You just have to be in the right state if you're in the U.S. for some instances or the right country in others.

NC auto laws are a lot more lenient than CA laws which is how I was able to register what was essentially a track car for public road use when I lived in NC. Firearms laws are much stricter in CA as well in terms of what you can and can't own or even ship into the state. I'm talking legally here. I could give a rat's ass about what someone claims they can or have actually stolen, smuggled, illegally acquired or whatever whether it's a fully automatic .22LR or a 105mm howitzer.

Plenty of countries have pretty harsh penalties for having any type of firearms at all (Japan, Korea, etc.) and in others owning an automatic Kalashnikov is the equivalent of owning a baseball bat for home defense as there are either no firearms laws or they aren't enforced. Ironically, in these countries they can be bought for about the same amount of money as what you'd pay for a quality baseball bat in the U.S.

Man, how desperate people are to turn this into a thread about cars and guns.

It all stemmed from the fallacious belief that once you buy something, you are free to do anything with it.

When that couldn't be proven by law, the arguments focused on the analogies instead.

I must admit that i'm surprised people think like that.

In fairness the entire debate is flawed because if it comes down to the simple point of you are only allowed to do stuff that isn't illegal then it brings you back to the beginning of why this case is going to the courts.  Sony believe Mr Hotz actions are illegal, he maintains they aren't, one of these entities is going to be proven wrong and that will this end the debate on here regardless of who is morally right.

It occurs to me that you might not appreciate exactly how perfect your car metaphor (simile?) actually is. Granted you can't use it on a public road (Live,  PSN, etc.), but there is nothing that legally stops you from making the modifications in the first place. Insofar as that goes, you can do more or less anything with it so long as you don't turn it into a bomb.

When did this become about going on XBL or PSN with an illegal PS3? It's about whether you can modify your PS3 to your desire and share those results with others.

Absolutely all your analogies are extremely fallacious. They all pertain to how you can't do illegal things with items, not what you can do to your items. The simple fact is that you are within yoru legal right to change yoru car, and I bet you read how to do it some place.

As for weapons, I can murder you with my lamp or pencil if I wanted to. Don't even get me started on my kitchen knife, because I am sure beyond any reasonable doubt that it's a FAR more dangerous weapon than the PS3. Even my butter knife is moe dangerous than the PS3. In fact I find it absolutely hilarious that out of everything in my room, you pick one of the most harmless objects. I should give you credit that you didn't talk about my bed or my wardrobe, since they are only marginally less useful as weapons.

What I am talking about is that I can do whatever I want to my knife. I can remove its handle and give it a super awesome auto-cut-all handle of awesome. I can go and publish it and I can even go ahead and use it to do whatever I want to do with my auto cutting knife that doesn't involve crimes. I can very easily do whatever I want to do to my knife, and share it online and with others. Because I bought the knife with my own money, it's mine to do as I wish. Same with the PS3, I can mod it, change it, rip it apart, hack the hardware, whatever, and I should be able to share it with everyone else. I paid money for it, and it's mine to do as I please.

I find it baffling that there are people out there who are willing to just bend over and get railed by corporations. Corporations bend over for the consumer, not vice versa.

Edit: I just need people to realize how clinically retarded it is to have a business model that hinges on giving people hardware, and not have it hacked open. If you give a person hardware there is 0 chance that it will not be opened, because the hardware is right there. Maybe if companies expected to have their hardware hacked, and didn't count on it not being hacked, then we wouldn't see crap like this lawsuit. In fact I don't undertand why laws exist to protect crappy business models when they should clearly be abolished in favor of newer better ones.

Besides guns and houses this is true. You haven't proved you can't do what ever you want to your car. You can infact do waht ever you want, you just can't take  it on public roads.

You can modify your computer how ever you want also. Of course you can not hack other people equiptment but we aren't talking about that we are talking about hacking your own equiptment. Big difference.

Beside all of that we are only talking about jailbreaking the ps3. Not hacking the PSN nor pirating games.

Regardless of how the civil suit turns out, I really don't see how this determines anything in terms of "morality," just legal liability. Apples and oranges. If Hotz didn't commit perjury regarding the PSN account, taking "donations" for his work, illegally procuring or distributing ROMs, source code or materials, etc. and he really believes what he's doing by his perspective is some sort of moral obligation to distribute this information for the public benefit, then I don't see how his being found liable by a court proves he was "morally" wrong.

On the other hand, if there are any inconsistencies that contradict his binding statements, either he has selective memory, he's a sociopath or he was knowingly committing perjury in an attempt to avoid the consequences of his actions. In any of those instances, regardless of whether the courts rule in his favor, he'd still be morally wrong, even if he wasn't found liable by law.

As I said, it is determing what is legal regardless of the morality side of the debate.