
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
fordy said:
phinch1 said:
Zkuq said:
Nomad Blue said:

And why/how would you no longer own a product you bought?

Obviously if someone else can tell what you may or may not do with the product you bought, you don't actually own it.


It's everywhere in life get use to it, if you buy your house and the land its on, you own it right? you want to build an extension on your land because its yours and you  can do what you want with it right? Wrong! you first have to get permision off the council, and if they say no to your idea of an extension you can't build it, ignoring them and doing so and you'd be breaking the law

You buy a lorry, its resticted to 60mph you want it to go faster, so you derestrict it.... i mean its your property you can do what you want with it! Wrong again , law stands in the way

I bought a dog.........stammped on its head til it died, I bought it i can do with it what i want can't i?


You cannot just do whatever you want to something you own if there are laws saying otherwise,
and if you do go and do it, Don't fricken cry about it when you get taken to court or arrested over it

ffs sake people grow up

Seriously, if you had at least half a brain, you juuust might be dangerous.

Now, let me tell you where your argument falls flat on it's face. See any resemblance to the examples that you provided? No? They're government regulated. Government regulate certain things for public interest.

Sony wanting to claim a sold PS3 as theirs is known as a CORPORATE INTEREST. Some laws are in place to protect corporations, yes (contract binding, copyright etc), but it is unlawful for Sony to claim ownership of your PS3 and regulate it in their interests. That is borderline monopolistic.

The police and courts aren't Sony's personal attack dogs, and you should not be promoting that they are. Spreading idiocy only creates more idiots.

By the way,  owning a house but still not being able to do certain things does not mean that you don't OWN the house. Sony are going for PS3 ownership, much like software licensing, you will have to buy a "PS3 license" which means you're allowed to rent a PS3 for use from Sony.

I never said that you don't own the house, I said you just can't do what you want with it...well technically you could, but if you get caught you'd be done for breaking the law, much like the case for modding the ps3 software


Once again, corporate interest. The only corporate interest that the law enforces are binding contracts, copyright etc. It's why we live in a Democracy, and not a Corporate Oligarchy

The software was actualy modded with the PS3 Update program, too, so it would be difficult to charge them with that.


ok, back to my point which you didnt answer, is it ok in every case to say "it's my property ill do what i want with it" even if it breaks rules/laws that end up with you in court, is that statment a mature excuse/response to say to the judge?

i just want a simple yes or no


You're not attempting to corner me with a loaded question.

Are you really that stupid, or do you need the whole analogy explained to you again? Read my original reply 2 points back where you only replied on the bottom paragraph, but not the rest that completely dismissed your argument.

It's not okay in EVERY case, but until I see ADEQUATE proof that he broke government laws (not corporate laws), then the argument can not stand.


That was pretty much all i was getting at, and that what the silly comments like the dog were about, all i was getting at, is that you can't cry its my property ill do what i want with it, to me (inserting personal opinion ((not fact here)) I don't think it is mature,

Lucky your opinion isn't law.

I thought we were having an honest discussion on the legality of this. Sure, you are entitled to your opinion, but if someone points out it's flaws and yet you still try to argue it without meeting those arguments, how is that helping the discussion?

how are you helping by repeating kaz and buglebum, i took at least valid lessons from them and saw it from another point of view at least

 

Yes, a points that's had it's flaws explained multiple times, yet you seem to use the term "grow up, people"


yeah they mentioned that too, so your still repeating what they've said ....this thread died ages ago man let it go, Don't bother replying if your going to just be repreating one of those two again, only bother if its something new



DonFerrari on 27 February 2011
Zkuq said:
goforgold said:

yes, you are NOT suppose to do whatever you want with a product, however, that isn't why Sony is suing him (this is the part where you completely ignore everything I'm about to say) because Sony doesn't care, Sony could careless that you mod your system, what they do care about is releasing that mod to everyone else knowing full well what could happen. See intellectual property is something you "mah consumer rightz" people have to get familiar with. It's not up to you the consumer to decide what the hell a product should or should not do, you know who does however....the people who made the damn thing, and yes they have the RIGHT to do that, and if your mad a product is able to do what you want the the only RIGHT you have is to buy another product or better MAKE YOUR OWN!!!!!!!

I was just about to put this in a way that would certainly get me banned: you are so wrong about this. You've really bought all that corporate propaganda they've been feeding you. Guns aren't illegal because they can be used for crimes, and the same should go for software. If you use it for illegal purposes then that's a problem but until then, there's no problem: innocent until proven otherwise. It sucks, but no one seems to care about things like consumer rights of freedom of speech these days (and I'm not trying to say they're the same thing or necessarily even connected - I'm just saying that's two things no one seems to care about anymore).

geddesmond2 said:

Cheated out of money like say how Sony will be cheated out of money if hackers get there way with homebrew that runs pirated games??Oh what so because Sonys a bg corporation that employs thousands off people they don't have any rights??

Two wrongs doesn't necessarily make a right. In fact, innocent until proven otherwise and yet here Sony is treating everyone like a criminal.

Also, I'm perfectly fine with Sony banning custom firmware users from using PSN.


Always the gun argument... so do try this with a weapon, buy it, modify and sell the same weapon 1000 times... or it will be impossible or another crime that is selling the same product more than once, and this is why is argument is so lame (altough it's illegal to make one gun into something you don't have a right to keep, as your gun registration is for the one you bought not the one it became after modify)...

I doubt Sony would be pissed if anyone maked a PSN.Hack just for them to play and it didn't offer pirated games, just a conection to homebrewers and cheaters to get along... i see people hacking PSN not making one for them...



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 27 February 2011
fordy said:
Jay520 said:
fordy said:
geddesmond2 said:
fordy said:
geddesmond2 said:

Quit all that bullshit. Everyone who games on the PS3 bought the consol for the games. If people wern't stealing the companys software by pirating games and creating cheats to use online that fucks up there legitimate experiance then this wouldn't be a fucking problem. I've no problem with people doing whatever they want to do with there consols just as long as my experiance isn't ruined and I definitley think Sony wouldn't give too shits either if there games and the games of there third party support wasn't getting stolen. If Sony was this against homebrew that didn't involve pirated games then why did they include Linux with the PS3 in the first place which already allowed people to run homebrew.

 

The people who think its all about our rights are dam fucking fools. No matter who wins the case you's will all still be doing the exact same thing with your machine after the court case that yous are currently doing with it now. Geohot hacked the PS3 for 2 simple things. Recognition and glory. His name is now associated with the person who hacked the unhackable PS3. He doesn't give a fuck about any of your rights. He did what everyone else like him does when faced with trouble. Make up excuses to make himself look less guilty.

Now I'm finished with this subject. Currently as it stands the banhammer seems to be working right now and Developers and Sony are making there games more secure so its looking like my experiance won't be fucked with for awhile. Sony and Geohot can do what ever they like. Personally I hope Geohot looses this battle and it declares him bankrupt for the rest of his life. Not because he hacked the PS3 but because of the amount of eejits he has following him who thinks hes some rebel fighting for a great cause.

They can look at starving children on the telly that can't even hold there own heads up from malnutrition and ignore them but some rich kid hacker from the states needs money to fight a case and they find 50 dollars in there dam pockets?


do you honestly think that Sony took Geohot to court just to make him bankrupt? Really? You think they're willing to waste money on so many high priced lawyers to go after a kid? There is motive here. Stop living in a closed box and think for a moment.

Sony want control of consumer owned PS3s because it's cheaper to enforce security, even though it's been proven time and time again that client-side security opens the door for ID impersonation, which is exactly what is happening now.

Honestly, the ones who think that the PSN would become a wasteland because of hackers are the bigger fools in this picture.

Well actually your thinking in a closed box. First of all I never said Sony wants to bankrupt him. I said I hope Sony wins and the outcome is him becoming banrupt. I'm not a lawyer but I've seen a lot of courtcases where the losers are sued for the legal costs of the courtcase especially ones involving this many lawyers. I'm sure Sonys team of 5 lawyers costs them a lot of money

Secondly if ID impersonations are happening now then I hope they get yours and get you banned for life. I wonder if you'd support Geohot and the other hackers then because these are the exact reasons why I won't support these hackers . They are fucking with legitimate peoples experiance.

Thirdly so its all conspiracy theorys now. I suppose the illuminati are the ones pulling Sonys strings right LMAO. Its been confirmed everyone, first Sony controlls the consumers PS3s and then the Implanted microchips come next. Total domination ROFL.

And number 4. Ya know the exploits were only available for a few weeks and MW2 and a few other games were unplayable. God only knows the state it would be in now if Sony didn't take action when they did and only time will tell how bad its going to get if Sony looses the case.


Quit your FUD spreading. Hackers who provide the tools arent responsible. The ones who actually use it that way are the bad ones.

Yes they are, by putting the tools on the internet, you are knowingly enabling EVERYBODY (including pirates) to use those tools for whatever purpose they may have. They knew that there were people waiting to use those tools for illegal purposes, but they did it anyway. 

The way I see it, those Keys or whatever is delicate information that shouldn't be distributed to EVERYONE.  

Emulators are ruled perfectly legal, yet they can be USED legally or illegally. There has not been one company that has successfully sued the creators of an emulator, and this will have just about as much chance in a court of law as a lawsuit against an emulator creator. They are both tools, they can both promote piracy, they both inhibit a "the way you use it is your responsibility" clause.

For the 100th time, that sensitive information that you're talking about? That is an INTEGER, a binary number. Binary numbers cannot be copyrighted. They cannot be protected under law from being used. If anything, they key is a tool, which like emulators, could be used for good or bad purposes. And before you say it, no, the difference is that Sony owns the number, because they don't. If anything, emulators would be more illegal because they could impose upon certain microchip architectures, yet they are still legal. This reasoning wouldn't stand a chance in hell.


By your logic as computer language in the end is binary, piracy doesn't exit... and DVDs and CDs aren't pirated because they are binary logic read by a hardware you own.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."