Exactly. And this lawsuit outcome will decide about the fate of all jailbreaks and hacks - that don't exactly have any connection to piracy, like Kinect hacks.Numachuka said:
EFF Calls Sony's Lawsuit Against PS3 Hackers "Dangerous"
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
We could apply that logic of "It allows people to do other stuff" to many other areas. For example: Should we ban people from modifying cars purely because they could plant a bomb in the car and use it for a suicide bomb?icame said:
Should we ban people from modifying computers because they could be used for illegal stuff?
Should we ban the use of proxies because people could use them to download child pornography and/or copyrighted material?
Should we ban the use of game mods because they could be used to train people to commit massacres?
The list goes on, most people will only hack the PS3 so that they can mess around with their own mods in single player.
That PS3 is theirs though. In most Western, countries, buying a piece of electronic entertainment equipment does not mean you "own" that equipment; it means that you own the privilege to use that equipment. You can do pretty much what you want with it, but if the maker/designer catches you not being above-board with it, they have the reserved right to stop you or take it away.stinkychops said:
Thats different from a "PC" or computer, in that no one faction truly "owns" that idea. But Sony wholly owns the idea and product of the Playstation, making it their toy, not yours.
And the EFF forgets the scale of this matter, and why Sony is doing this. What these hackers have done has compromised, nay, completely annihilated any semblance of integrity the PS3 had. They didn't just make so that their system could run homebrew games, or play illegal copies of games; they made it so that every little motherhubbard out-there can do whatever the fuck they want with the PS3, and Sony can't stop them. Unless they can fix it, its going to be JTAG Modern Warfare 2 all over again, except 7x worse.
The hackers may not have cast the first stone, but they left the big ass pile of rocks on Sony's lawn for everyone else to use. And that makes them just as guilty for what happens afterwards as the people who do it.
I see another Supreme Court Case in the works. You have one Court of Appeals say in a case: Vernor v Autodesk, which the EFF hated. Sorta tip toed around the issue by stating the software was a license to begin with and didn't need a license agreement.
Then you have federal regulators making exceptions to thing like Jailbreaking.
But those exception are:
*Mobile devices to switch carriers.
*Video Game DRM to find security flaws.
Nothing in the regulation about jailbreaking video game consoles to do other things. Don't most Jailbreaks on console have to do with software too? The minute you start messing with the software, then it is really going be trouble.
Then you have federal regulators making exceptions to thing like Jailbreaking.
But those exception are:
*Mobile devices to switch carriers.
*Video Game DRM to find security flaws.
Nothing in the regulation about jailbreaking video game consoles to do other things. Don't most Jailbreaks on console have to do with software too? The minute you start messing with the software, then it is really going be trouble.
What I said on Gamespot:
Against the EFF on this one.
When Sony removed Linux (which I was against), it was made very clear that you could continue to use it but you wouldn't be able to hook up to the PS network anymore. So you can still use the hardware as you wish but you won't be able to use the network.
As for "security research", Hotz and company weren't doing this for security research. They were doing it as part of their own tantrum for Linux being removed. Sony probably still wouldn't have sued except fail0verflow had to grandstand and shout far and wide how they had beaten it. Actual security researchers are hired by a company and they keep their findings private.
While I believe that Sony, in the end, deserves this for pulling Linux which was a feature that they had marketed the PS3 for, the EFF is just lying through their teeth about the suit so they can get sympathy
As a sidenote,
And, since we're on the subject of cars and suicide bombs, if someone did modify a car to be a suicide bomb then drove it into Times Square and let it go off, would you consider a defense of "I was just doing security research on the car" to be a valid defense?
Against the EFF on this one.
When Sony removed Linux (which I was against), it was made very clear that you could continue to use it but you wouldn't be able to hook up to the PS network anymore. So you can still use the hardware as you wish but you won't be able to use the network.
As for "security research", Hotz and company weren't doing this for security research. They were doing it as part of their own tantrum for Linux being removed. Sony probably still wouldn't have sued except fail0verflow had to grandstand and shout far and wide how they had beaten it. Actual security researchers are hired by a company and they keep their findings private.
While I believe that Sony, in the end, deserves this for pulling Linux which was a feature that they had marketed the PS3 for, the EFF is just lying through their teeth about the suit so they can get sympathy
As a sidenote,
The example is inaccurate because you can modify your cars all you want. You just may not be able to use public roads if you modify them too far. It is illegal (in the U.S. anyway) to drive a Demolition Derby car or a Monster Truck on public roads. When Sony removed Other OS, it was pointed out numerous times that you can still use the PS3. You just won't be able to use the network. You could also argue that you also couldn't play newer games as a lot of them have security updates but that's the risk you take when modifying things for Homebrew.Haelium said:
And, since we're on the subject of cars and suicide bombs, if someone did modify a car to be a suicide bomb then drove it into Times Square and let it go off, would you consider a defense of "I was just doing security research on the car" to be a valid defense?
Talking about cars compared to games here:
The cars in question are leased cars. There are makes and models out there that the only option is to lease them from a dealer. You don't technically own a leased car, so you can't modify a leased car. It is all in the lease agreement. You don't agree to that, you can't drive away with one, unless you steal it.
The cars in question are leased cars. There are makes and models out there that the only option is to lease them from a dealer. You don't technically own a leased car, so you can't modify a leased car. It is all in the lease agreement. You don't agree to that, you can't drive away with one, unless you steal it.