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

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

Regarding the geohot thing, what the article fails to acknowledge is that Sony is the 'Maker' here, not geohot.

Whether or not there is any legal ground for Sony is imho a bit irrelevant (who thinks the law is always fair anyway?). Even if Sony's agressive stance is smart or not is besides the point.

I feel they have the right to protect their investment, which geohot and the likes are jeopardizing. Sony has been selling their platform under cost price so that customers can afford the thing, meaning to recoup the investment by software. This investment created jobs for god knows how many people developing the platform & the content. That is why the PS3 is a closed platform. Personally I think that's a pretty compelling reason.

If geohot seriously thinks his 'efforts to avoid piracy' are enough than he's really one arrogant (or perhaps just thick and ignorant) kid. Who says his 'efforts' can not be worked around? Did he avoid a PS emulator to be ported? (Sony still sells PS1 games, mind you, so he has actually still opened the door to piracy in a way)

He distributed tools to break security, and that directly jeopardizes the bread and butter of a lot of people. So geohot, is your little hobby worth that? The industry is under enough pressure as it is, so I'd rather see him excercise his skills in a more meaningful way.

My 2cts


Wouldn't that have been solved by... Sony not selling the PS3 for a loss.  You are basically saying, Sony should be protected for making poor buisness decisions, and because tangentially something he did was used in a wrong way.

 

That's like saying gunmakers should be forced to store owners money because the guns they make may of been used to rob stores that don't have robbery insurance.

Laws shouldn't be crafted around poor buisness decisions.


What would really solve it is.. Geo not trying to break security which would allow him and others access to information conected to peoples wallets/ pirate games/ steal shit. Which is illegal.


He... didn't do that?  He broke the secuirty that prevented a lot of other stuff... and then people went from their and broke into that stuff.

Well except the Credit Card shit... that's been around forever... because Sony doesn't encrypt the information it sends out... because... I have no idea why.

Regardless, it's been consistantly ruled that when a company ties the "legal" protections with the "illegal ones" they lose any right to litigation because they, not the hackers made it so that one had to be breached, to breach the other.

Unless there is a surprise ruling... they should lose on that count.

which is Negligence/Carelessness.



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

            

       Coffee is for closers!

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

Regarding the geohot thing, what the article fails to acknowledge is that Sony is the 'Maker' here, not geohot.

Whether or not there is any legal ground for Sony is imho a bit irrelevant (who thinks the law is always fair anyway?). Even if Sony's agressive stance is smart or not is besides the point.

I feel they have the right to protect their investment, which geohot and the likes are jeopardizing. Sony has been selling their platform under cost price so that customers can afford the thing, meaning to recoup the investment by software. This investment created jobs for god knows how many people developing the platform & the content. That is why the PS3 is a closed platform. Personally I think that's a pretty compelling reason.

If geohot seriously thinks his 'efforts to avoid piracy' are enough than he's really one arrogant (or perhaps just thick and ignorant) kid. Who says his 'efforts' can not be worked around? Did he avoid a PS emulator to be ported? (Sony still sells PS1 games, mind you, so he has actually still opened the door to piracy in a way)

He distributed tools to break security, and that directly jeopardizes the bread and butter of a lot of people. So geohot, is your little hobby worth that? The industry is under enough pressure as it is, so I'd rather see him excercise his skills in a more meaningful way.

My 2cts


Wouldn't that have been solved by... Sony not selling the PS3 for a loss.  You are basically saying, Sony should be protected for making poor buisness decisions, and because tangentially something he did was used in a wrong way.

 

That's like saying gunmakers should be forced to store owners money because the guns they make may of been used to rob stores that don't have robbery insurance.

Laws shouldn't be crafted around poor buisness decisions.


What would really solve it is.. Geo not trying to break security which would allow him and others access to information conected to peoples wallets/ pirate games/ steal shit. Which is illegal.


He... didn't do that?  He broke the secuirty that prevented a lot of other stuff... and then people went from their and broke into that stuff.

Well except the Credit Card shit... that's been around forever... because Sony doesn't encrypt the information it sends out... because... I have no idea why.

Regardless, it's been consistantly ruled that when a company ties the "legal" protections with the "illegal ones" they lose any right to litigation because they, not the hackers made it so that one had to be breached, to breach the other.

Unless there is a surprise ruling... they should lose on that count.

which is Negligence/Carelessness.


No, I think Sony did it on purpose personally.  I wouldn't say they were being negligent or careless so much as they didn't care because they thought they had an unbeatable sysetm.

Though the not encrypting peoples credit card numbers was negligent and careless.  They could get sued for that.

Edit: Oh, you probably meant Geohot?  That's... not negligence or carelessness at all.  It was probably more a case of not caring.  

"They made it so that getting the full legal use out of their system is going to hurt them.  It's a shame, but what can you do, I have my legal rights."

 

If companies tried to stop locking out the legitamite uses of hardware, maybe they wouldn't have so many problems witht he few illegitamite uses... though of course, they aren't really fighting the illegitamite uses... it's the legitamite uses they want to fight like being able to backup your own games and run third party free legal software vs having to buy stuff.



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

Regarding the geohot thing, what the article fails to acknowledge is that Sony is the 'Maker' here, not geohot.

Whether or not there is any legal ground for Sony is imho a bit irrelevant (who thinks the law is always fair anyway?). Even if Sony's agressive stance is smart or not is besides the point.

I feel they have the right to protect their investment, which geohot and the likes are jeopardizing. Sony has been selling their platform under cost price so that customers can afford the thing, meaning to recoup the investment by software. This investment created jobs for god knows how many people developing the platform & the content. That is why the PS3 is a closed platform. Personally I think that's a pretty compelling reason.

If geohot seriously thinks his 'efforts to avoid piracy' are enough than he's really one arrogant (or perhaps just thick and ignorant) kid. Who says his 'efforts' can not be worked around? Did he avoid a PS emulator to be ported? (Sony still sells PS1 games, mind you, so he has actually still opened the door to piracy in a way)

He distributed tools to break security, and that directly jeopardizes the bread and butter of a lot of people. So geohot, is your little hobby worth that? The industry is under enough pressure as it is, so I'd rather see him excercise his skills in a more meaningful way.

My 2cts


Wouldn't that have been solved by... Sony not selling the PS3 for a loss.  You are basically saying, Sony should be protected for making poor buisness decisions, and because tangentially something he did was used in a wrong way.

 

That's like saying gunmakers should be forced to store owners money because the guns they make may of been used to rob stores that don't have robbery insurance.

Laws shouldn't be crafted around poor buisness decisions.


What would really solve it is.. Geo not trying to break security which would allow him and others access to information conected to peoples wallets/ pirate games/ steal shit. Which is illegal.


He... didn't do that?  He broke the secuirty that prevented a lot of other stuff... and then people went from their and broke into that stuff.

Well except the Credit Card shit... that's been around forever... because Sony doesn't encrypt the information it sends out... because... I have no idea why.

Regardless, it's been consistantly ruled that when a company ties the "legal" protections with the "illegal ones" they lose any right to litigation because they, not the hackers made it so that one had to be breached, to breach the other.

Unless there is a surprise ruling... they should lose on that count.

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.

What he has done he can get in trouble for Negligence/Carelessness. Also i have not seen a whole lot of people loosing their accounts before he came alone now i have heard it since he has. Its illegal to circumvent security according to the DMCA.



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

            

       Coffee is for closers!

funkateer on 25 February 2011

"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.



Kasz216 on 25 February 2011
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."



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

Regarding the geohot thing, what the article fails to acknowledge is that Sony is the 'Maker' here, not geohot.

Whether or not there is any legal ground for Sony is imho a bit irrelevant (who thinks the law is always fair anyway?). Even if Sony's agressive stance is smart or not is besides the point.

I feel they have the right to protect their investment, which geohot and the likes are jeopardizing. Sony has been selling their platform under cost price so that customers can afford the thing, meaning to recoup the investment by software. This investment created jobs for god knows how many people developing the platform & the content. That is why the PS3 is a closed platform. Personally I think that's a pretty compelling reason.

If geohot seriously thinks his 'efforts to avoid piracy' are enough than he's really one arrogant (or perhaps just thick and ignorant) kid. Who says his 'efforts' can not be worked around? Did he avoid a PS emulator to be ported? (Sony still sells PS1 games, mind you, so he has actually still opened the door to piracy in a way)

He distributed tools to break security, and that directly jeopardizes the bread and butter of a lot of people. So geohot, is your little hobby worth that? The industry is under enough pressure as it is, so I'd rather see him excercise his skills in a more meaningful way.

My 2cts


Wouldn't that have been solved by... Sony not selling the PS3 for a loss.  You are basically saying, Sony should be protected for making poor buisness decisions, and because tangentially something he did was used in a wrong way.

 

That's like saying gunmakers should be forced to store owners money because the guns they make may of been used to rob stores that don't have robbery insurance.

Laws shouldn't be crafted around poor buisness decisions.


What would really solve it is.. Geo not trying to break security which would allow him and others access to information conected to peoples wallets/ pirate games/ steal shit. Which is illegal.


He... didn't do that?  He broke the secuirty that prevented a lot of other stuff... and then people went from their and broke into that stuff.

Well except the Credit Card shit... that's been around forever... because Sony doesn't encrypt the information it sends out... because... I have no idea why.

Regardless, it's been consistantly ruled that when a company ties the "legal" protections with the "illegal ones" they lose any right to litigation because they, not the hackers made it so that one had to be breached, to breach the other.

Unless there is a surprise ruling... they should lose on that count.

which is Negligence/Carelessness.


No, I think Sony did it on purpose personally.  I wouldn't say they were being negligent or careless so much as they didn't care because they thought they had an unbeatable sysetm.

Though the not encrypting peoples credit card numbers was negligent and careless.  They could get sued for that.

Wow, very childish.

 How many problems were there with the psn before he came along? How many are there now? The Psn and ps3 were fine before him from the inside sure its not a good system but for what 4years its been fine. He was very negligent and careless which is while he'll likely get sued for damages.



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

            

       Coffee is for closers!

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

Regarding the geohot thing, what the article fails to acknowledge is that Sony is the 'Maker' here, not geohot.

Whether or not there is any legal ground for Sony is imho a bit irrelevant (who thinks the law is always fair anyway?). Even if Sony's agressive stance is smart or not is besides the point.

I feel they have the right to protect their investment, which geohot and the likes are jeopardizing. Sony has been selling their platform under cost price so that customers can afford the thing, meaning to recoup the investment by software. This investment created jobs for god knows how many people developing the platform & the content. That is why the PS3 is a closed platform. Personally I think that's a pretty compelling reason.

If geohot seriously thinks his 'efforts to avoid piracy' are enough than he's really one arrogant (or perhaps just thick and ignorant) kid. Who says his 'efforts' can not be worked around? Did he avoid a PS emulator to be ported? (Sony still sells PS1 games, mind you, so he has actually still opened the door to piracy in a way)

He distributed tools to break security, and that directly jeopardizes the bread and butter of a lot of people. So geohot, is your little hobby worth that? The industry is under enough pressure as it is, so I'd rather see him excercise his skills in a more meaningful way.

My 2cts


Wouldn't that have been solved by... Sony not selling the PS3 for a loss.  You are basically saying, Sony should be protected for making poor buisness decisions, and because tangentially something he did was used in a wrong way.

 

That's like saying gunmakers should be forced to store owners money because the guns they make may of been used to rob stores that don't have robbery insurance.

Laws shouldn't be crafted around poor buisness decisions.


What would really solve it is.. Geo not trying to break security which would allow him and others access to information conected to peoples wallets/ pirate games/ steal shit. Which is illegal.


He... didn't do that?  He broke the secuirty that prevented a lot of other stuff... and then people went from their and broke into that stuff.

Well except the Credit Card shit... that's been around forever... because Sony doesn't encrypt the information it sends out... because... I have no idea why.

Regardless, it's been consistantly ruled that when a company ties the "legal" protections with the "illegal ones" they lose any right to litigation because they, not the hackers made it so that one had to be breached, to breach the other.

Unless there is a surprise ruling... they should lose on that count.

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.

What he has done he can get in trouble for Negligence/Carelessness. Also i have not seen a whole lot of people loosing their accounts before he came alone now i have heard it since he has. Its illegal to circumvent security according to the DMCA.


1) That's, not a crime..?  Like I said, it wasn't carelessness or negligence on his part.  It was Sony's fault they locked things in the same place.  He can't be held account for Sony's decision to do so.

2) You replied to this, after I mentioned how it actually probably would be ruled not illegal under the DMCA...  and after you had acknowledged this to be the case without trying to argue otherwise?  I'm starting to think you don't have a general understanding of the topic at hand to make an arguement and instead are just throwing up things you hope are right, because you want to be right.



Damnyouall on 25 February 2011

@Kasz216

Sony knows they can't win. That's why basically their strategy against geohot is trying to bleed him dry. Which has failed so far: A few days ago geohot asked for donations so he could pay his lawyers and hire a few more, and he recieved more than $10,000 USD in a couple of hours, which is when he closed the first round of donations (because he didn't want more than he actually needed).



"Well certainly with the Xbox 360, we had some challenges at the launch. Once we identified that we took control of it. We wanted to do it right by our customers. Our customers are very important to us." -Larry "Major Nelson" Hryb (10/2013). Note: RRoD was fixed with the Jasper-revision 3 years after the launch of 360

"People don't pay attention to a lot of the details."-Yusuf Mehdi explaining why Xbone DRM scheme would succeed

"Fortunately we have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity; it's called Xbox 360,”-Don Mattrick

"The region locking of the 3DS wasn't done for profits on games"-MDMAlliance

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

Regarding the geohot thing, what the article fails to acknowledge is that Sony is the 'Maker' here, not geohot.

Whether or not there is any legal ground for Sony is imho a bit irrelevant (who thinks the law is always fair anyway?). Even if Sony's agressive stance is smart or not is besides the point.

I feel they have the right to protect their investment, which geohot and the likes are jeopardizing. Sony has been selling their platform under cost price so that customers can afford the thing, meaning to recoup the investment by software. This investment created jobs for god knows how many people developing the platform & the content. That is why the PS3 is a closed platform. Personally I think that's a pretty compelling reason.

If geohot seriously thinks his 'efforts to avoid piracy' are enough than he's really one arrogant (or perhaps just thick and ignorant) kid. Who says his 'efforts' can not be worked around? Did he avoid a PS emulator to be ported? (Sony still sells PS1 games, mind you, so he has actually still opened the door to piracy in a way)

He distributed tools to break security, and that directly jeopardizes the bread and butter of a lot of people. So geohot, is your little hobby worth that? The industry is under enough pressure as it is, so I'd rather see him excercise his skills in a more meaningful way.

My 2cts


Wouldn't that have been solved by... Sony not selling the PS3 for a loss.  You are basically saying, Sony should be protected for making poor buisness decisions, and because tangentially something he did was used in a wrong way.

 

That's like saying gunmakers should be forced to store owners money because the guns they make may of been used to rob stores that don't have robbery insurance.

Laws shouldn't be crafted around poor buisness decisions.


What would really solve it is.. Geo not trying to break security which would allow him and others access to information conected to peoples wallets/ pirate games/ steal shit. Which is illegal.


He... didn't do that?  He broke the secuirty that prevented a lot of other stuff... and then people went from their and broke into that stuff.

Well except the Credit Card shit... that's been around forever... because Sony doesn't encrypt the information it sends out... because... I have no idea why.

Regardless, it's been consistantly ruled that when a company ties the "legal" protections with the "illegal ones" they lose any right to litigation because they, not the hackers made it so that one had to be breached, to breach the other.

Unless there is a surprise ruling... they should lose on that count.

which is Negligence/Carelessness.


No, I think Sony did it on purpose personally.  I wouldn't say they were being negligent or careless so much as they didn't care because they thought they had an unbeatable sysetm.

Though the not encrypting peoples credit card numbers was negligent and careless.  They could get sued for that.

Wow, very childish.

 How many problems were there with the psn before he came along? How many are there now? The Psn and ps3 were fine before him from the inside sure its not a good system but for what 4years its been fine. He was very negligent and careless which is while he'll likely get sued for damages.


A) Has been established he can't be sued for damages.

B) There were a lot of problems with the PSN before this?   The credit card hacks existed well before he did anything.

C) There are STILL a lot less problems with PSN then there are 360 and PC in which you almost never run into a hacker anyway.  So you are essentially argueing that he "ruined PSN" by making it less "safe" from hacking, yet still MORE safe then 360, Wii, PC and basically every other system because this requires you to download a special firmware, that sony coudd detect, and then IP ban you... within a day if they wanted because they are sending every piece of information they can to corporate headquarters... and thanks to all this data, they can basically tell exactly who you are, so PSN users unbanning themselves and pretending to be other people wouldn't work.

D) Ok, now i'm sure you don't have the frame of refrence for this arguement and just want to be right, because you want to be right.

E) I would say it is childish to combine shit you don't want people to do, with shit that is illegal to do, because you hope it will cause people to not try and hack it.



markers on 25 February 2011

I skimmed through and noticed this,

"George Hotz (GeoHot) isn’t just a random kid, he’s our future. He should be celebrated and considered a role model for anyone interested in science and technology."

Yes he is the future. But so am I. And so our my friends, siblings, and any other random kid you can find on the street. George Hotz should in no way be celebrated nor considered a role model of any sort. He has talents, that is for sure, but he should keep some of his practices to himself.

 

'