No it is not. I had to agree to two different contracts. One was the PSN contract, and the other was a terms of use for the consol its self. I had to agree to the consol terms of use before I could use the system and I was offline. As I have asked in other posts. Could this be something new? I bought my PS3 two weeks ago.Nephus said:
Geohot Hypocrisy
- Thread starter Burwood123
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It does go on to say that any opperation or software that affects the PSN is subjest to this agreement. I'm paraphrasing cus I have to go, but I'll edit in the section from the agreement later if you want. However, breaching linux gives you the ability to mod the consol affecting the PSN. A lawyer could make it work.RYjet911 said:
You keep quoting those Terms of Service. Those allow Sony to cancel his PSN access, which would prevent anyone who jailbroke their PS3 from cheating in games, no-one is arguing against that. Banning you from a service they provide to protect the community is fine, I'd rather they waited until you actually broke the rules but it's their service so I'm not going to complain too loud if they jump the gun.Sarge034 said:
What those Terms of Service (which Geohot never agreed to by the way) do not do is make you a criminal for replacing the functionality of your purchase that it was advertised to have when you bought it.
Like it or not, the legality of a shrink-wrap license, like the agreement to not tamper w/the machine that you are reminding us about, is still under debate, see Klocek v. Gateway. There are cases that say it is, there are that say it isn't, there hasn't been a definitive answer yet.Sarge034 said:
The DMCA, (which is US Law not sony's OP) seems to think it is ok to repair a machine in order to return it to the state according to "original specifications" which the OtherOS feature was. Sure that requires that the modifications are not modifying any aspect that would be required/supplied by activation of the product, but the OtherOS feature seems to not be that either, so still ok. Again to cite legal precedent the library of congress ruled in favor of jailbreaking for cellphones in order to use a service/software that is legal in and of itself, so no Windows Black, but yes on Linux or purchased OS. Since all precedent is interpretive, it wouldn't be a stretch for a judge to rule in favor of this to apply to a console.
I can honestly tell you that many people modded their console in order to use an OS and not hack, linux isn't some gateway drug that inevitably leads to piracy, hacking, or saying things like hax. The PS3, especially multiple PS3's, are an incredible replacement for a desktop, when used with the right OS. One is a pretty fair replacement if you don't mind PS3 version of games, so why not consolidate the tools in your home.
"BAM!" discussion still open.
"LOL," jump to conclusions much?
The reason you can't grasp why anti piracy people are supporting geohot is because you appear to have a misunderstanding about some of the technical aspects of this case.
This become relevant because the rights a consumer has when they purchase an item, and the amount that those rights can limited (such as by an EULA) are defined by a large number of separate laws that sometimes use contradictory language. What this case is really about is whether or not a company can limit the way you use your property or not, and if they can how much which is an issue that has a number of valid arguments for each side and can not be thought of as a blank and white issue.
Sony does not have a DCMA, they have a EULA (End User License Agreement). The DCMA is a law enacted by congress and isn't something one can agree to while an EULA is a contract between two parties. Sometimes the terms of a contract conflict with existing laws, when this happens those terms can be found to be unenforceable. A good example of this is in Sony's EULA where they require users to accept and agree to act in accordance with their terms of service, If included in the Terms of Service (ToS) there were a clause that said something along the lines of "All PS3 users agree to vote for Candidate X in the next election" SONY would be violating several other laws and have no way to enforce that part of the agreement.Burwood123 said:
This become relevant because the rights a consumer has when they purchase an item, and the amount that those rights can limited (such as by an EULA) are defined by a large number of separate laws that sometimes use contradictory language. What this case is really about is whether or not a company can limit the way you use your property or not, and if they can how much which is an issue that has a number of valid arguments for each side and can not be thought of as a blank and white issue.
Geohot modified hardware he own in ways that may or may not be protected by consumer rights laws, that not piracy and anyone how believe they have the right to modify their property can support Geohot's argument without contradicting any anti piracy stances that may have. So in a sense you are right, it is not just about Linux, it is about consumer rights as well. Yes people will likely use geohot's findings to pirate games and cheat the PSN but only in the sense they will take what has found and build off of it to achieve that end. But at the same time homebrew games that don't tread on anyone's intellectuality property exist and it was the people how make the tools for implementing them that geohot's exploit was released for.This whole area of the issue is a lot like arguments for gun control. There are legitimate reasons to own a firearm and there are also people who use them to commit crimes.Burwood123 said:
You're blaming the removal of the other OS option on one guy? Congrats man, if you were to employ that reach in other areas of your life, you could literally reach for the stars!Burwood123 said:
Or in a non-sarcastic manner: way to go, you've missed the point by half a dozen continents and managed to shoot your own argument down with it.
First of all, it's not the same thing, he hacked it for Linux, if that causes piracy, then that's Sony's fault for creating a situation in which unlocking Linux also unlocks piracy (BTW, saying "in before linux" doesn't make the Linux people any less right)Burwood123 said:
Secondly, nobody really knows how many users here advocate piracy, because those that do aren't allowed to voice it, we only hear the people against piracy because only they are allowed to voice their opinion.
Also, Geohot didn't sign up for PSN (and thus didn't sign the EULA)Burwood123 said:
I find it surprising that you know what DMCA stands for, but still don't understand what it is, it's a law, not an agreement signed or made by Sony, the EULA is the thing you're talking about.
Er copy right=licensing=contract.Sarge034 said:
Oh really? is that the best you can do? Heres a fun thing about limiting distribution based on if its trying to make a profit or not. Blogs and general posting, texting and such can not be shot down because some lawyer can throw a book at you. Free distribution relies on people to share the file which would be greatly reduced when you remove unlicensed ad revenue,donations and direct sale from the equation(IE a link,index or information that leads directly to a part or whole copy righted file is the same as the copy righted file) tho you will have to add a segment to handle generic search sites, a 2 or 4 part stress test should do the trick.
What this will do is limit file sharing to a small normal part of information flow rather than try and remove consumer rights and freedoms at gun point and wind up with more criminals in name only.
Its either that or 5 year copy rights(after frist sale) that automatically fall to public domain after the 5th year, no extensions. Trade marks would have to be adjusted to be a symbol and not a full color character,ect so you can easily find the qaulity product by the trade mark rather than its generic IP that is nothing more than a Frankenstein of other IPs mashed together.
Other than those options there is not much else can be done to fix the failing and corrupted IP/CP system.
Why? Because they are a corporation. Please get a grip. This is not the 1960s,70s or 80s. Rebellion for the sake of rebellion is regarded as sad in this day and age. And rightly so.AccursedTheory said:
Please qualify this statement.
In general I agree with the sentiment of the original poster of this topic. Why hate piracy and then support George Hotz? It makes no sense.
Look, the case is fundementaly not about piracy. It's about if a vendor has a right to dictate to you, the consumer, how you can use their product. If you bought a car from Ford and they told you that you could only put Shell gasoline in it, you would give them (and rightly so) the finger.Burwood123 said:
Now, if Sony wanted to prevent consumers from altering their product post sale, then they should not have sold them in the first place and instead, they should have leased them, much like cable companies do with set top boxes - in that scenario, you would be tampering with Sony's equipment, and not your own and they would have legal grounds to sue for damages and to repossess the hardware even.
To be perfectly blunt, they (Sony) have many options to prevent piracy on their game console, the option they choose was a poor and unenforceable one.
Courts have continuously ruled in favor of consumers in cases like this, in so much that so long as their is a legitimate consumer use of a media device (for instance, placing your own software on your PS3), that such use is perfectly legal.
Personally I would like to know what reality Sony lives in that it thinks that it can win any kind of ruling that would prevent people from altering a product they bought and purchased at a retail store. Pretty much any kind of large scale enforcement of a scheme like this brings up so many privacy issues that anyone involved would be in court for the rest of their natural lives. To me this seems like an enormous expenditure of money, time and consumer good will on their part to cover for a poorly thought out copy protection scheme.
I understand that there are lots of dollars at stake with counterfeit games on the market, but I do not believe that going after guys like Geohot are at any way going to impact that at all because lets face it, at the end of the day, the copy protection will be circumvented and the black market game dealers will still be pushing their pirated software. They may even be able to successfully argue that Geohot's efforts helped out the pirate cartels, but be that as it may, it is absolutely 100% impossible for Sony to recoup any potential losses from this single individual not just from the perspective that he isn't actually culpable for producing the illegal games (much like how you can't sue a chemist that comes up with a new drug compound for what illegal drug dealers do to produce and sell it) but just from a pure mathematical perspective that the guy just doesn't have the bloody money to pay them ever.
I'm having a series of conversations at the same time so I'm just gonna post and quote you all so you all see it. I'm tired of having to reply to three diff people.
I will start by telling you what I feel is ok. I feel it is ok to mod a system if you have no intent to pirate. I feel it is ok for a software firm to patch holes in the security when found. I feel it is ok if you mod private games.
Now i will tell you what I feel is NOT ok. I feel it is not ok to pirate. I feel it is not ok to mod public matches. I feel it is not ok to mod a game mode that has an impact on leaderboards (ex. Nazi Zombies).
Now as stated I would be fine if people just modded to get linux. However, we fall into the "stupid actions of the few" situation here. Some want to use that particular mod to open up the rest of the system to hacking. In order to protect the PSN, other gamers, and their profits they close the weak spot in their armor (ie linux). I see this a lot like the firearm laws in the US. The goverment does not want everyone and their crazy brother to have an automatic firearm. In order to prevent this they have stringent rules in place. You must meet the requirments and pay an exorbent ammount of money in fees and taxes. I know I am stable enough and have the required training to own one. I pass the requirments, but I don't have enough money for one. I am frusterated because I am being denied something I can competently and legely use. Then I think about how many unstable or shadowy people the requirements or the ammount of money needed stoped from buying one. I see this in the linux argument. Most of us will mod linux and stop there. The few that don't stop there are ruining it for the rest of us. I am anti-Geohot because he gave out the source code. This is not the actions of someone who just wants linux for all. If that was his main goal, he could have described how to mod it open. He did not have to give everyone the master key.
At this point it becomes very polarized. It is comming down to two options, as there seems to be no middle ground. Either it will be an open season on consols, or it will be under the boot of software firms. Given the choice I'll take the side of a buisness over a hacker any day.
If people just stoped hacking and pirating this would be a moot point. Just like automatic firearms, if people stoped killing other people we would not have to worry about controlling them.
I wish I lived in that dream world, things would be so much simpler.
ZippyDSMlee said:
RYjet911 said:
Let me take a step back so we don't get bogged down in the legality for a moment.Actual said:
I will start by telling you what I feel is ok. I feel it is ok to mod a system if you have no intent to pirate. I feel it is ok for a software firm to patch holes in the security when found. I feel it is ok if you mod private games.
Now i will tell you what I feel is NOT ok. I feel it is not ok to pirate. I feel it is not ok to mod public matches. I feel it is not ok to mod a game mode that has an impact on leaderboards (ex. Nazi Zombies).
Now as stated I would be fine if people just modded to get linux. However, we fall into the "stupid actions of the few" situation here. Some want to use that particular mod to open up the rest of the system to hacking. In order to protect the PSN, other gamers, and their profits they close the weak spot in their armor (ie linux). I see this a lot like the firearm laws in the US. The goverment does not want everyone and their crazy brother to have an automatic firearm. In order to prevent this they have stringent rules in place. You must meet the requirments and pay an exorbent ammount of money in fees and taxes. I know I am stable enough and have the required training to own one. I pass the requirments, but I don't have enough money for one. I am frusterated because I am being denied something I can competently and legely use. Then I think about how many unstable or shadowy people the requirements or the ammount of money needed stoped from buying one. I see this in the linux argument. Most of us will mod linux and stop there. The few that don't stop there are ruining it for the rest of us. I am anti-Geohot because he gave out the source code. This is not the actions of someone who just wants linux for all. If that was his main goal, he could have described how to mod it open. He did not have to give everyone the master key.
At this point it becomes very polarized. It is comming down to two options, as there seems to be no middle ground. Either it will be an open season on consols, or it will be under the boot of software firms. Given the choice I'll take the side of a buisness over a hacker any day.
If people just stoped hacking and pirating this would be a moot point. Just like automatic firearms, if people stoped killing other people we would not have to worry about controlling them.
I wish I lived in that dream world, things would be so much simpler.
Miss the point,the boat and the world.Information Sharing is going to happen regardless of what rules and laws you have in place, even more so when you live in a free country who has a good set of consumer rights.Sarge034 said:
You can not own hardware or even media as an absolute as the chilling effects upon society are disastrous an abstract ideal with the focus on monetary flow control you allow all 3 segments of society the consumer the creator and the owner much more balance while getting rid of the people who try and make money from the process of illicit sale.
You always will have a level of copy right "infringement" which is never a crime or minor offense in such scenarios its best to allow it because it falls under the scope of consumer rights(of which we have few of these days). In the digital age while the ability of business expand 100 fold to have the ability to sell to the world, the ability of the consumer to do more also expands, its a natural part of media/information evolution, so again instead of going backwards and lynching people that infringe perhaps it would better serve society to go after the illicit profiteers and the leave the small proportion of the public who can share alone.
Just remember at the end of the day YOU know whats best for you, allowing the government or business to tell you whats best more than 30% of the time leads to very bad things....
"I said nothing when they came for those "mixing tapes". I said nothing when they came for those who played their DVD's on their Ipod's, I said nothing when they came for those who "downloaded" the CD they bought to their computer. I said nothing when they came for home brew ,gray market last bastion of freedom for consumers. I could say nothing when they came for me for merely hearing a tune."
-----------
PS: Also there should be no restrictions on fire arms because only crazy people abuse them, if you misuse it you are marked a felon and lose the right to have them but this proactive BS is asinine!More people die from cars each day for christ sakes!And we have lousy laws and rules over car abuse and low low bar set for getting a license!
I was under the impression this was more of a 'I own this machine, I can do what I like with it' kind of issue? Piracy has nothing to do with it in my opinion, it could be USED to pirate certainly, but then again so could my PC. Doesn't mean I do it.
Pretty much, piracy is the act of stealing on the high...oh wait software piracy right.... well gaining a copy of something you do not own is infringement..er..piracy if you must use the mouth breather term for it.ZombieGenesis said:
Now mind you gaining the item even if you own it ca be considered infringement IE you lost the disc but find a copy online, even copying it from a loaded copy. It gets really silly but for the sake of the argument lets just call it downloading.
So for him to be a pitate he would have had to download a game or film or bios of the unit in question(yes that falls under copy right too). Of course he didn't, he bought the PS3 and the dev kit, the information he has released is incomplete to unlock a PS3 its jsut basic key information, or a peice of software he wrote to find it and or change it. All of which is legal outside of the sue for anything civil court, the DMCA dose limit reverse engineering to not allowing the distribution of tools made to disable copy protection systems.Even so thats not even a real crime...... its just scary to see how the system is being build up against the public....
But even if that was the case. It's one thing to say, "Oh, look, I found the rootkey, I will now get me some pirated games." And it's another to say, "Here you go, internet! Here's the rootkey! Do what you want with it!" The sad thing is, people who release that kind of stuff to the public are just neglected attention whores. Well, GeoHotz is getting plenty of attention now.ZombieGenesis said:
People vehemently against piracy don't have objective reasons to support their rants.Burwood123 said:
They are, by definition, unreasonable people.
There is no reason to assume that you can get rational thoughts or reasonable points out of irrational or unreasonable people.
I hope that clears up why people don't seem to act consistently around here. It's not much different in other places either.
People prefer treating emotions as facts rather than...you know...facts as facts.
