PlayStation 3 Hacking Lawsuit Hits a Snag

[bridgerbot]

Sugar coat it all you want, it's fucking piracy.

That's like calling a hammer a deadly weapon because you can kill someone with it.

 

[JDKJ]

Yes, it is highly unlikely that piracy will ever be eliminated entirely. There will always be some people who are willing to steal. But what's your point? That this kind of hacking shouldn't be prosecuted? That's like saying crack smoking will never be eliminated entirely so let's just sit back and let crack heads smoke crack all they want. Does that make any sense to you? It doesn't make any sense to me.

This kind of hack shouldn't be prosecuted, it's not done for piracy and thus they shouldn't be allowed to prosecute.
In theory the knowledge gained COULD be used to create a hack that does, but this one isn't setup for it (last I read), thus Sony has no right to stop the guy from playing around with his system as long as it isn't used for illegal purposes (piracy).

Technically, as a matter of law, Sony does have the right -- even without the aid of the DMCA's anti-hack provision -- to insist that a console's software not be modified by an end user and to take action if their software is indeed modified. The owner of the console hasn't bought the software, they've only licensed it from Sony. And the terms of that license, to which all console purchasers agree, state that there is to be no modification of Sony's software. And it doesn't matter whether the modification is done for a legal purpose or an illegal purpose.

And let's be real: 9 outta 10 people who are interested in circumventing their console's access control mechanism aren't interested in doing so in order to run home brew or for some other legitimate purpose. They're interested in playing pirated games.

 

[JDKJ]

Sugar coat it all you want, it's fucking piracy.

That's like calling a hammer a deadly weapon because you can kill someone with it.

Do people use it to kill someone more than they use it for legal purposes?

And the answer to your question is a reality reflected in the language of the DMCA, which states, in effect, that it doesn't matter that there are 5 out of 100 cases where the hack could be done for a legitimate purpose. It's the 95 other cases where the hack can be done for an illegitimate purpose with which the Act is more concerned. I guess there's an "unfair" argument to be made but, unfortunately, the good oftentimes end up suffering for the bad. Life's a *****.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Sugar coat it all you want, it's fucking piracy.

Why do you think custom firmware exists for PSPs? Just to play custom content? Don't make me laugh. It's to download games for free, you know it is. Sony knows it is too. That's why they are suing.

No it's not "fucking piracy". It's fucking FREEDOM to do what you want with a hardware product you purchased that is within the law. That some people might use it outside of the law is besides the issue. Period. The DMCA recently allowed jailbreaking of cellphones for the same reason, even though it's estimated that 80% of paid applications on smartphones are pirated.

Also you are misinformed. Every major console in the last decade with the exception of the PlayStation 2 was hacked with the primary purpose of running Linux or Homebrew. Piracy was just a sideeffect. It might be the most POPULAR sideeffect, but that still doesn't change the original reason for why the console was hacked.

No, it's not. And even if it is, it really shouldn't be.

When you buy hardware, you are buying permission to use it. You are not buying the console itself. Thus, what you can do with it is limited. Especially limited against jailbreaking and homebrew.

This gives companies the control necessary to continue creating software for it.

Good lord, I thought you were being sarcastic until I read the later posts. People actually buy that crap? That whole "license" excuse tends to get thrown out in court. Actually, I'm hoping this case will be another strike against it -- notice that the judge doesn't seem too keen on the "but he agreed to it in the EULA" excuse. It sickens me to see that so many consumers are taking the side of the people writing those unconscionably restrictive agreements.

 

[JDKJ]

Sugar coat it all you want, it's fucking piracy.

Why do you think custom firmware exists for PSPs? Just to play custom content? Don't make me laugh. It's to download games for free, you know it is. Sony knows it is too. That's why they are suing.

No it's not "fucking piracy". It's fucking FREEDOM to do what you want with a hardware product you purchased that is within the law. That some people might use it outside of the law is besides the issue. Period. The DMCA recently allowed jailbreaking of cellphones for the same reason, even though it's estimated that 80% of paid applications on smartphones are pirated.

Also you are misinformed. Every major console in the last decade with the exception of the PlayStation 2 was hacked with the primary purpose of running Linux or Homebrew. Piracy was just a sideeffect. It might be the most POPULAR sideeffect, but that still doesn't change the original reason for why the console was hacked.

No, it's not. And even if it is, it really shouldn't be.

When you buy hardware, you are buying permission to use it. You are not buying the console itself. Thus, what you can do with it is limited. Especially limited against jailbreaking and homebrew.

This gives companies the control necessary to continue creating software for it.

Good lord, I thought you were being sarcastic until I read the later posts. People actually buy that crap? That whole "license" excuse tends to get thrown out in court. Actually, I'm hoping this case will be another strike against it -- notice that the judge doesn't seem too keen on the "but he agreed to it in the EULA" excuse. It sickens me to see that so many consumers are taking the side of the people writing those unconscionably restrictive agreements.

Yes, they are unconscionable and horribly one-sided and intended to protect the manufacturer and screw the consumer. No doubt. But that apparently doesn't mean that they're not enforceable. Over time and by and large, they've proven themselves to be most enforceable. And most of them never see the inside of a real courtroom because most of them provide for binding arbitration.

If the consumers were really interested in not getting stuck with a jacked-up EULA, then they'd be well advised to tell the console makers to piss off. But, having bought the console and signed on to the EULA, ain't a lot of sympathy out there for all that post-sale bitching and moaning.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Sugar coat it all you want, it's fucking piracy.

Why do you think custom firmware exists for PSPs? Just to play custom content? Don't make me laugh. It's to download games for free, you know it is. Sony knows it is too. That's why they are suing.

No it's not "fucking piracy". It's fucking FREEDOM to do what you want with a hardware product you purchased that is within the law. That some people might use it outside of the law is besides the issue. Period. The DMCA recently allowed jailbreaking of cellphones for the same reason, even though it's estimated that 80% of paid applications on smartphones are pirated.

Also you are misinformed. Every major console in the last decade with the exception of the PlayStation 2 was hacked with the primary purpose of running Linux or Homebrew. Piracy was just a sideeffect. It might be the most POPULAR sideeffect, but that still doesn't change the original reason for why the console was hacked.

No, it's not. And even if it is, it really shouldn't be.

When you buy hardware, you are buying permission to use it. You are not buying the console itself. Thus, what you can do with it is limited. Especially limited against jailbreaking and homebrew.

This gives companies the control necessary to continue creating software for it.

Good lord, I thought you were being sarcastic until I read the later posts. People actually buy that crap? That whole "license" excuse tends to get thrown out in court. Actually, I'm hoping this case will be another strike against it -- notice that the judge doesn't seem too keen on the "but he agreed to it in the EULA" excuse. It sickens me to see that so many consumers are taking the side of the people writing those unconscionably restrictive agreements.

Yes, they are unconscionable and horribly one-sided and intended to protect the manufacturer and screw the consumer. No doubt. But that apparently doesn't mean that they're not enforceable. Over time and by and large, they've proven themselves to be most enforceable. And most of them never see the inside of a real courtroom because most of them provide for binding arbitration.

If the consumers were really interested in not getting stuck with a jacked-up EULA, then they'd be well advised to tell the console makers to piss off. But, having bought the console and signed on to the EULA, ain't a lot of sympathy out there for all that post-sale bitching and moaning.

Any sources on that? Because Vernor V. Autodesk is a good example of what I'm talking about. I have a sneaking suspicion that any out of court settlements occurred because the consumers couldn't afford the legal fees involved. And a large part of the reason these things tend to get thrown out of court is the consumer doesn't have any room to tell the company to "piss off" as you put it -- they either agree, or they now own a very expensive paperweight, despite the fact that they couldn't read the EULA before buying it, which is itself a reason that EULAs tend to get thrown out in court. Also, the DMCA was a terrible law brought about because congress is more beholden to big business these days than it is to the voter, but that's neither here nor there as far as enforcement goes.

Edit: Looks like that one was overturned on appeal, although there's another appeal in the works.

 

[JDKJ]

Sugar coat it all you want, it's fucking piracy.

Why do you think custom firmware exists for PSPs? Just to play custom content? Don't make me laugh. It's to download games for free, you know it is. Sony knows it is too. That's why they are suing.

No it's not "fucking piracy". It's fucking FREEDOM to do what you want with a hardware product you purchased that is within the law. That some people might use it outside of the law is besides the issue. Period. The DMCA recently allowed jailbreaking of cellphones for the same reason, even though it's estimated that 80% of paid applications on smartphones are pirated.

Also you are misinformed. Every major console in the last decade with the exception of the PlayStation 2 was hacked with the primary purpose of running Linux or Homebrew. Piracy was just a sideeffect. It might be the most POPULAR sideeffect, but that still doesn't change the original reason for why the console was hacked.

No, it's not. And even if it is, it really shouldn't be.

When you buy hardware, you are buying permission to use it. You are not buying the console itself. Thus, what you can do with it is limited. Especially limited against jailbreaking and homebrew.

This gives companies the control necessary to continue creating software for it.

Good lord, I thought you were being sarcastic until I read the later posts. People actually buy that crap? That whole "license" excuse tends to get thrown out in court. Actually, I'm hoping this case will be another strike against it -- notice that the judge doesn't seem too keen on the "but he agreed to it in the EULA" excuse. It sickens me to see that so many consumers are taking the side of the people writing those unconscionably restrictive agreements.

Yes, they are unconscionable and horribly one-sided and intended to protect the manufacturer and screw the consumer. No doubt. But that apparently doesn't mean that they're not enforceable. Over time and by and large, they've proven themselves to be most enforceable. And most of them never see the inside of a real courtroom because most of them provide for binding arbitration.

If the consumers were really interested in not getting stuck with a jacked-up EULA, then they'd be well advised to tell the console makers to piss off. But, having bought the console and signed on to the EULA, ain't a lot of sympathy out there for all that post-sale bitching and moaning.

Any sources on that? Because Vernor V. Autodesk is a good example of what I'm talking about. I have a sneaking suspicion that any out of court settlements occurred because the consumers couldn't afford the legal fees involved. And a large part of the reason these things tend to get thrown out of court is the consumer doesn't have any room to tell the company to "piss off" as you put it -- they either agree, or they now own a very expensive paperweight, despite the fact that they couldn't read the EULA before buying it, which is itself a reason that EULAs tend to get thrown out in court. Also, the DMCA was a terrible law brought about because congress is more beholden to big business these days than it is to the voter, but that's neither here nor there as far as enforcement goes.

Edit: Looks like that one was overturned on appeal, although there's another appeal in the works.

As I read your post and until I got to your edit, I was a-wondering why you were citing to the Autodesk case in support of the proposition that end user license agreements tend not to be enforced. Because the Ninth Circuit came to the exact opposition conclusion: if there is a license -- and not an outright sale -- afoot, then the terms of the EULA control -- usually so as to screw the consumer.

That you didn't read the EULA before agreeing to it and assuming it was conspicuously presented for all to see is absolutely no valid basis to avoid its terms. Trust me, you try that argument in court and you'll get quickly laughed out of court. Caveat emptor (i.e., "let the buyer beware").

And don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of a EULA. But to say that they aren't enforceable is to misrepresent the case. Perhaps they shouldn't be enforced but, unfortunately, they are generally enforced.

And I'm not seeing why the consumer can't walk away from the deal (i.e., tell the manufacturer to "piss off"). No one has to agree with the terms of a EULA. If you don't agree with the terms as proposed before the deal is consummated, then don't do the deal. Keep your money in your pocket. Or, if it's an Autodesk-like case and you can't read the EULA terms until after you've made the purchase and ripped opened the shrink-warp, then take the shit back to where you bought it and get a refund or a credit. Yes, EULAs are invariably presented on a "take it or leave it" basis but, nevertheless, those are two options and one of them is to leave it. You ain't gotta take it.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Looks like Sony can't handle the truth.

what truth?

It's just a little Few Good Men joke.

 

[Athinira]

No, it's not. And even if it is, it really shouldn't be.

Says who? You?

Short answer: No.

When you buy hardware, you are buying permission to use it. You are not buying the console itself. Thus, what you can do with it is limited. Especially limited against jailbreaking and homebrew.

This gives companies the control necessary to continue creating software for it.

This is where you are wrong, and this is exactly the reason the DMCA was recently changed recently in regards to jailbreaking/rooting of cellphones. As a consumer, it's your product. Period. You are NOT renting the Playstation, you are buying it. As soon as we are talking about a physical product, it's not a "license" purchase (even if the EULA states otherwise).

There is a reason that Sony is suing Geohot for breaking their Copyright mechanism, not because he was messing around with his Playstation. If messing around with the Playstation was illegal to begin with, they could have sued him already back in the beginning of 2010, as well as they could have sued other hackers earlier as well.

You can mess around with the Playstation all you want, it's yours. What Sony thinks that you can't do, however, is mess around with information contained on the system (including encryption keys and operating system) since this is 1) copyrightet information 2) circumventing a protection mechanism. A judge will have to rule on this, and I'll be looking forward to the result. But it would still be legal of you to write an entire operating system for the PS3 yourself that works on a entirely different premise with different software, which can't even play games (although Sony would probably still sue you for it if you did because they're massive idiots).

So for a second time: Short answer: No.

 

[UberNoodle]

There was a once a time when it was legal to buy something and do whatever you wanted with it. Now we have to get permission. Please Sony, can we please please please do what we like to the things we buy?

This isn't an illogical request, considering that the hack doesn't apply directly to piracy. Perhaps computers should be banned because without them, piracy would be impossible.

Yes well thats what the case is about, can a hardware company control what you do with the hardware as long as it doesn't breach any laws. Altho the banning computers wouldn't stop piracy, we had that well before computers were even thought of.

Then, if the company wants to make hardware that way, they have to SELL it that way. Lease the hardware and prohibit modifications because we don't OWN it. We can modify other products we buy, even when such actions are contrary to intended use in some way.

The only reason that modifying a console is now "illegal" is that the Corporatocrasy of the USA allowed media companies to write the Digital Millennium Act. Due to the language, hacking and modifying (including region free modifications) has been made illegal because the coding and keys that run the protection systems are copyrighted and therefore the MISUSE or USE WITHOUT PERMISSION of that material, is an "offense".

And I was talking about software piracy and without computers there would be no software, let alone piracy of it. I didn't qualify that meaning of piracy, due to the nature of the thread and this site.

 

[JDKJ]

No, it's not. And even if it is, it really shouldn't be.

Says who? You?

Short answer: No.

When you buy hardware, you are buying permission to use it. You are not buying the console itself. Thus, what you can do with it is limited. Especially limited against jailbreaking and homebrew.

This gives companies the control necessary to continue creating software for it.

This is where you are wrong, and this is exactly the reason the DMCA was recently changed recently in regards to jailbreaking/rooting of cellphones. As a consumer, it's your product. Period. You are NOT renting the Playstation, you are buying it. As soon as we are talking about a physical product, it's not a "license" purchase (even if the EULA states otherwise).

There is a reason that Sony is suing Geohot for breaking their Copyright mechanism, not because he was messing around with his Playstation. If messing around with the Playstation was illegal to begin with, they could have sued him already back in the beginning of 2010, as well as they could have sued other hackers earlier as well.

You can mess around with the Playstation all you want, it's yours. What Sony thinks that you can't do, however, is mess around with information contained on the system (including encryption keys and operating system) since this is 1) copyrightet information 2) circumventing a protection mechanism. A judge will have to rule on this, and I'll be looking forward to the result. But it would still be legal of you to write an entire operating system for the PS3 yourself that works on a entirely different premise with different software, which can't even play games (although Sony would probably still sue you for it if you did because they're massive idiots).

So for a second time: Short answer: No.

Just because you say it is doesn't necessarily make it so. You may want to read the Ninth Circuit's decision in the case of Vernor v. Autodesk, where the Court sets forth a three-part test to determine when a software licensing has occurred and not an outright sale. The Ninth Circuit stated:

"[There are] three considerations that we may use to determine whether a software user is a licensee, rather than an owner of a copy. First, we consider whether the copyright owner specifies that a user is granted a license. Second, we consider whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user?s ability to transfer the software. Finally, we consider whether the copyright owner imposes notable use restrictions."

If all three considerations are present, then, and at least in California, you've got a license and not a sale. Go ahead and apply that three-part test to any console sold by any of the Big Three console makers and I'll bet a dollar to your donut that the resulting determination is that the software in a console is not an outright sale but, rather, is a license and the console maker, as the software's copyright owner, can, by the terms of a EULA, legally restrict the end user's ability to modification the software.

If you want to modify your console's chassis (the plastic housing it comes in), go right ahead. That part of it you do own and are free to do with what you want. But the software part of it that controls access to copyrighted only material (the part that has to be hacked in order to play a pirated game) is not yours to do with as you please. You've only licensed that part and if the console maker's EULA says you can't modify it (which they all do), then you can't modify it. Not unless you can raise a successful legal defense challenging that term of the EULA.

 

[Athinira]

Just because you say it is doesn't necessarily make it so. You may want to read the Ninth Circuit's decision in the case of Vernor v. Autodesk, where the Court sets forth a three-part test to determine when a software licensing has occurred and not an outright sale.

Hint: Software licensing.

The Playstation is a hardware product with a software component. It is technically possible (although potentially difficult) to delete the software component and replace it with your own.

It's only if the software component is replaced with a modified version of the original component (custom firmware) rather than a unique software component that it is a possible copyright breach. But at any rate, the Playstation hardware itself is still a hardware product you bought. It's not a product you licensed.

But i digress. If Geohot loses this case, then all hackers will do is perform or host future hacks in a country where it's legal, for example Denmark (where I'm from). Danish copyright law specifically gives you the right to reverse engineer any software if the goal is to achieve interoperability with a self-designed software component or program (and also specifically states that these rights cannot be waived by agreement). So in short, it's legal for me to reverse engineer the Playstation OS and safety protection measures in order to create my own Playstation operating system from where I'm sitting, although it's still restricted in some cases (for example, simply modifying the PS3 firmware with a few changes isn't allowed, although the paragraph that states this was probably intended to prevent making ripoff copies of software meant to be sold, so I'd love to see it tried at court in this case).

 

[JDKJ]

Just because you say it is doesn't necessarily make it so. You may want to read the Ninth Circuit's decision in the case of Vernor v. Autodesk, where the Court sets forth a three-part test to determine when a software licensing has occurred and not an outright sale.

Hint: Software licensing.

The Playstation is a hardware product with a software component. It is technically possible (although potentially difficult) to delete the software component and replace it with your own.

It's only if the software component is replaced with a modified version of the original component (custom firmware) rather than a unique software component that it is a possible copyright breach.

You'll notice, perhaps, that the Ninth Circuit speaks of determining when a "software user" is a licensee and not an owner. That the software at issue isn't stand alone software but is what's more popularly referred to as "firmware" doesn't matter. Programming code is still just programming code.

And it doesn't take a copyright breach to breach the terms of a console maker's EULA. Any modification of the software -- or firmware, call it whatever you want, same difference -- to something other than the original state it which it was shipped would, I believe, be a "modification" as prohibited by the EULA. Change one single piece of code and that's a prohibited modification.

And you can only rely on what Danish copyright law provides if the copyrighted work you plan on modifying is copyrighted under Danish copyright law. If it isn't and is copyrighted under the U.S. Copyright Act (which I'd bet all Big Three console makers use to copyright all of their intellectual property), then the law of Denmark isn't any kinda defense to a copyright infringement action or a breach of contract action brought under U.S. law. Copyright law and contract law don't work like that.

 

[Athinira]

You'll notice, perhaps, that the Ninth Circuit speaks of determining when a "software user" is a licensee and not an owner. That the software at issue isn't stand alone software but is what's more popularly referred to as "firmware" doesn't matter. Programming code is still just programming code.

And it doesn't take a copyright breach to breach the terms of a console maker's EULA. Any modification of the software -- or firmware, call it whatever you want, same difference -- to something other than the original state it which it was shipped would, I believe, be a "modification" as prohibited by the EULA. Change one single piece of code and that's a prohibited modification.

That still doesn't change that the hardware is still yours. Software, after all, resides on the hardware.

And yes, there is actually one software modification you are ALWAYS allowed to perform no matter the copyright issue: Deletion. Deletion and modification isn't the same. You are allowed to delete the original software, and from there write an entirely individual software system, as long as it doesn't borrow from Sonys system. The interesting part here, of course, would be whether or not the encryption keys in the Playstation would fall under "Copyright". Honestly i doubt it, although if used for piracy it would probably give Sony a strong case.

As for the EULA: EULA's aren't all powerful. They aren't the law. It's true that in many cases they will act as an extension of the law, but they have limitations in what restrictions they can impose (even if they mention that they impose them).

And you can only rely on what Danish copyright law provides if the copyrighted work you plan on modifying is copyrighted under Danish copyright law. If it isn't and is copyrighted under the U.S. Copyright Act (which I'd bet all Big Three console makers use to copyright all of their intellectual property), then the law of Denmark isn't any kinda defense to a copyright infringement action brought under U.S. law. Copyright law doesn't work like that.

Eh no. Sorry, but that is as wrong as it can be. It might not be that way US Copyright Law works in between the states, but thats how Danish (and for the most part, European) copyright law works. It's completely irrelevant where the work is copyright. What matters is where the "breach" is performed (in this case, it isn't a breach since it in Denmark is strictly legal).

If what you said were actually true, i will just quote the judge here saying "the entire universe would be subject to my jurisdiction". US Copyright laws apply in the US. Danish Copyright laws apply in Denmark. The worst the US could try is ask for extradition, but since a Copyright breach in Danish Law is a civil and not criminal matter, that wouldn't be a possibility either.

If i were to hack the PS3 in ways that Danish copyright laws allows, then Sony can't do jack-sh*t about it in Denmark. Period. They can sue me in the US, and by extension of that, potentially punish me if i ever were to travel to the US. But as long as i stay outside of the US, all they can do is either try a civil lawsuit (which they wouldn't win i might add), or cry until my ears fall off (which is kinda a punishment i guess, since i happen to like my ears).

Bottom line is that as long as i follow Danish law within Danish borders, I'm safe.

 

[Tron Paul]

The really funny thing to me is that even before the PS3 was hacked people have been using glitches and bugs with publishers and developers doing little to fix them. Recently was hanging out with a friend and he was complaining about everyone having golden guns at level 8 on the xbox. A quick youtube search and we found the hilariously easy glitch that could unlock almost anything in Blops. Turns out it works on PS3 just as easily.

PC gaming has survived even with people being able to write hacks. Console developers will need to work harder on preventing them. Same with the turbo problems in MW.

It's my console and I'll hack if I want to, hack if I want to. You would hack too if you knew what to doooo....

 

[JDKJ]

You'll notice, perhaps, that the Ninth Circuit speaks of determining when a "software user" is a licensee and not an owner. That the software at issue isn't stand alone software but is what's more popularly referred to as "firmware" doesn't matter. Programming code is still just programming code.

And it doesn't take a copyright breach to breach the terms of a console maker's EULA. Any modification of the software -- or firmware, call it whatever you want, same difference -- to something other than the original state it which it was shipped would, I believe, be a "modification" as prohibited by the EULA. Change one single piece of code and that's a prohibited modification.

That still doesn't change that the hardware is still yours. Software, after all, resides on the hardware.

And yes, there is actually one software modification you are ALWAYS allowed to perform no matter the copyright issue: Deletion. Deletion and modification isn't the same. You are allowed to delete the original software, and from there write an entirely individual software system, as long as it doesn't borrow from Sonys system. The interesting part here, of course, would

As for the EULA: EULA's aren't all powerful. They aren't the law. It's true that in many cases they will act as an extension of the law, but they have limitations in what restrictions they can impose (even if they mention that they impose them).

And you can only rely on what Danish copyright law provides if the copyrighted work you plan on modifying is copyrighted under Danish copyright law. If it isn't and is copyrighted under the U.S. Copyright Act (which I'd bet all Big Three console makers use to copyright all of their intellectual property), then the law of Denmark isn't any kinda defense to a copyright infringement action brought under U.S. law. Copyright law doesn't work like that.

Eh no. Sorry, but that is as wrong as it can be. It might not be that way US Copyright Law works in between the states, but thats how Danish (and for the most part, European) copyright law works. It's completely irrelevant where the work is copyright. What matters is where the "breach" is performed.

If what you said were actually true, i will just quote the judge here saying "the entire universe would be subject to my jurisdiction". US Copyright laws apply in the US. Danish Copyright laws apply in Denmark. The worst the US could try is ask for extradition, but since a Copyright breach in Danish Law is a civil and not criminal matter, that wouldn't be a possibility either.

If i were to hack the PS3 in ways that Danish copyright laws allows, then Sony can't do jack-sh*t about it in Denmark. Period. They can sue me in the US, and by extension of that, potentially punish me if i ever were to travel to the US. But as long as i stay outside of the US, all they can do is either try a civil lawsuit (which they wouldn't win i might add), or cry until my ears fall off (which is kinda a punishment i guess, since i happen to like my ears).

Look, I'm running out of patience and, frankly, didn't spend three years of my life in law school to end up being told a pile of legal bullshit that doesn't make any sense in English much less in law.

First, you can't have a "breach" of anything unless you have a law that prohibits the breach. If that law is the law of the United States (i.e., the plaintiff bases their claim of a "breach" upon the law of the United States by, for example, claiming an infringement of their copyright issued by the U.S. Copyright Office), then the law of any other nation is wholly irrelevant. That's just basic Conflicts of Law 101.

Secondly, if you knew as much about law as you think you do, you'd realize that when the Court says "the entire universe would be subject to my jurisdiction," it is speaking only about the issue of personal jurisdiction (i.e., whether or not the Court is authorized to exercise judicial power over the defendant). Personal jurisdiction has nothing to do with the substantive law that the Court will apply in order to resolve the matter (e.g., copyright law, contract law, etc.) if and when it determines that it can properly exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. You are horribly confusing two separate and distinct legal issues.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Sugar coat it all you want, it's fucking piracy.

Why do you think custom firmware exists for PSPs? Just to play custom content? Don't make me laugh. It's to download games for free, you know it is. Sony knows it is too. That's why they are suing.

No it's not "fucking piracy". It's fucking FREEDOM to do what you want with a hardware product you purchased that is within the law. That some people might use it outside of the law is besides the issue. Period. The DMCA recently allowed jailbreaking of cellphones for the same reason, even though it's estimated that 80% of paid applications on smartphones are pirated.

Also you are misinformed. Every major console in the last decade with the exception of the PlayStation 2 was hacked with the primary purpose of running Linux or Homebrew. Piracy was just a sideeffect. It might be the most POPULAR sideeffect, but that still doesn't change the original reason for why the console was hacked.

No, it's not. And even if it is, it really shouldn't be.

When you buy hardware, you are buying permission to use it. You are not buying the console itself. Thus, what you can do with it is limited. Especially limited against jailbreaking and homebrew.

This gives companies the control necessary to continue creating software for it.

Good lord, I thought you were being sarcastic until I read the later posts. People actually buy that crap? That whole "license" excuse tends to get thrown out in court. Actually, I'm hoping this case will be another strike against it -- notice that the judge doesn't seem too keen on the "but he agreed to it in the EULA" excuse. It sickens me to see that so many consumers are taking the side of the people writing those unconscionably restrictive agreements.

Yes, they are unconscionable and horribly one-sided and intended to protect the manufacturer and screw the consumer. No doubt. But that apparently doesn't mean that they're not enforceable. Over time and by and large, they've proven themselves to be most enforceable. And most of them never see the inside of a real courtroom because most of them provide for binding arbitration.

If the consumers were really interested in not getting stuck with a jacked-up EULA, then they'd be well advised to tell the console makers to piss off. But, having bought the console and signed on to the EULA, ain't a lot of sympathy out there for all that post-sale bitching and moaning.

Any sources on that? Because Vernor V. Autodesk is a good example of what I'm talking about. I have a sneaking suspicion that any out of court settlements occurred because the consumers couldn't afford the legal fees involved. And a large part of the reason these things tend to get thrown out of court is the consumer doesn't have any room to tell the company to "piss off" as you put it -- they either agree, or they now own a very expensive paperweight, despite the fact that they couldn't read the EULA before buying it, which is itself a reason that EULAs tend to get thrown out in court. Also, the DMCA was a terrible law brought about because congress is more beholden to big business these days than it is to the voter, but that's neither here nor there as far as enforcement goes.

Edit: Looks like that one was overturned on appeal, although there's another appeal in the works.

As I read your post and until I got to your edit, I was a-wondering why you were citing to the Autodesk case in support of the proposition that end user license agreements tend not to be enforced. Because the Ninth Circuit came to the exact opposition conclusion: if there is a license -- and not an outright sale -- afoot, then the terms of the EULA control -- usually so as to screw the consumer.

That you didn't read the EULA before agreeing to it and assuming it was conspicuously presented for all to see is absolutely no valid basis to avoid its terms. Trust me, you try that argument in court and you'll get quickly laughed out of court. Caveat emptor (i.e., "let the buyer beware").

And don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of a EULA. But to say that they aren't enforceable is to misrepresent the case. Perhaps they shouldn't be enforced but, unfortunately, they are generally enforced.

And I'm not seeing why the consumer can't walk away from the deal (i.e., tell the manufacturer to "piss off"). No one has to agree with the terms of a EULA. If you don't agree with the terms as proposed before the deal is consummated, then don't do the deal. Keep your money in your pocket. Or, if it's an Autodesk-like case and you can't read the EULA terms until after you've made the purchase and ripped opened the shrink-warp, then take the shit back to where you bought it and get a refund or a credit. Yes, EULAs are invariably presented on a "take it or leave it" basis but, nevertheless, those are two options and one of them is to leave it. You ain't gotta take it.

I cited Vernor because the original ruling said what I claimed it did, I was unaware that it was overturned on appeal two months ago. We'll see what happens on the next appeal, although the courts aren't exactly friendly to consumers these days.