Game and console are different things, with game you just purchase a license. Anyhow, whatever are your rights on both HW and SW, if you give up any right on them without asking others to do the same you are totally right, if you exercise any right on them without negatively affecting other users rights, you're totally right too. If I mod my HW to cheat at playing games with you I am not right. But not because I modded my HW, because I used it to cheat, and I'd be wrong even if I cheated WITHOUT modding. If I kill innocent people hitting them in the head with a rolling pin or a stockfish, I'm not less guilty than if I do it using blades or firearms, and using a firearm as it was built wouldn't make me less guilty than using a modified one (although in this case I could be charged for other crimes too in many countries), murder would be my crime in any case. If instead of modding a PS3 I used a computer with a cheating PS3 emulator to rip you off, I'd be a cheater anyway, the guilt is in the way and purpose you use an instrument, not in the instrumet itself. Finally, if I mod my PS3, or XB360, or Wii, or Intellivision, etc. to run homebrew or anything else, without affecting you or anybody else, I'm right. But obviously I CAN'T pretend to access PSN or XBL, as their TOS require me to use an unmodded console and unmodded, authorized SW on them. PSN and XBL are Sony's and MS' networks, they own them and they have every right to set the rules I must respect to use them. They are masters at their home just like I am at mine, I can mod a console to use it in my house but not in theirs, they can set their rules to enter their network, but not for my private network. If you want an example, in general, at my home, and mostly also outdoors I can wear whatever shoes I want, but I must wear plastic or rubber flip-flops or wooden or plastic or rubber clogs at a swimming pool (unless I am the swimming pool owner or I receive the owner's permission to wear anything else).

Sorry, misplaced my glasses(a couple years ago) and misread your post. Sure, they can.I see no problem with people doing that to get back on PSN/ XBL. Nothing legally wrong with it anyways. Of course they can then have their consoles permanently banned, which is within Sony and MS's rights as trhe platform( as in PSN/ XBL) holder to do. 

Having the right to hack or modify a piece of hardware as you see fit is different than having the ability to take it onto a network owned by the console maker.  One involves doing something in your possession, and the other involves having something to do with using the said device in a service provided by the company. 

Another examples is individuals who tinker with their own equipment.  They can void the warrantees they have on their equipment by tinkering.  The manufacturer has ever right to refuse to service equipment you voided the warranty on.

@o_O.Q

A individuals rights end when they impinge on the rights of others. That said among the rights granted is the right to hold property. Thus we have the crime of trespassing. Property is a domain that is deniable to others for any reason except for those that are precluded by laws established for the common good. That said Microsoft and Sony can deny access to their property to anyone who fails to meet their preconditions for entry. Further more those conditions are hardly arbitrary. In that they protect both the owners security and property, but also the safety and property of their guests.

Modified hardware can also be malicious hardware. Both Sony and Microsoft have a legal right to defend both their own property, and themselves. Further more they have a right to protect their users which are effectively guests under their own roofs. They further more function under rules of hospitality. Their guests have a reasonable expectation to be cared for in a good manner. The companies have obligations to protect them from harm so far as it is in their power to quite reasonably do so.

Microsoft and Sony have the right to protect themselves and others. Further more it is expected of them to do so. Thus they do not have to allow anyone access that they can reasonably view as a threat. Either to themselves or to others. Honestly this isn't all that complex. Frankly you should be well versed in this concept seeing as most everyone without regard to borders by the age of six should be fluent in both the concept of others and others stuff. Hell most primates are familiar with the concept. You cannot use someone elses stuff without their permission. Civilization is based upon the concept of ownership.

Now if your arguing that concepts of ownership, space, and self defense are beyond you. Then I would argue that you are being intentionally dense, and thus just trolling. Not even halfway decent trolling at that. Yeah sure whatever, but if your going to keep on this line. I think it is just a good argument for people to ignore you from now on. Sure I think the occassional troll or devils advocate is fun, but they should at least put a little effort into that.

Except... he wasn't.  He can own all the Sony products he want.  He just can't hack and distribute them.  Which would be you know... the exact same "punishment" if he didn't hack and distribute sony products.

Sony was going to lose... and they knew it... and they aborted.  Or more specifically knew they were just going to probably get dismissed and not be able to stretch it out... and that they were greatly losing the battle of public opinion.

What they should of done was ignore him in the first place... like Microsoft and other successful software companies do with hackers.  What Sony never seems to get is.... hackers increase your buisness.  Not decrease it.  They should look at the impressive PSP hardware numbers and the complete lack of interest to buy it's software, despite it being way less pirateable then the DS.

If they kept going... all they would of done is completely screwed themselves over.  It's like the RIAA.  They keep sueing individual customers to make a point... the few times the individual customers fought back?  They lost hard.

What they should of done was instead of paying the 2 million dollars they spent on the lawsuit, gave it to someone as salary to bother to join the a security mailing list and update the servers once in a blue moon.

Because it's not illegal to ban people from Xbox live?

You know... just how Malls can ban people from malls for doing dumbass non illegal things.

The online networks are private property of the company.

Just like consoles are the private property of the consumers.

Oh man, I wonder how many people are not going to like this:

http://ps3.gamespy.com/articles/116/1166190p1.html

Anonymous Denies Involvement in PSN Data Theft

Last month, an unknown party managed to break into Sony's servers and acquired millions of customer records including credit card numbers. Insomuch as that this incident occurred in the midst of Anonymous' OpSony, by which participants engaged in several of our standard information war procedures against the corporation and its executives, Sony and other parties have come to blame Anonymous for the heist. Today, in a letter directed to members of Congress involved in an inquiry into the situation, Sony claimed to have discovered a file on its servers, presumably left by the thieves in question, entitled "Anonymous" and containing a fragment of our slogan, "We are Legion." In response, we would like to raise the following points:

1. Anonymous has never been known to have engaged in credit card theft.

2. Many of our corporate and governmental adversaries, on the other hand, have been known to have lied to the public about Anonymous and about their own activities. HBGary, for instance, was caught lying a number of times to the press, to the public, and to Anonymous itself (in this phone call, for instance, ( http://tinyurl.com/68pbdj8) CEO Aaron Barr makes a number of untrue statements regarding the intent of his "research," claiming for instance that he never tried to sell the information to the FBI when e-mails acquired soon showed that he had been set to do just that; executive Karen Burke was also caught lying to Bloomberg about having not seen an incriminating e-mail that she had in fact replied to just a few days before). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce lied about not having seen the criminal proposal created by them for Team Themis; Palantir lied about not having any idea what their employees were up to; Berico publicly denounced a plan that they had actively engaged in creating; etc. There is no corporation in existence will choose the truth when lies are more convenient.

3. To the contrary, Anonymous is an ironically transparent movement that allows reporters in to our operating channels to observe us at work and which has been extraordinarily candid with the press when commenting on our own activities, which is why reporters prefer to talk to us for truthful accounts of the situation rather than go to our degenerate enemies to be lied to.

4. Whoever broke into Sony's servers to steal the credit card info and left a document blaming Anonymous clearly wanted Anonymous to be blamed for the most significant digital theft in history. No one who is actually associated with our movement would do something that would prompt a massive law enforcement response. On the other hand, a group of standard online thieves would have every reason to frame Anonymous in order to put law enforcement off the track. The framing of others for crimes has been a common practice throughout history.

5. It should be remembered that several federal contractors such as HBGary and Palantir have been caught planning a variety of unethical and potentially criminal conspiracies by which to discredit the enemies of their clients. This is not a theory – this is a fact that has been reported at great length by dozens of journalists with major publications. Insomuch as that our enemies have either engaged in or planned to engage in false flag efforts, it should not be surprising that many of the journalists who have covered us, who know who we are and what motivates us – and who have alternatively seen the monstrous behavior of those large and "respectable" firms that are all too happy to throw aside common decency at the behest of such clients as Bank of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – also have their suspicions that some capable party performed this operation as a means by which to do great damage to Anonymous in the public eye. Those who consider such a prospect to be somehow unlikely are advised to read about what was proposed by Team Themis in their efforts to destroy Wikileaks, and should otherwise take a few minutes to learn about COINTELPRO and other admitted practices by the U.S. intelligence community. The fact is that Anonymous has brought a great deal of discomfort to powerful entities such as Booz Allen Hamilton, Palantir, and much of the federal government; the Justice Department in particular is likely unhappy that our efforts revealed that it was they themselves who recommended the now-discredited "law firm" Hunton & Williams to Bank of America in order that the latter might better be able to fight back against Wikileaks. All of this is now public record, and anyone who finds it laughable that those or other entities may have again engaged in tactics that they are known to have engaged in in the past is not qualified to comment on the situation.

Anonymous will continue its work in support of transparency and individual liberty; our adversaries will continue their work in support of secrecy and control. The FBI will continue to investigate us for crimes of civil disobediance while continuing to ignore the crimes planned by major corporations with which they are in league.

We do not forget, even if others fail to remember. We not forgive, even if others forgive our enemies for those things for which we are attacked. We are legion, and will remain so no matter how many of our participants are raided by armed agents of a broken system.

We are Anonymous.

Well... nothing they said was really... untrue.

I woulc challenge ' Anonymous is an ironically transparent movement'.

Transparency does not mean hiding behind online anonymity...

No excuse at all. If it was Microsoft or Nintendo in the same situation, I'd still be on the side of consumer rights.

Don't think for a second that this has anything to do about what "team" you support.

you may not have felt that Sony violated your rights, but many others do. You're speaking for the minority, who believe it's okay for a company to screw you, so along as you don't have to admit you're wrong.