EFF Calls Sony's Lawsuit Against PS3 Hackers "Dangerous"

[JDKJ]

A note to all alarmists. The Wii, XBOX360, iPhone, android, and countless other platforms have all been opened up to piracy. That has not stopped any of them from being profitable. Only Sony claims the sky is falling and developers will leave forever if 1% of the people who pirate of the 1% of the people who use this information of the 1% of the people who use the system are now a lost sale, as if they would buy it in the first place. It certainly doesn't make the other .99% criminals for the act of the .01%.

I want my linux back, I had both consoles in my had and chose the PS3 for it's dual use. I am not nearly the only one. But even leaving that out, what right do any of you have to say what I am allowed to do with my own hardware for personal use that will never affect you?

Why do you keep repeating "hardware" as if it's some kind of mantra? When 90% of what makes a console something other than a glorified over-sized paperweight is the software in it?

 

[Firestorm65]

A note to all alarmists. The Wii, XBOX360, iPhone, android, and countless other platforms have all been opened up to piracy. That has not stopped any of them from being profitable. Only Sony claims the sky is falling and developers will leave forever if 1% of the people who pirate of the 1% of the people who use this information of the 1% of the people who use the system are now a lost sale, as if they would buy it in the first place. It certainly doesn't make the other .99% criminals for the act of the .01%.

I want my linux back, I had both consoles in my had and chose the PS3 for it's dual use. I am not nearly the only one. But even leaving that out, what right do any of you have to say what I am allowed to do with my own hardware for personal use that will never affect you?

Why do you keep repeating "hardware" as if it's some kind of mantra? When 90% of what makes a console something other than a glorified over-sized paperweight is the software in it?

Because this entire lawsuit is about hardware. I feel you are the one ignoring that. The guys found a HARDWARE chip that was impeding putting their own software on, and circumvented it through reverse-engineering. To say this in not a hardware case is to misconstrue what actually occurred.

Coincidentally, because it was a hardware security measure is why Sony is so alarmed by this, they can't fix it with a patch.

 

[JDKJ]

I'm not going to quote to reply, but notice how there are a lot of "for personal use" and "to the limits of the law"? Also note termination voids warranty and PSN access, but is not, in of itself, a crime. They reserve the right to sue you if you agree to it, but you didn't sign this if you used the console offline. I know neither one of us wants to let it go, but don't you realize you are saying your right to give up something you are not required to is more important than people exercising the rights they do have. Furthermore, the people they are suing aren't even US citizens, despite filing the claim in the US.

You don't have to sign it. In fact, they don't request your signature. Did you not read the part that says your use of the software implies consent? Consent by use is well-recognized under U.S. law. No signature required.

You can sue someone in a U.S. court under U.S. law despite the fact that they aren't a a U.S. citizen. Happens every day, all day.

It's not legally binding.

Let me ask you this. That EULA was dated 2009. What happens when the user of a launch PS3 doesn't agree to the 2009 EULA? He can't return the console, it's well past it's return date (usually 90 days) and likely past it's warranty.

Why did he sit on it for 90 days if he knew he wasn't going to agree to the EULA terms? That makes no sense. If he isn't going to agree, it shouldn't take him three months to figure that out and then seek a refund or credit. I would think ninety minutes should be more than enough time to decide that you're not in agreement.

You're missing the point.

The PS3 is a launch model - it was bought in 2006
The EULA is dated 2009 - 3 years after he bought his PS3

If he does not agree with the 2009 EULA, what is his recourse? The PS3 is out of warranty at that point and he certainly can't return it to the store. So, what should someone do?

I'd imagine that the EULA in force during that time was dated more in keeping with the time. I suspect that Sony periodically revises and re-dates them. I wouldn't get hung up on a date, if I were you.

I am hung up on it and you are avoiding it.

Let's pretend that I have a launch PS3 and let's pretend there was an EULA dated 2006. I agreed to it and went about my business. 2 years ago though, Sony revised the EULA and I no longer agree to it due to a change. If I have no recourse then the EULA is as worthless as the light beams putting it on my TV screen.

If that were legally binding then they could change them to EULC. End User License Commandment because there is no agreement involved.

As stated in the EULA:

"Please check back on this website from time to time for changes to this Agreement. Your continued access to or use of the System Software will signify your acceptance of any changes to this Agreement."

If you don't agree to any changes that Sony may make to the terms of the Agreement, then you can discontinue use of the software. Plain and simple.

 

[Sutter Cane]

I'm not going to quote to reply, but notice how there are a lot of "for personal use" and "to the limits of the law"? Also note termination voids warranty and PSN access, but is not, in of itself, a crime. They reserve the right to sue you if you agree to it, but you didn't sign this if you used the console offline. I know neither one of us wants to let it go, but don't you realize you are saying your right to give up something you are not required to is more important than people exercising the rights they do have. Furthermore, the people they are suing aren't even US citizens, despite filing the claim in the US.

You don't have to sign it. In fact, they don't request your signature. Did you not read the part that says your use of the software implies consent? Consent by use is well-recognized under U.S. law. No signature required.

You can sue someone in a U.S. court under U.S. law despite the fact that they aren't a a U.S. citizen. Happens every day, all day.

It's not legally binding.

Let me ask you this. That EULA was dated 2009. What happens when the user of a launch PS3 doesn't agree to the 2009 EULA? He can't return the console, it's well past it's return date (usually 90 days) and likely past it's warranty.

Why did he sit on it for 90 days if he knew he wasn't going to agree to the EULA terms? That makes no sense. If he isn't going to agree, it shouldn't take him three months to figure that out and then seek a refund or credit. I would think ninety minutes should be more than enough time to decide that you're not in agreement.

You're missing the point.

The PS3 is a launch model - it was bought in 2006
The EULA is dated 2009 - 3 years after he bought his PS3

If he does not agree with the 2009 EULA, what is his recourse? The PS3 is out of warranty at that point and he certainly can't return it to the store. So, what should someone do?

I'd imagine that the EULA in force during that time was dated more in keeping with the time. I suspect that Sony periodically revises and re-dates them. I wouldn't get hung up on a date, if I were you.

I am hung up on it and you are avoiding it.

Let's pretend that I have a launch PS3 and let's pretend there was an EULA dated 2006. I agreed to it and went about my business. 2 years ago though, Sony revised the EULA and I no longer agree to it due to a change. If I have no recourse then the EULA is as worthless as the light beams putting it on my TV screen.

If that were legally binding then they could change them to EULC. End User License Commandment because there is no agreement involved.

As stated in the EULA:

"Please check back on this website from time to time for changes to this Agreement. Your continued access to or use of the System Software will signify your acceptance of any changes to this Agreement."

If you don't agree to any changes that Sony make make to the terms of the Agreement, then you can discontinue use of the software. Plain and simple.

Missing the entire point. The point i believe the other user was trying to make is that if you bought the console before the EULA changed, and then you disagreed with the change made, you, the consumer, is SOL seeing as the console is past its return date. The consumer has only 2 options, consent to the new EULA, or to stop using the product with no pooprtunity for refund, which shouldn't be allowed to happen IMHO

 

[JDKJ]

A note to all alarmists. The Wii, XBOX360, iPhone, android, and countless other platforms have all been opened up to piracy. That has not stopped any of them from being profitable. Only Sony claims the sky is falling and developers will leave forever if 1% of the people who pirate of the 1% of the people who use this information of the 1% of the people who use the system are now a lost sale, as if they would buy it in the first place. It certainly doesn't make the other .99% criminals for the act of the .01%.

I want my linux back, I had both consoles in my had and chose the PS3 for it's dual use. I am not nearly the only one. But even leaving that out, what right do any of you have to say what I am allowed to do with my own hardware for personal use that will never affect you?

Why do you keep repeating "hardware" as if it's some kind of mantra? When 90% of what makes a console something other than a glorified over-sized paperweight is the software in it?

Because this entire lawsuit is about hardware. I feel you are the one ignoring that. The guys found a HARDWARE chip that was impeding putting their own software on, and circumvented it through reverse-engineering. To say this in not a hardware case is to misconstrue what actually occurred.

Coincidentally, because it was a hardware security measure is why Sony is so alarmed by this, they can't fix it with a patch.

A piece of hardware, as you claim, was an impediment to a software modification and this case, you say, is all about hardware? And has nothing to with the software? LOL.

 

[Firestorm65]

While wikipedia is not the end-all, it is a good portal to what I was searching for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement I follow this as an enthusiast not a career, so I admit I didn't know how split the decision is. Essentially it has been ruled both ways: some are, some aren't. Counter-intuitively, it depends on the judge, not the law.

 

[Firestorm65]

A note to all alarmists. The Wii, XBOX360, iPhone, android, and countless other platforms have all been opened up to piracy. That has not stopped any of them from being profitable. Only Sony claims the sky is falling and developers will leave forever if 1% of the people who pirate of the 1% of the people who use this information of the 1% of the people who use the system are now a lost sale, as if they would buy it in the first place. It certainly doesn't make the other .99% criminals for the act of the .01%.

I want my linux back, I had both consoles in my had and chose the PS3 for it's dual use. I am not nearly the only one. But even leaving that out, what right do any of you have to say what I am allowed to do with my own hardware for personal use that will never affect you?

Why do you keep repeating "hardware" as if it's some kind of mantra? When 90% of what makes a console something other than a glorified over-sized paperweight is the software in it?

Because this entire lawsuit is about hardware. I feel you are the one ignoring that. The guys found a HARDWARE chip that was impeding putting their own software on, and circumvented it through reverse-engineering. To say this in not a hardware case is to misconstrue what actually occurred.

Coincidentally, because it was a hardware security measure is why Sony is so alarmed by this, they can't fix it with a patch.

A piece of hardware, as you claim, was an impediment to a software modification and this case, you say, is all about hardware? And has nothing to with the software? LOL.

Sony doesn't own linux. They can't exclude it from their system by saying you can't use their software except on Y terms. The software we are talking about is NOT the software owned by Sony. Sony just has a stake because it involves their hardware and they *feel* entitled even if they aren't.

 

[JDKJ]

I'm not going to quote to reply, but notice how there are a lot of "for personal use" and "to the limits of the law"? Also note termination voids warranty and PSN access, but is not, in of itself, a crime. They reserve the right to sue you if you agree to it, but you didn't sign this if you used the console offline. I know neither one of us wants to let it go, but don't you realize you are saying your right to give up something you are not required to is more important than people exercising the rights they do have. Furthermore, the people they are suing aren't even US citizens, despite filing the claim in the US.

You don't have to sign it. In fact, they don't request your signature. Did you not read the part that says your use of the software implies consent? Consent by use is well-recognized under U.S. law. No signature required.

You can sue someone in a U.S. court under U.S. law despite the fact that they aren't a a U.S. citizen. Happens every day, all day.

It's not legally binding.

Let me ask you this. That EULA was dated 2009. What happens when the user of a launch PS3 doesn't agree to the 2009 EULA? He can't return the console, it's well past it's return date (usually 90 days) and likely past it's warranty.

Why did he sit on it for 90 days if he knew he wasn't going to agree to the EULA terms? That makes no sense. If he isn't going to agree, it shouldn't take him three months to figure that out and then seek a refund or credit. I would think ninety minutes should be more than enough time to decide that you're not in agreement.

You're missing the point.

The PS3 is a launch model - it was bought in 2006
The EULA is dated 2009 - 3 years after he bought his PS3

If he does not agree with the 2009 EULA, what is his recourse? The PS3 is out of warranty at that point and he certainly can't return it to the store. So, what should someone do?

I'd imagine that the EULA in force during that time was dated more in keeping with the time. I suspect that Sony periodically revises and re-dates them. I wouldn't get hung up on a date, if I were you.

I am hung up on it and you are avoiding it.

Let's pretend that I have a launch PS3 and let's pretend there was an EULA dated 2006. I agreed to it and went about my business. 2 years ago though, Sony revised the EULA and I no longer agree to it due to a change. If I have no recourse then the EULA is as worthless as the light beams putting it on my TV screen.

If that were legally binding then they could change them to EULC. End User License Commandment because there is no agreement involved.

As stated in the EULA:

"Please check back on this website from time to time for changes to this Agreement. Your continued access to or use of the System Software will signify your acceptance of any changes to this Agreement."

If you don't agree to any changes that Sony make make to the terms of the Agreement, then you can discontinue use of the software. Plain and simple.

Missing the entire point. The point i believe the other user was trying to make is that if you bought the console before the EULA changed, and then you disagreed with the change made, you, the consumer, is SOL seeing as the console is past its return date. The consumer has only 2 options, consent to the new EULA, or to stop using the product with no pooprtunity for refund, which shouldn't be allowed to happen IMHO

Then the consumer shouldn't have agreed to the EULA in the first place They were told beforehand and agreed the first time around that the terms could be change whenever the licensor felt like doing so. They knew or should have known back then what their options were going to be in the event that the terms were in fact changed. That was their time to not get on the train if they didn't like the direction in which it was headed. But, having chosen to get on it, they can now either ride it all the way or get off.

 

[Firestorm65]

I concede defeat. I think the laws as they stand are stupid, my reading of the complaint, license, law, etc would lead me to rule no law was broken. However Sony is going to fight it anyway, and since I have no real qualms with you, let's just hope they DON'T say you don't own what you buy just because it comes with some specific 1's preinstalled instead of pure 0's.

The logic would say Microsoft or Apple or HP or Dell could simply declare Linux against the EULA and you'd be SOL from buying a used desktop they sold years ago to a different person? Do you see how that doesn't make sense, factory preinstalled software or no?

 

[JDKJ]

A note to all alarmists. The Wii, XBOX360, iPhone, android, and countless other platforms have all been opened up to piracy. That has not stopped any of them from being profitable. Only Sony claims the sky is falling and developers will leave forever if 1% of the people who pirate of the 1% of the people who use this information of the 1% of the people who use the system are now a lost sale, as if they would buy it in the first place. It certainly doesn't make the other .99% criminals for the act of the .01%.

I want my linux back, I had both consoles in my had and chose the PS3 for it's dual use. I am not nearly the only one. But even leaving that out, what right do any of you have to say what I am allowed to do with my own hardware for personal use that will never affect you?

Why do you keep repeating "hardware" as if it's some kind of mantra? When 90% of what makes a console something other than a glorified over-sized paperweight is the software in it?

Because this entire lawsuit is about hardware. I feel you are the one ignoring that. The guys found a HARDWARE chip that was impeding putting their own software on, and circumvented it through reverse-engineering. To say this in not a hardware case is to misconstrue what actually occurred.

Coincidentally, because it was a hardware security measure is why Sony is so alarmed by this, they can't fix it with a patch.

A piece of hardware, as you claim, was an impediment to a software modification and this case, you say, is all about hardware? And has nothing to with the software? LOL.

Sony doesn't own linux. They can't exclude it from their system by saying you can't use their software except on Y terms. The software we are talking about is NOT the software owned by Sony. Sony just has a stake because it involves their hardware and they *feel* entitled even if they aren't.

Oh, yes they can. Read the EULA. It says:

2. RESTRICTIONS

You may not lease, rent, sublicense, publish, modify, adapt, or translate any portion of the System Software. To the fullest extent permitted by law, you may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble any portion of the System Software, or create any derivative works, or otherwise attempt to create System Software source code from its object code. You may not (i) use any unauthorized, illegal, counterfeit, or modified hardware or software in connection with the System Software, including use of tools to bypass, disable, or circumvent any encryption, security, or authentication mechanism for the PS3? system; (ii) violate any laws, regulations or statutes, or rights of SCE, its affiliated companies, or third parties in connection with your access to or use of the System Software, including the access, use, or distribution of any software or hardware that you know or should have known to be infringing or pirated; (iii) use any hardware or software to cause the System Software to accept or use unauthorized, illegal, or pirated software or hardware; (iv) obtain the System Software in any manner other than through SCE's authorized distribution methods; or (v) exploit the System Software in any manner other than to use it in your PS3? system in accordance with the accompanying documentation and with authorized software or hardware, including use of the System Software to design, develop, update, or distribute unauthorized software or hardware for use in connection with the PS3? system for any reason.

And knock off the "hardware" thing already, man. It's not hardware. It's software. That's what the EULA says it is.

 

[Firestorm65]

"To the fullest extent permitted by law" this says that everything that follows is just fairy tales and wishes.

You can't tell me you honestly believe the law says you can't install linux on a MAC because Apple says so? The EXACT SAME THING.

 

[Sutter Cane]

Then the consumer shouldn't have agreed to the EULA in the first place They were told beforehand and agreed the first time around that the terms could be change whenever the licensor felt like doing so. They knew or should have known back then what their options were going to be in the event that the term were in fact changed. That was their time to not get on the train if they didn't like the direction in which it was headed. But, having chosen to get on it, they can now either ride it all the way or get off.

My question is how is it fair to a consumer to have them agree to something to use a product, then have down the road after they've got your money change the terms. What if sony were to decide tomorrow that they were turning the PS3 into purely a blu ray player, and decided to change the EULA to say yo are no longer allowed to play games on this piece of equipment. Would that be fair AT ALL towards the consumer? They either have to agree to those terms (which they had no way of predicting) or stop using the console.

 

[Firestorm65]

They don't own the freaking silicon. I know you believe you're right. I know I believe you're wrong. Neither of us is experts so perhaps we leave it as unresolved and change the topic to why on earth you would support renting your electronics. Next step is SONY comes around to your door two years later to take it back so they can sell it to you again.

 

[Firestorm65]

Then the consumer shouldn't have agreed to the EULA in the first place They were told beforehand and agreed the first time around that the terms could be change whenever the licensor felt like doing so. They knew or should have known back then what their options were going to be in the event that the term were in fact changed. That was their time to not get on the train if they didn't like the direction in which it was headed. But, having chosen to get on it, they can now either ride it all the way or get off.

My question is how is it fair to a consumer to have them agree to something to use a product, then have down the road after they've got your money change the terms. What if sony were to decide tomorrow that they were turning the PS3 into purely a blu ray player, and decided to change the EULA to say yo are no longer allowed to play games on this piece of equipment. Would that be fair AT ALL towards the consumer? They either have to agree to those terms (which they had no way of predicting) or stop using the console.

Unless EULA's are somehow a super-special form of contract, you can't force a client to renegotiate after the contract has been formed. The EULA is only necessary if you wish to *continue* receiving support from Sony. Not agree absolves them of that original promise. Because they reserved the right to renegotiate the network terms. NOT THE HARDWARE terms. Sorry, but I can't believe you can't even consider the possibility Sony doesn't own you just because they wrote a document on their website that says they do.

 

[Nurb]

The more time goes by, the more the gaming publishers/manufacturers prove they need to go bankrupt and crumble