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

Forums - Sony - Sony’s War on Makers, Hackers, and Innovators

Kasz216 on 25 February 2011
funkateer said:
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.


Actually by making a system closed, they hurt creativity in that... nobody can work on it.  Unless you pay Sony a big fee.


I mean, comapre PS3 to the PC.  PC creativity wise is leagues ahead of the PS3 on a level that can't even be compaired.

As for trying to judge if his works are worth it...

To start your judging it LONG before anything been developed for it, and your actually missing out the biggest and most valuable use for it.

After Sony took out Other OS, it became impossible to use PS3's to make cheap super computers, and the systems that were made could no longer be replaced when systems wore out and broke. 

Those supercomputer systems can now operate to full capacity and more can be made.

 

Some may say "They removed Other OS because of him" but they didn't... they planned to exclude it from the Slims before they removed it from the fat systems.

 

So, all the cancer research/blackhole reasearch/universities/airforce probably disagree with you since it brings back the most cost effective way to get some calculating done.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 25 February 2011
JamaicameCRAZY said:
Kasz216 said:

 

A) Do yourself  a favor look up "Duty of Care".  In particular, California.  You will see why Sony can't sue for this.  Not only would Sony lose, but they would look exremely bad doing it.

The biggest loss would be "the feasability of alternate conduct".  Since there was no way to unlock the features outside of this, there would be no "feasability of alternate conduct", and in general other alternate conduct issues.

Also, sony would have to definitivly prove they were harmed.  Which you can't, because most studies tend to show that even piracy has no discernable effect on the industry.

They'd have to prove without a shadow of a doubt it was done for immoral reasons. Likely a loss since most college proffesors and the like are on Hotz side and more then willing to talk about it, and all anyone has to believe is that HE thought it was the right thing to do.

They would have to prove that punishing him will prevent future harm. (tough when you can't find past harm.)

Also, that they would have to prove he could of done it safer.  Which you really can't argue with hacking because he doesn't have completel knowledge of the subject.

Prove that reasonable people wouldn't do the same in his place... again with over half the gaming community behind him, most academics and most tech people... not going to do.

So no... he can't be sued for that, nor can most if not all people be sued for something someone else does, without very very very specific guidelines being followed.  In general it is a VERY specific crime, otherwise everybody would get sued for it.

B) You can, it has nothing to do with Gehot though.

C) No, he can't.

D) No, i've actually corrected quite literally your mistaken comments.

 

California has developed a complex balancing test consisting of multiple factors which must be carefully weighed against one another to determine whether a duty of care exists in a negligence action. The underlying facts are universalized and analyzed in the larger context of general public policy.[5] The original factors as stated in 1968 were as follows:

  • the foreseeability of harm to the injured party;
  • the degree of certainty he or she suffered injury;
  • the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered;
  • the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct;
  • the policy of preventing future harm;
  • the extent of the burden to the defendant and the consequences to the community of imposing a duty of care with resulting liability for breach;
  • and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.[6]

A 1997 case added to this:

  • the social utility of the defendant's conduct from which the injury arose.[7]

As far as i have read the


Exactly.  They basically can't prove any of those.

It's good your finally starting to understand.



deskpro2k3 on 25 February 2011
Kasz216 said:
JamaicameCRAZY said:
Kasz216 said:

 

A) Do yourself  a favor look up "Duty of Care".  In particular, California.  You will see why Sony can't sue for this.  Not only would Sony lose, but they would look exremely bad doing it.

The biggest loss would be "the feasability of alternate conduct".  Since there was no way to unlock the features outside of this, there would be no "feasability of alternate conduct", and in general other alternate conduct issues.

Also, sony would have to definitivly prove they were harmed.  Which you can't, because most studies tend to show that even piracy has no discernable effect on the industry.

They'd have to prove without a shadow of a doubt it was done for immoral reasons. Likely a loss since most college proffesors and the like are on Hotz side and more then willing to talk about it, and all anyone has to believe is that HE thought it was the right thing to do.

They would have to prove that punishing him will prevent future harm. (tough when you can't find past harm.)

Also, that they would have to prove he could of done it safer.  Which you really can't argue with hacking because he doesn't have completel knowledge of the subject.

Prove that reasonable people wouldn't do the same in his place... again with over half the gaming community behind him, most academics and most tech people... not going to do.

So no... he can't be sued for that, nor can most if not all people be sued for something someone else does, without very very very specific guidelines being followed.  In general it is a VERY specific crime, otherwise everybody would get sued for it.

B) You can, it has nothing to do with Gehot though.

C) No, he can't.

D) No, i've actually corrected quite literally your mistaken comments.

 

California has developed a complex balancing test consisting of multiple factors which must be carefully weighed against one another to determine whether a duty of care exists in a negligence action. The underlying facts are universalized and analyzed in the larger context of general public policy.[5] The original factors as stated in 1968 were as follows:

  • the foreseeability of harm to the injured party;
  • the degree of certainty he or she suffered injury;
  • the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered;
  • the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct;
  • the policy of preventing future harm;
  • the extent of the burden to the defendant and the consequences to the community of imposing a duty of care with resulting liability for breach;
  • and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.[6]

A 1997 case added to this:

  • the social utility of the defendant's conduct from which the injury arose.[7]

As far as i have read the


Exactly.  They basically can't prove any of those.

It's good your finally starting to understand.

One pirated game is enough to hit almost all those bullets. All the efforts such as the removal of other OS etc, was to prevent piracy. bypassing the security in the software is pretty much opening a pandora box.

Limewire for example was taken off the grid for pirating music, and movies. I think the same should apply but this was a NY case I believe. Anyways I'm going back to Persona 3 Portable. Catch'ya punks later.



JamaicameCRAZY on 25 February 2011
Kasz216 said:
JamaicameCRAZY said:
Kasz216 said:

 

A) Do yourself  a favor look up "Duty of Care".  In particular, California.  You will see why Sony can't sue for this.  Not only would Sony lose, but they would look exremely bad doing it.

The biggest loss would be "the feasability of alternate conduct".  Since there was no way to unlock the features outside of this, there would be no "feasability of alternate conduct", and in general other alternate conduct issues.

Also, sony would have to definitivly prove they were harmed.  Which you can't, because most studies tend to show that even piracy has no discernable effect on the industry.

They'd have to prove without a shadow of a doubt it was done for immoral reasons. Likely a loss since most college proffesors and the like are on Hotz side and more then willing to talk about it, and all anyone has to believe is that HE thought it was the right thing to do.

They would have to prove that punishing him will prevent future harm. (tough when you can't find past harm.)

Also, that they would have to prove he could of done it safer.  Which you really can't argue with hacking because he doesn't have completel knowledge of the subject.

Prove that reasonable people wouldn't do the same in his place... again with over half the gaming community behind him, most academics and most tech people... not going to do.

So no... he can't be sued for that, nor can most if not all people be sued for something someone else does, without very very very specific guidelines being followed.  In general it is a VERY specific crime, otherwise everybody would get sued for it.

B) You can, it has nothing to do with Gehot though.

C) No, he can't.

D) No, i've actually corrected quite literally your mistaken comments.

 

California has developed a complex balancing test consisting of multiple factors which must be carefully weighed against one another to determine whether a duty of care exists in a negligence action. The underlying facts are universalized and analyzed in the larger context of general public policy.[5] The original factors as stated in 1968 were as follows:

  • the foreseeability of harm to the injured party;
  • the degree of certainty he or she suffered injury;
  • the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered;
  • the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct;
  • the policy of preventing future harm;
  • the extent of the burden to the defendant and the consequences to the community of imposing a duty of care with resulting liability for breach;
  • and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.[6]

A 1997 case added to this:

  • the social utility of the defendant's conduct from which the injury arose.[7]

As far as i have read the


Exactly.  They basically can't prove any of those.

It's good your finally starting to understand.

reread it. accidently hit the button early. btw is you avatar you if so my wife said looks like im having a discussion with myself.



EVERY GAMERS WORST NIGHTMARE...THE TANGLING CABLES MONSTER!

            

       Coffee is for closers!

JamaicameCRAZY on 25 February 2011
deskpro2k3 said:

One pirated game is enough to hit almost all those bullets. All the efforts such as the removal of other OS etc, was to prevent piracy. bypassing the security in the software is pretty much opening a pandora box.

Limewire for example was taken off the grid for pirating music, and movies. I think the same should apply but this was a NY case I believe. Anyways I'm going back to Persona 3 Portable. Catch'ya punks later.

yea i know it wouldnt be that hard to pin him on all of those points i guess hes just lost his imagination convientintly in this discussion.



EVERY GAMERS WORST NIGHTMARE...THE TANGLING CABLES MONSTER!

            

       Coffee is for closers!

Around the Network
dsister on 25 February 2011

@kasz

I've seen you say that if the super computers break down they are out of luck. That's not true. A couple weeks after the initial termination of the OtherOS Sony said they would make exceptions for those that are using their PS3s in a cluster like that. So if they send their PS3s in Sony won't touch the firmware



Sig thanks to Saber! :D 

Kasz216 on 25 February 2011
deskpro2k3 said:
Kasz216 said:
JamaicameCRAZY said:
Kasz216 said:

 

A) Do yourself  a favor look up "Duty of Care".  In particular, California.  You will see why Sony can't sue for this.  Not only would Sony lose, but they would look exremely bad doing it.

The biggest loss would be "the feasability of alternate conduct".  Since there was no way to unlock the features outside of this, there would be no "feasability of alternate conduct", and in general other alternate conduct issues.

Also, sony would have to definitivly prove they were harmed.  Which you can't, because most studies tend to show that even piracy has no discernable effect on the industry.

They'd have to prove without a shadow of a doubt it was done for immoral reasons. Likely a loss since most college proffesors and the like are on Hotz side and more then willing to talk about it, and all anyone has to believe is that HE thought it was the right thing to do.

They would have to prove that punishing him will prevent future harm. (tough when you can't find past harm.)

Also, that they would have to prove he could of done it safer.  Which you really can't argue with hacking because he doesn't have completel knowledge of the subject.

Prove that reasonable people wouldn't do the same in his place... again with over half the gaming community behind him, most academics and most tech people... not going to do.

So no... he can't be sued for that, nor can most if not all people be sued for something someone else does, without very very very specific guidelines being followed.  In general it is a VERY specific crime, otherwise everybody would get sued for it.

B) You can, it has nothing to do with Gehot though.

C) No, he can't.

D) No, i've actually corrected quite literally your mistaken comments.

 

California has developed a complex balancing test consisting of multiple factors which must be carefully weighed against one another to determine whether a duty of care exists in a negligence action. The underlying facts are universalized and analyzed in the larger context of general public policy.[5] The original factors as stated in 1968 were as follows:

  • the foreseeability of harm to the injured party;
  • the degree of certainty he or she suffered injury;
  • the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered;
  • the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct;
  • the policy of preventing future harm;
  • the extent of the burden to the defendant and the consequences to the community of imposing a duty of care with resulting liability for breach;
  • and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.[6]

A 1997 case added to this:

  • the social utility of the defendant's conduct from which the injury arose.[7]

As far as i have read the


Exactly.  They basically can't prove any of those.

It's good your finally starting to understand.

One pirated game is enough to hit almost all those bullets. All the efforts such as the removal of other OS etc, was to prevent piracy. bypassing the security in the software is pretty much opening a pandora box.

Limewire for example was taken off the grid for pirating music, and movies. I think the same should apply but this was a NY case I believe. Anyways I'm going back to Persona 3 Portable. Catch'ya punks later.

No it's not?  Considering research generally shows piracy doesn't hurt the industry... they would lose that pretty hard... and that's not even the trickier issues, such as moral blame which is pretty hard to asses when he's trying to unlock things legally that sony is locking out.

Furthermore, all this needs to be proved under the "reasonable man" arguement.  What would a "reasonable man" do in this situation.

Would a resonable man, looking for the outcome he was, do what he did?  Well yeah.



Kasz216 on 25 February 2011
JamaicameCRAZY said:
Kasz216 said:
JamaicameCRAZY said:
Kasz216 said:

 

A) Do yourself  a favor look up "Duty of Care".  In particular, California.  You will see why Sony can't sue for this.  Not only would Sony lose, but they would look exremely bad doing it.

The biggest loss would be "the feasability of alternate conduct".  Since there was no way to unlock the features outside of this, there would be no "feasability of alternate conduct", and in general other alternate conduct issues.

Also, sony would have to definitivly prove they were harmed.  Which you can't, because most studies tend to show that even piracy has no discernable effect on the industry.

They'd have to prove without a shadow of a doubt it was done for immoral reasons. Likely a loss since most college proffesors and the like are on Hotz side and more then willing to talk about it, and all anyone has to believe is that HE thought it was the right thing to do.

They would have to prove that punishing him will prevent future harm. (tough when you can't find past harm.)

Also, that they would have to prove he could of done it safer.  Which you really can't argue with hacking because he doesn't have completel knowledge of the subject.

Prove that reasonable people wouldn't do the same in his place... again with over half the gaming community behind him, most academics and most tech people... not going to do.

So no... he can't be sued for that, nor can most if not all people be sued for something someone else does, without very very very specific guidelines being followed.  In general it is a VERY specific crime, otherwise everybody would get sued for it.

B) You can, it has nothing to do with Gehot though.

C) No, he can't.

D) No, i've actually corrected quite literally your mistaken comments.

 

California has developed a complex balancing test consisting of multiple factors which must be carefully weighed against one another to determine whether a duty of care exists in a negligence action. The underlying facts are universalized and analyzed in the larger context of general public policy.[5] The original factors as stated in 1968 were as follows:

  • the foreseeability of harm to the injured party;
  • the degree of certainty he or she suffered injury;
  • the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered;
  • the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct;
  • the policy of preventing future harm;
  • the extent of the burden to the defendant and the consequences to the community of imposing a duty of care with resulting liability for breach;
  • and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.[6]

A 1997 case added to this:

  • the social utility of the defendant's conduct from which the injury arose.[7]

As far as i have read the


Exactly.  They basically can't prove any of those.

It's good your finally starting to understand.

reread it. accidently hit the button early. btw is you avatar you if so my wife said looks like im having a discussion with myself.

Yep.



Kasz216 on 25 February 2011
dsister said:

@kasz

I've seen you say that if the super computers break down they are out of luck. That's not true. A couple weeks after the initial termination of the OtherOS Sony said they would make exceptions for those that are using their PS3s in a cluster like that. So if they send their PS3s in Sony won't touch the firmware


Got a source for that?  I've never seen it.

Aside from that... also have a source where sony says they'll continue providing other OS for anyone else that wants to currently set up a super computer.

So say, if I wanted to set one up right now I could do so with the Slims without having to hack them?



Killiana1a on 26 February 2011

I am going to go contrarian here because defending Geohotz is too easy. Using symbolism, which most college age, foam at the mouth progressives mistake for reality is too simple. In this case, Geohotz = poor, innocent individual and Sony = Big, greedy, bad multinational corporation.

Having paid due respect to symbolism and it's almost idiotic simplicity, let me tear a new one into Geohotz and all his sheep...excuse me, supporters.

Everything Sony creates is it's intellectual property. This is equivalent to you owning a house and going through all the necessary hoops to do whatever and build whatever you want on your own private property. Geohotz and his ilk are outsiders.

One night you go to sleep and wake up in the morning. You look out your sliding glass door and see 2 tents pitched in the middle of your backyard. Some trustafarian looking punk comes walking up to you as you step outside thinking what the eff? He says he goes by the name of Geohotz, explains he found a hole in your fence, called a good friend, both climbed through, and are now residing on your property.

You give them the usual reply. Well, I hold the deed to this land, I pay the taxes on this land, etc. Please remove yourself from my premises.

Geohotz replies with a flat out no.

What do you do? Call the police to remove the squatters and fix the hole in your fence? Call the police to remove the squatters, fix the hole in your fence, and file a lawsuit against Geohotz and his friends to prevent them from doing it again?

Sony is attempting to do the latter. Their property is their domain where they are absolute king and emperor. In their mind if you participate on PSN, the PS3 you paid over $300 for is now under their domain so long as it connects to PSN, and they can release whatever firmware they want to change the internals of your PS3.

Folks like Geohotz have no respect for a concept called private property or intellectual property. They do because they can. The strong beat the weak. The only rule is to not be a sucker.

Now whose moral paradigm would you like to live under? Sony's where there are clear rules that are written out? Geohotz's and hackers where the strongest (smartest) do what they want, when they want, and to hell with the consequences?