About the car analogy: You can modify your car in any way you like. There is no law against modifying your car. However, depending on the modifications, you may no longer drive it on public roads. The legislator determines in which case you may or may not use public roads after modifying your car.

In the case of PS3 however, Sony, not the legislative body is trying to to tell you what you can and can't do with your hardware, in the privacy of your own home. Notice the difference? Sony is not the legislator, and it is not up to Sony to determine what you can do with stuff you own, in your own home. What they can do is bar you from using their online service PSN, which they own, with a modified PS3. And despite of what they'd like to make you believe, this really is the limit of their power over what you can and can't do.

EDIT: typo

I hope he spends the rest of his life in prison.

The truth is some people within the hacker community can't be trusted and these people cause a lot of damage morally and economically to the video game industry. BUt BUT calmador they wouldn't buy it anyways... that's ridiculous... in order to buy something you have to be interested in getting that item... pirates ARE interested in getting that item (video games), that's why they have it. They just don't want pay for it because they are shameless thieves, scum of society that need swift justice and judgment. If they don't want to support a bad game, or DRM... then they should just not buy the game, nothing more, nothing less[period] People can express themeselves by not buying the game, but people don't have to steal the game. The problem is people are stealing AND not buying the game. They have lied to themselves... and believe it.

Laws and punishments need to be placed. Track all pirates, put them in jail for a certain amount of time... no bail and as for hackers that allowed this, let them never be allowed to own or touch any technology so he/she may not make piracy or any other immoral behavior possible.

There is a lot of ignorance in this post, but I'll counter with just oe thing.

Consumers have obviously spoken, and businesses are bitching because consumers want/demand something that does not fit the business model. I say, let those damn businesses go bankrupt, and whoever finds a new business model that meets the new demands of the consumers will be absolutely damn rich. The rest can go die off with their shitty obsolete business models. As I said, corporations bend over and get railed by the consumer, not vice versa.

You didn't counter anything?

I wasn't exactly talking about any business model? So why talk about business models. All I said was, some hackers allow piracy... and that people pirate. Hackers and these pirates are doing something wrong and it is economically damaging.

Anyways of course consumers should be incharge... but like I said... they shouldn't steal which in turn is bad for the economy.

Piracy isn't stealing, that's your main fallacy in your argument.

Piracy is a sign of what consumers want. Ability to get something instantly, within minutes of their initial "i wanna listen/watch/play xxxxx," the ability to copy it wherever and whenever they wish, not having to pay ridiculous amounts of money for something they deem isn't worth the amount. There are many reasons for piracy, in fact this thread mentioned it. Pirates are just under-serviced consumers who demand something that they aren't getting. It's up to the businesses to find a way to provide for them, and whoever does will be rich, whever doesn't should go bankrupt. The thing is that incompetent businesses want to remove piracy because of their obsolete business models are hurt by it, as they should be.

Also, yes, this very much counters your entire misguided rant.

meh meh consumers rights to do what ever they want with their hardware. i have nothing wrong with that as long as it doesnt hurt the devs. woppy  doo it does. thats why it should be banned. the devs should make an army and go themselves with flamethrowers to kill hackers.

It's not the consumer/hacker's problem that the dev's business model hinges on the fact that the hardware will not be hacked. Any developer who doesn't think their hardware/software will be hacked should go out of business just because of sheer idiocy.

Piracy is getting something and not paying for it. It's stealing.

Making back-ups is fine... why are you talking about back ups? If somehing is not worth the amount then don't pay for it? People don't have steal it. If items are worth too much just don't pay for it. It's not rocket science. Pirates are under-serviced consumers, that's funny. I imagine some would like more, or how you put it under-serviced... that still doesn't give them the right to own something without paying for it. It is up to the businesses to find a way to provide for them... and if they fail the consumers still don't have a right to steal. Business are hurt just fine without by consumers not paying for thier products... but consumers are immoral when they enjoy something that isn't paid for.

Not one bit. It isn't misguided at all.

I hate to break your bubble:

I already saw that video a long time ago LOL it was funny on different levels.

It's still stealing... doesn't matter if it's digital or that it doesn't dissappear after it's stolen. Someone is getting somethng without paying for it. That alone makes it stealing[period]

In that little clip... it weighs morals on the basis of whether the action does something pysically or emotionally damaging and doesn't shed any light what so ever on the moral. The action causing pysical or emotional damage doesn't matter. The moral does and that's what it's about, piracy being immoral. Stealing. Although the economical affects are important too, the moral part is what truly makes it wrong.