So how are Geohot and the Sony hackers heros?

[artanis_neravar]

No it is not irrelevant, it is completely relevant to the case, and your crappy metaphor has nothing to do with it, unless removing the convertible top helped prevent piracy.

Yes, it is irrelevant. They have set a precedent that they can remove a feature from something you paid for.

It doesn't matter if it was Other OS, the ability to play Blu-Rays or whatever the fuck else you want. They stripped functionality from something you legally purchased.

The reason behind it is completely and totally irrelevant. All that matters is that they did it.

The reason is completely relevant, if they remove the ability to play blue-ray for shit's and giggles, you can take them to court and sue them, it doesn't matter what is in the TOS/EULA the courts will side with you, because yes you paid for it. However if they remove the ability to play blue-rays because the software that plays blue-rays allows for people to play illegal copies of games, the courts will side with Sony. It is that simple

 

[Sean951]

That said, the people who took down the PSN are terrible, terrible people.

So just to clarify, you're mad at Sony right? Cause no hackers physically turned off the PSN. Sony willingly turned it off and kept it off for so long. No hacker was blocking it or had any direct hand in taking the PSN down. It was a reaction by Sony when they detected something funny in their systems.

No, the hackers forced Sony's hand. Taking down PSN, as far as I can tell, was the only logical way to deal with such an attack that was stealing information from it's customer base on such a wide scale.

 

[Arehexes]

Problem is I don't think he was sued for bringing back otherOS because remember these was dongles that unlocked the system and sony could not stop them from being made (much like the pandora battery for the psp which in a nut shell lets you install any firmware you please that supports it and sony could not stop it (since I have one and I have a friend who bought one for himself)). If I remember right he was sued for releasing the encryption keys which allows you to make what ever software and firmware you want to make for what ever reason.

Which goes outside the definition of modding, how?

It's not but it can cause problems at that point, I'm not against what hotz did but I can understand why sony would over react about this reason[\b]. If they didn't want modders at all they would use the psp homebrew scene to get ideas for their psp firmware and they would have sued the CFW makers like Dark_Alex or the people who made the pandora battery or sold it (code junkies). They were still limited on what they can and can not do, but with these keys being out sony can not do anything[\b] about it, from what I can understand a simple update wont fix this without screwing up ps3.

 

[RastaBadger]

I kind of back Gehot for what he did though I see Sony's point of view too. As for the people who brought the PSN down I think they are in the wrong. Mainly because they have affected people outside of Sony who have done nothing wrong except wanting to play some games online.

 

[Rednog]

That said, the people who took down the PSN are terrible, terrible people.

So just to clarify, you're mad at Sony right? Cause no hackers physically turned off the PSN. Sony willingly turned it off and kept it off for so long. No hacker was blocking it or had any direct hand in taking the PSN down. It was a reaction by Sony when they detected something funny in their systems.

No, the hackers forced Sony's hand. Taking down PSN, as far as I can tell, was the only logical way to deal with such an attack that was stealing information from it's customer base on such a wide scale.

Sony didn't even know exactly what was happening for a couple of days. They found something odd in their records and they took the PSN down, most likely thinking it was going to be a short maintenance, fix it and bring it back up.
This was no full on out in the open attack where Playstation had to cut their losses and plug the gap as fast as they could. Hell, I honestly don't think that even the hackers thought that Sony would react like this. I still think Sony made a poor choice, they probably could've isolated the problem or had the multiplayer stuff back online much quicker than a month.\
And the point still stands that the hackers in no way shape or form took down the PSN. I mean say you were explaining the situation to a person and you tell them "Oh my god hackers took down the Playstation Network! It was down for a whole month!"
And the person is like wow, how did those hackers manage to do something insane like that?
The only answer is: Well they didn't take it down per se, Sony shut it off....

 

[Agayek]

But they didn't fuck over anyone. Or at least a sizeable enough percentage for them to actually you know mount some form of legal defense, the kind that would be very easy to do if it was a used feature.

Basically the crutch of your argument is that you want to hate sony. Regardless of how flimsy the reasoning behind such an act is.

You're clearly not understanding the crux of the matter. I'm not sure if it's deliberate or merely a lack of proper explanation on my part.

The problem is not, I repeat NOT, that Other OS was removed.

The problem, in its entirety, is that Sony was legally allowed to remove a feature from a product the consumer had already paid for. Removing Other OS from all PS3 consoles released post-3.21 would have been fine. I would have no issue with that. Instead, they removed it from all PS3s.

This is a very, very dangerous precedent. Sony has the legal right to remove any functionality from your console, at their discretion. It's complete bullshit and an utter violation of basic consumer rights.

Our legal system is rather archaic when it comes to these matters, and that's how they got away with it, but that doesn't change what it is.

The reason is completely relevant, if they remove the ability to play blue-ray for shit's and giggles, you can take them to court and sue them, it doesn't matter what is in the TOS/EULA the courts will side with you, because yes you paid for it. However if they remove the ability to play blue-rays because the software that plays blue-rays allows for people to play illegal copies of games, the courts will side with Sony. It is that simple

No, you can't. That's the problem. The TOS/EULA states, fairly clearly, that Sony can do whatever the fuck it wants with the consoles after you buy them. That's why Sony got away with removing the Other OS feature. All they'd have to do is say "Oh sorry Judge, but the Blu-Ray player is a potentially security flaw", and then, by your own admission, you would lose the suit.

The fact that Sony was allowed to remove the Other OS functionality means they can do it with anything else on the console, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's an incredibly dangerous precedent from a consumer standpoint.

 

[artanis_neravar]

But they didn't fuck over anyone. Or at least a sizeable enough percentage for them to actually you know mount some form of legal defense, the kind that would be very easy to do if it was a used feature.

Basically the crutch of your argument is that you want to hate sony. Regardless of how flimsy the reasoning behind such an act is.

You're clearly not understanding the crux of the matter. I'm not sure if it's deliberate or merely a lack of proper explanation on my part.

The problem is not, I repeat NOT, that Other OS was removed.

The problem, in its entirety, is that Sony was legally allowed to remove a feature from a product the consumer had already paid for. Removing Other OS from all PS3 consoles released post-3.21 would have been fine. I would have no issue with that. Instead, they removed it from all PS3s.

This is a very, very dangerous precedent. Sony has the legal right to remove any functionality from your console, at their discretion. It's complete bullshit and an utter violation of basic consumer rights.

Our legal system is rather archaic when it comes to these matters, and that's how they got away with it, but that doesn't change what it is.

The reason is completely relevant, if they remove the ability to play blue-ray for shit's and giggles, you can take them to court and sue them, it doesn't matter what is in the TOS/EULA the courts will side with you, because yes you paid for it. However if they remove the ability to play blue-rays because the software that plays blue-rays allows for people to play illegal copies of games, the courts will side with Sony. It is that simple

No, you can't. That's the problem. The TOS/EULA states, fairly clearly, that Sony can do whatever the fuck it wants with the consoles after you buy them. That's why Sony got away with removing the Other OS feature. All they'd have to do is say "Oh sorry Judge, but the Blu-Ray player is a potentially security flaw", and then, by your own admission, you would lose the suit.

The fact that Sony was allowed to remove the Other OS functionality means they can do it with anything else on the console, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's an incredibly dangerous precedent from a consumer standpoint.

They would have to prove that it was a security risk, which they could not do for the blue-ray player, unless of course it actually was.

 

[Spade Lead]

It's essentially the same thing as you buying a convertible car, then a year later the salesman comes to your house and replaces it with a hardtop version of the same model. Sure, it'll still work, and it'll still be a car, but you paid for a convertible that you no longer have.

But your argument is Specious. The hardtop/ragtop argument is one of HARDWARE. This is a software argument. And to prevent piracy (A SOFTWARE issue) they took steps like dis-allowing alternate OSes. That would be like Buying a German sportscar capable of doing 180 miles per hour, and then the government forces you to install a computer chip to limit it to a top speed of 120 miles per hour... Oh WAIT, they DO that here in America... It is within the rights of a company to do everything in their power to prevent Piracy, which is a crime.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it illegal.

 

[thenoblitt]

I guess I don't understand why these guys are considered the good guys and Sony is evil? Because Sony is big and suing people, so they must be evil and it is geo right to be able to hack shit and post how to hack it online, therefore he is a hero. And now Anonymous and some sort of lolcat hackers are taking up arms against Sony for suing a fellow hacker? How is the honorable? That seems like terrorism. It just seems to me that everyone in this situation has dirty hands.

I don't know, maybe I'm missing something.

dont lump them together, all geohot did was allow hack the ps3, the sony hackers are completely shutting down servers and taking confidential info from sony and selling it, 2 completely different things

 

[zehydra]

Anon doesn't think they're heroes. If Geohot is really the motivation for their hacks, then they're just "looking out for their own kind".

 

[Voodoomancer]

Sony should loosen up a bit, sure (except for in security measures ), hacker group needs to piss right off, and I'm neutral on Geohotz because he actually had a valid point somewhere.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

Geohot was more or less just a guy who was being picked on by sony, and was the 1st case that had a chance to actually se predence over EULA's and stuff.

The Sony hackers are just assholes.

 

[sheic99]

A FEATURE NOBODY USED.
Seriously the people who used the otherOS
seriously
are still using it. Everyone else only liked it as an option and just enjoys getting up in arms about stuff. Its a complete non-issue. And If you were sony and had a way to shut off pirate access you'd take it too. Because its a hell of a lot less effort than patching for every single game released to check for cracks.

Be angry if you want, but it's not because they were wrong. its because you want to argue about something.

Really? Nobody used it? Can I see where you get your facts? I'm going to take a guess here and say you're talking out of your ass. Funny thing is that, the removal of the Other OS option is illegal according to the EU Parliament.

The goods must

· comply with the description given by the seller and posses the same qualities and characteristics as other similar goods

· be fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase.

http://www.wak-tt.com/tt/2yearwarranty1.htm

like removing PS2 emulation which they did and which GeoHot re-enabled.

That was solely cost related, which they announced that no future PS3s would have that. The PS2 emulation still works fine for all older consoles.

 

[EradiusLore]

sony are a huge corporation, the bottom line is the top brass of any global corporation (95% of the time) wont give a shit about the consumer, seriously they couldnt care less if you all died as long as your ghosts continued to pay for new sony stuff. so an attack on any corporation is a good thing.

 

[Arehexes]

But they didn't fuck over anyone. Or at least a sizeable enough percentage for them to actually you know mount some form of legal defense, the kind that would be very easy to do if it was a used feature.

Basically the crutch of your argument is that you want to hate sony. Regardless of how flimsy the reasoning behind such an act is.

You're clearly not understanding the crux of the matter. I'm not sure if it's deliberate or merely a lack of proper explanation on my part.

The problem is not, I repeat NOT, that Other OS was removed.

The problem, in its entirety, is that Sony was legally allowed to remove a feature from a product the consumer had already paid for. Removing Other OS from all PS3 consoles released post-3.21 would have been fine. I would have no issue with that. Instead, they removed it from all PS3s.

This is a very, very dangerous precedent. Sony has the legal right to remove any functionality from your console, at their discretion. It's complete bullshit and an utter violation of basic consumer rights.

Our legal system is rather archaic when it comes to these matters, and that's how they got away with it, but that doesn't change what it is.

The reason is completely relevant, if they remove the ability to play blue-ray for shit's and giggles, you can take them to court and sue them, it doesn't matter what is in the TOS/EULA the courts will side with you, because yes you paid for it. However if they remove the ability to play blue-rays because the software that plays blue-rays allows for people to play illegal copies of games, the courts will side with Sony. It is that simple

No, you can't. That's the problem. The TOS/EULA states, fairly clearly, that Sony can do whatever the fuck it wants with the consoles after you buy them. That's why Sony got away with removing the Other OS feature. All they'd have to do is say "Oh sorry Judge, but the Blu-Ray player is a potentially security flaw", and then, by your own admission, you would lose the suit.

The fact that Sony was allowed to remove the Other OS functionality means they can do it with anything else on the console, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's an incredibly dangerous precedent from a consumer standpoint.

If sony can prove the blu-ray player function has a risk to it to allow someone to play illegal game they can side with them because copying games as much as I hate to admit it is a crime end of story. Why not blame Nintendo for haven't the new 3DS auto update, or having it supposedly record if you use a flash cart making it so you can't resale(or say the rumors go). Hell nintendo updates the wii to block the homebrew channel from being used but no one and I repeat NO ONE CARES, I have heard no one say "YEAH lets show nintendo who is boss". The only reason people are mad at sony is because they sued a hacker for unlocked THE SOFTWARE NOT THE HARDWARE. Why not sue Ubisoft for forcing single player games require a internet connection? Why not sue companies for making these game passes to limit game functions on the disc if you buy used? You guys whine and moan about sony but other companies just do the same and or worse but hey who cares sony removed a feature not every avid gamer would use. Hell I don't even know linux/computer nerds who had a ps3 used otherOS or if they installed it barely used it.

 

[Agayek]

But your argument is Specious. The hardtop/ragtop argument is one of HARDWARE. This is a software argument. And to prevent piracy (A SOFTWARE issue) they took steps like dis-allowing alternate OSes. That would be like Buying a German sportscar capable of doing 180 miles per hour, and then the government forces you to install a computer chip to limit it to a top speed of 120 miles per hour... Oh WAIT, they DO that here in America... It is within the rights of a company to do everything in their power to prevent Piracy, which is a crime.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it illegal.

Fair. It's still a mostly valid comparison though (and the only one I could think up on short notice). Sony advertised a feature, and left it as part of their system for three and a half years. Then they suddenly decided they didn't like it and removed functionality from every PS3 out there.

Maybe a better example is if Microsoft suddenly decided that the Internet will only be accessible on a Windows OS through Internet Explorer, to stop people from pirating their software. It's a perfectly legit move to combat piracy, but it removes a feature from a product you paid for, and there's not many people who wouldn't be pissed off about it. That is, in essence, the exact same thing Sony did, only with a smaller userbase to annoy.

That said, the government forcing speed limiters on cars is also bullshit, but I'm not going to get into it.

 

[Agayek]

They would have to prove that it was a security risk, which they could not do for the blue-ray player, unless of course it actually was.

I highly doubt that. I'm at work, and so unable to go through the PS3 TOS and EULA to prove it at the moment, but I very much doubt that.

 

[Choppaduel]

I can see Geohot's argument, (that the person who buys the device owns the device & the eula can't be used to take that away) but I have no idea what the hackers hope to accomplish.

Also whats up with the title? I haven't ever seen anyone call either of them heros. (until now, that is)

 

[Agayek]

If sony can prove the blu-ray player function has a risk to it to allow someone to play illegal game they can side with them because copying games as much as I hate to admit it is a crime end of story. Why not blame Nintendo for haven't the new 3DS auto update, or having it supposedly record if you use a flash cart making it so you can't resale(or say the rumors go). Hell nintendo updates the wii to block the homebrew channel from being used but no one and I repeat NO ONE CARES, I have heard no one say "YEAH lets show nintendo who is boss". The only reason people are mad at sony is because they sued a hacker for unlocked THE SOFTWARE NOT THE HARDWARE. Why not sue Ubisoft for forcing single player games require a internet connection? Why not sue companies for making these game passes to limit game functions on the disc if you buy used? You guys whine and moan about sony but other companies just do the same and or worse but hey who cares sony removed a feature not every avid gamer would use. Hell I don't even know linux/computer nerds who had a ps3 used otherOS or if they installed it barely used it.

Here's how you prove it:

Pirates need a Blu-Ray player to play their pirated games, because they are on Blu-Ray.

Throw some $30,000/hour lawyers at that, and you have sufficient proof for a court of law.

The simple fact of the matter is that they can remove just about anything they want from a consumer's console, legally. It's a completely dick move and a gross violation of consumer rights.

And you are correct, Nintendo, Ubisoft and all those other dicks have done the same thing. I rallied against it then as well. This thread is about Sony though, hence why I haven't mentioned them.

 

[Arehexes]

sony are a huge corporation, the bottom line is the top brass of any global corporation (95% of the time) wont give a shit about the consumer, seriously they couldnt care less if you all died as long as your ghosts continued to pay for new sony stuff. so an attack on any corporation is a good thing.

I love posts like this because I want to ask this "Do you use anything made by a "huge corporation" was your computer used by a independent company? Do you use a open source OS? Do you use a Cell Phone and if so did you are some small company make the phone/software it runs? Do you use a console made by microsoft, sony, or nintendo or do you use a open source system?" If you use any thing from a "huge corporation" then dude you need to shut up because your a hypocrite end of story man.