Why do people support Geohot?
- Thread starter Jazoni89
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So you're running a pc right?
For example's sake, I'm assuming you've a nice little Intel processor in it, that works on carrying out instructions from one of the programs installed on your fancy Seagate harddrive.
Now imagine you logging off to a "we have some updates waiting to install", going to bed and waking up tomorrow, booting it up, and seeing the message that Intel no longer supports Seagate harddrives. And for that matter, your harddrive is without an OS anyway, since Seagate no longer supports Windows, so that has been deleted.
After all, it's their machine. They can do with it what they want, right?
For example's sake, I'm assuming you've a nice little Intel processor in it, that works on carrying out instructions from one of the programs installed on your fancy Seagate harddrive.
Now imagine you logging off to a "we have some updates waiting to install", going to bed and waking up tomorrow, booting it up, and seeing the message that Intel no longer supports Seagate harddrives. And for that matter, your harddrive is without an OS anyway, since Seagate no longer supports Windows, so that has been deleted.
After all, it's their machine. They can do with it what they want, right?
I have nothing against Geohot, except for the fact that he made himself look quite childish, in my opinion, in a video he released recently about sony sueing him.
Actually, I'm pretty sure you have the right to do whatever you want with a product after you bought it as long as you don't hurt/offend other people.
So what if some people want to install linux on their PS3 or tinker around with it, let them.
I believe Sony was in the wrong for removing the "other OS" option which they advertised for the PS3.
He had every right to make it available again.
Is it his fault that people start using homebrew on the PS3?
Well, was is Einstein's fault that they used one of his discoveries to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Actually, I'm pretty sure you have the right to do whatever you want with a product after you bought it as long as you don't hurt/offend other people.
So what if some people want to install linux on their PS3 or tinker around with it, let them.
I believe Sony was in the wrong for removing the "other OS" option which they advertised for the PS3.
He had every right to make it available again.
Is it his fault that people start using homebrew on the PS3?
Well, was is Einstein's fault that they used one of his discoveries to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I agree fully.Mardrax said:
I find it rather worrying that people are so eager to give up their right to use a product they bought in whatever way they want. I did not sign any form of contract when I bought my PS3, agreeing to only use it as Sony see fit.
That being said, I haven't done any unlocking or whatever you call it. Seeing as I don't know what the process entails, I'd probably screw it up.
Your overlooking something important here, Sony started this conflict. When Sony removed the Linux option from the PS3, they not only lied in their advertising, they betrayed the trust of every person who purchased a PS3 for that exact purpose. Sony also continually bans anyone who wants to install the other OS on their console, painting themselves as the "bad guys."
Do you know why Valve says hacking is on the lower part of their list of concerns? It's because they localize games to countries like Germany very quickly, so their is no need for hackers there to hack it. They treat gaming as a service. This is similar to what Sony is facing, with the other OS option available there was no need to hack because the system was already opening itself up to what Linux users wanted.
The fact is, people are happy to pay for a product they like. Just because people could download the hack for Crysis 2 and play it, doesn't mean many people did.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107927-Crysis-2-Leak-Not-As-Bad-As-First-Thought
I support him and Sony needs to get off their high-horse.
Do you know why Valve says hacking is on the lower part of their list of concerns? It's because they localize games to countries like Germany very quickly, so their is no need for hackers there to hack it. They treat gaming as a service. This is similar to what Sony is facing, with the other OS option available there was no need to hack because the system was already opening itself up to what Linux users wanted.
The fact is, people are happy to pay for a product they like. Just because people could download the hack for Crysis 2 and play it, doesn't mean many people did.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107927-Crysis-2-Leak-Not-As-Bad-As-First-Thought
I support him and Sony needs to get off their high-horse.
This is not Sony's world, they are not god and I think its about time someone drove that fact home. Geohot is not home-brewing, or hacking, or pirating; moreover, he is advising people not to do so. He is simply trying to get the PS3 to do what it was advertised to do.
If he bought it expecting to be able to load Red Hat or something on it for use as a server, and was then not able to do so, then I think he has the right to try to make it do what sony said it would do which caused him to buy it.
If he bought it expecting to be able to load Red Hat or something on it for use as a server, and was then not able to do so, then I think he has the right to try to make it do what sony said it would do which caused him to buy it.
Nothing to do with copyright law (which has only to do with intellectual property). Everything to do with a) removing an advertised feature aftermarket and b) having the right to do with purchased hardware to do as you please.Jazoni89 said:
If I don't want Sony's OS running on my hardware, I reserve the right to do so. Hardware manufacturers selling their hardware as a package deal with software should by law make this software optional. See Windows. Hell, see all the crap that Windows has to ASK you to install, since just stuffing it down your throat goes against the law.
And if you did no such thing, but they gave you a little block of text at the back of the manual that said they had those rights, whether you agreed to them or not? (Hint, this is exactly what EULA's do.) I may have agreed to a bunch of EULAs for PC games over the years, thanks to it being required to get through the installer, but I have never once in my life agreed to a console game EULA, let alone to an EULA for a piece of hardware. As for the PC thing, a contract made under duress isn't really a contract; I'd say not letting me install something I paid for until I clicked a little "I agree" button counts as making one under duress, wouldn't you?Trunipbob said:
OT: People support Geohot because he's in the right, and EULAs need to go die in a fire. They exist only to aid big companies in screwing over their customers, and anything that flies in the face of that terrible little document is alright in my book.
If they were by law allowed to include such a clause, yes.Trunipbob said:
If the same EULA would state you'd have to donate your liver to them if so demanded this would be just as void.
I buy it, it becomes my property. If I choose to rip bits out, and replace them with other bits, that is, or should be my right. Just like choosing to toss it in a car crusher.
The reason why people support Geohot is not just because of Sony removing the Other OS option, it's because there is a precedence for allowing the user to modify the hardware purchased from a company. The US Government declared that jailbreaking the iPhone to allow for installation of non-Apple certified apps is legal [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/102390-US-Government-Declares-iPhone-Jailbreaking-Legal], and this really isn't all that different. And it could be one step in changing the DMCA if the case gets that far.
The problem is you can't really put in a eula what a person can do or not with a purchased item, to a certain point. Other than putting the usual you can't use PS3 for "hacking" or such.
Because there no limit to where a Eula can state, I could state that in my car eula that its forbidden to use any other kind of radio, seat cover, winter mat, windshield wiper/washer or any reparation made for your car not made by MY company. that would be kinda absurd.
Sony forbid the use of any other os than theirs in their eula, why?
Its like saying that the pc manufacturer forbid you to install anything but microsoft stuff on your computer.
No matter what you think or what a company put in a eula their always a way you can contrevene it while staying in a gray area and not be illegal
Because there no limit to where a Eula can state, I could state that in my car eula that its forbidden to use any other kind of radio, seat cover, winter mat, windshield wiper/washer or any reparation made for your car not made by MY company. that would be kinda absurd.
Sony forbid the use of any other os than theirs in their eula, why?
Its like saying that the pc manufacturer forbid you to install anything but microsoft stuff on your computer.
No matter what you think or what a company put in a eula their always a way you can contrevene it while staying in a gray area and not be illegal
People support him beacuse he is NOT ruining anything for ONLINE players... he stays offline, and ONLY works on HIS OWN console IE: bought and paid for, not disturbing anyone other than Sony, who just wants to control what happens with the hardware they made, and then SOLD. Sony does NOT have the rights to HIS console anymore, unless he breakes the barrier of the internet and hacks ONLINE. which he hasn't. And legally he has the right.
Nothing wrong with an EULA. They should be sensible though. Revoking the rights to do with bought property as desired just isn't, and is in fact quite unlawful, unless specifically mentioned in the contract of purchase. In which case it wouldn't be an actual purchase, but an acquisition of certain rights and duties.Owyn_Merrilin said:
When I walk up to a store clerk, hand him a box, say I want to buy it, the only thing I'm obliged to do to buy it is to pay the store. Not the company that made it.
Funny how he's contributing hugely to piracy on the PS3 and he knows it but Sony doesn't. You know, since the suit has little to nothing to do with that.tghm1801 said:
Geohot has effectively jailbroken the PS3, a step that should by all precedent be determined legal, given prior devices and legal rulings. Even if he is "contributing to piracy," He is doing so in a legit way, and I'd hate to see our consumer rights limited because pirates might capitalise. That's like curtailing free speech because al Qaeda might use it.
As far as his actions on the PS3, it's likely he did absolutely nothing wrong.
Sony, however, removed an advertised feature (more than one, actually) from a product they sold with it as a selling point. They have since protected their "property" by suing people on dubious grounds, bullying people who cannot afford to stand up for themselves legally.
Yeah, who did something wrong here?
Becaue Sony removed a feature on the console that was put in the advertising when trying to sell it. They pulled what can be called a "Bait and Switch" and that is a big ol no no.
Why did I buy it if I don't own it. You are allowed to do whatever you want to do with a product that you purchased. If you buy a car and have a car crash, Ford or VW won't sue you for making them look bad or have done something to their products.Jazoni89 said:
Its yours, you can blow it up or chop it in two or hack it.