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

Forums - Sony - Hacking Group: "It's the beginning of the end for Sony"

vlad321 on 31 May 2011

I am amused at how much, bitching, whining, and general childishness this THREAT to Sony has caused.

Now let me jump into the "Lockheed Martin got attacked" thread and express some hate towards hacking that's fully justified. Oh wait....

I love how hilariously terrible people's priorities are. ZOMG CENZORSHIPS OVER SONY!!111ONE!!!!ELEVEN1

Edit: I highly doubt any governments will give a shit about Sony and their plight due to incompetence. Now if they wanted they could use this as a scapegoat, but trust me, the reason would be something much more different (like the fucking attack on Lockheed-Martin, which actually has some significance over some company with crappy security that makes civilian goods).



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
d0nni3 on 31 May 2011
NJ5 said:
The Fury said:

While he didn't break the law he was still sued for harming Sony's products and potentially their profits which they are allowed to sue over.

If games are stolen because of piracy this is less money towards a developer which could easily put them out of business (Sony owned or not).

You don't think Apple would happily disabled any jailbroken phone if they could do it? Make it so that thousands of Apps don't get stolen every day? 

He was sued but that lawsuit didn't go anywhere (the settlement reached out of court was almost without consequences for Geohot). Sony can try to sue anyone, whether they're successful at it or not is a very different question.

Disabling access to Sony's network is a different matter, since that's not a guaranteed part of the sold product. Obviously people would get pissed off at Sony if they ended the PSN since it is advertised as part of the PS3 experience, but Sony is still allowed to restrict access to it.

Regarding the outright disabling of jailbroken products by Apple, I believe that would be a breach of the customer's rights and wouldn't hold up in court even if the "license agreement" theoretically allows them to do it.


You do realise the reason this got dragged on for so long was that the law in question was one big grey area, and the law about jailbreaking only applies to handheld devices.

I do agree that as a consumer we should be able to do what we want to our devices but releasing the security keys to the world to do with as they wish was a very bad move by Hotz and really damaged his case.

OT: I hope this comes to nothing i'm sick and tired of these people "fighting for my rights" when i want to do is play my ps3 online, i'm old enough to realise that nothing good comes out of "revolution" and nothing good will come out of this.

So what would happen if Sony fell the target moves and the war carries on



radishhead on 31 May 2011

....so, did anything happen? xD



Click this button, you know you want to!  [Subscribe]

Watch me on YouTube!

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRadishBros

~~~~ Mario Kart 8 drove far past my expectations! Never again will I doubt the wheels of a Monster Franchise! :0 ~~~~

NJ5 on 31 May 2011
The Fury said:
NJ5 said:

He was sued but that lawsuit didn't go anywhere (the settlement reached out of court was almost without consequences for Geohot). Sony can try to sue anyone, whether they're successful at it or not is a very different question.

Disabling access to Sony's network is a different matter, since that's not a guaranteed part of the sold product. Obviously people would get pissed off at Sony if they ended the PSN since it is advertised as part of the PS3 experience, but Sony is still allowed to restrict access to it.

Regarding the outright disabling of jailbroken products by Apple, I believe that would be a breach of the customer's rights and wouldn't hold up in court even if the "license agreement" theoretically allows them to do it.

The end result of the sueing wasn't to get money as Sony know Mr Hotz obviously has none but Sony got a result in that he is no longer allowed to own a Sony product. A victory for Sony even if a moral one. The discussion was about the legality of his actions and while not illegal, they did breach Sony's rights as a business.

People would get pissed true but Sony were nice enough to offer it to us to begin with. It's a privilege not a right. If they did take it away and put full blame on hackers I'd support them for doing so.

I reread it and realised disabling was a bad choice of words (reason why I editted it). Apple do need to guard their store from thefts and they should be doing all they can to do that. 


It seems to me that you're putting Sony's "rights as a business" above customers' rights. The big bully and the little guy...

I'm not sure why Hotz settled that way, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was just afraid of not being able to afford lawyers to fully defend himself until the end. Sony with its team of lawyers might be able to prolong the lawsuit ad nauseam until he's bankrupt. Again, the little guy vs the big bully (at least this time the little guy got off relatively unharmed).



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

vlad321 on 31 May 2011
NJ5 said:
The Fury said:

While he didn't break the law he was still sued for harming Sony's products and potentially their profits which they are allowed to sue over.

If games are stolen because of piracy this is less money towards a developer which could easily put them out of business (Sony owned or not).

You don't think Apple would happily disabled any jailbroken phone if they could do it? Make it so that thousands of Apps don't get stolen every day? 

He was sued but that lawsuit didn't go anywhere (the settlement reached out of court was almost without consequences for Geohot). Sony can try to sue anyone, whether they're successful at it or not is a very different question.

Disabling access to Sony's network is a different matter, since that's not a guaranteed part of the sold product. Obviously people would get pissed off at Sony if they ended the PSN since it is advertised as part of the PS3 experience, but Sony is still allowed to restrict access to it.

Regarding the outright disabling of jailbroken products by Apple, I believe that would be a breach of the customer's rights and wouldn't hold up in court even if the "license agreement" theoretically allows them to do it.


Wasn't there that whole part where the Copyrights office allowed the iPhone to be hacked open and custom firmware and stuff allowed to be installed? I highly doubt that they would have sided with Sony on this issue.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
Galaki on 31 May 2011
d0nni3 said:

releasing the security keys to the world

Note that it is Sony at fault here for using a freaking static master key. Even rookie should know better.



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms

brendude13 on 31 May 2011
NJ5 said:
Ajescent said:
NJ5 said:
S____M____C____C said:

All this 'Sony hate' is bullshit. These hackers don't genuinely hate Sony. There's not much to hate them for!


Have you been living under a rock? Sony is particularly keen to pound on the "little guy" (see Lik Sang, George Hotz), they unapologetically infect their own customers' private PCs with malware (see rootkit scandal) and they remove features from their systems without giving anything back.

Most big corporations have skeletons in their closets, but Sony has been reaping particularly bad karma in the recent future.

The little guy deserves to be smashed if he draws first blood.


Another one who thinks people don't have the right to hack stuff that belongs to them?

That has been discussed at length in other threads. I guess you belong to the team which thinks consoles still belong to Sony after they already sold them. So nothing new to argue about here either...

Pffft, you honestly defend piracy?



NJ5 on 31 May 2011
brendude13 said:
NJ5 said:


Another one who thinks people don't have the right to hack stuff that belongs to them?

That has been discussed at length in other threads. I guess you belong to the team which thinks consoles still belong to Sony after they already sold them. So nothing new to argue about here either...

Pffft, you honestly defend piracy?


Read my post again... or any of the other posts I wrote in this thread. What makes you think I'm defending piracy?



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Rainbird on 31 May 2011
Galaki said:
d0nni3 said:

releasing the security keys to the world

Note that it is Sony at fault here for using a freaking static master key. Even rookie should know better.

I agree that Sony fucked up on that part, but how exactly are they at fault for the key being released to the public?



The Fury on 31 May 2011
NJ5 said:
The Fury said:

The end result of the sueing wasn't to get money as Sony know Mr Hotz obviously has none but Sony got a result in that he is no longer allowed to own a Sony product. A victory for Sony even if a moral one. The discussion was about the legality of his actions and while not illegal, they did breach Sony's rights as a business.

People would get pissed true but Sony were nice enough to offer it to us to begin with. It's a privilege not a right. If they did take it away and put full blame on hackers I'd support them for doing so.

I reread it and realised disabling was a bad choice of words (reason why I editted it). Apple do need to guard their store from thefts and they should be doing all they can to do that. 


It seems to me that you're putting Sony's "rights as a business" above customers' rights. The big bully and the little guy...

I'm not sure why Hotz settled that way, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was just afraid of not being able to afford lawyers to fully defend himself until the end. Sony with its team of lawyers might be able to prolong the lawsuit ad nauseam until he's bankrupt. Again, the little guy vs the big bully (at least this time the little guy got off relatively unharmed).

In this case it is about rights of a company because of my view on who owns the Software installed on a PS3. I can do what the hell I like to my physical PS3, I can take a baseball bat to it, shoot it with a gun, make sweet love to it if I really want and Sony can do nothing about it (of course maybe the UK Police might after they find out I own an illegal firearm or did something unspeakable). But a piece of software is not the same and has many more rules attached to it, you licence software in whatever form, you don't buy. This is why I see as what he did as wrong, it wasn't his software to tamper with and it certainly wasn't his master code to release. If he was a good person he would have told Sony about this obvious flaw, let them fix it with an update and never updated his PS3 so he can create all the homebrew he wants. Sony might have thanked him for that.

I'd presume he settled because of costs, his laywers would have said, 'You can't afford this or us, settle', Sony didn't want the added expence but were making a point. I'm a little guy and nothing Sony (the big bully) has done has harmed me, it's other 'little guys' who have.



Hmm, pie.