Still doesn't matter. What matters most here is the principle. A company can't advertise and sell a machine saying it has a feature to then take it away once people bought it.kuraimen
Well I just want to know if I'm arguing for no reason.
Hacking - The Legal Grounds.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]
Still doesn't matter. What matters most here is the principle. A company can't advertise and sell a machine saying it has a feature to then take it away once people bought it.Espada12
Well I just want to know if I'm arguing for no reason.
There's a lot of reason in going against Sony here IMO. That principle is actually important.
[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]PSN is technically not a feature of the PS3 hardware. It is a service provided separately. You didn't pay for it when purchasing the PS3. OtherOS was a feature, but of the firmware. And as I said, it has fallout exactly, even though they changed, and you accepted it, you'd have to give people legal authority to dispute this, in the same manner than Windows 8 not running all previous version software could be sueable (or WoW not supporting all previous mods). Remember, they never ever claimed this new firmware could run OtherOS (it fact it does quite the opposite). You open up this can of worms and it will be a hell of mess. Yes it is a feature, the access to the service is the feature. There's a lawsuit going on right now actually disputing Sony's behavior. When people buy Windows 8 it won't say "it comes with backwards compatibility with all previous software" if it said that and it didn't come with it or was removed afterwards then THAT would be a problem. Actually what Sony is doing is what's opening a can of worms, by saying that they can legally remove any feature that came with the machine they could update the firmware and legally block bluray discs from playing for example, since it is just another feature. Potential to access is a feature, right to access is not. You did not lose the potential to access. Your hardware is still fully capable of accessing the network. It is like a cell phone, having one doesn't mean you get to make calls, only that you can potentially use it to connect to a cell network. Cell network providers are likewise not required to give you access simply because you have a cell phone. They can add all kinds of conditions, just like PSN can. So that's a non-starter as a legal argument. And yes, windows 8 won't say that, and neither did the new firmware. That's the point. You are claiming that is has too, that it has to support all features that a previous version did when it never claimed to do so. If we actually let that logic stand in court, it would be a mess of incredible proportions. People could sue Blizzard because mods that worked in one version no longer do (heck, since recent updates, the hardware requirements have also changed). People could sue MS because software (and hardware) supported in previous versions isn't anymore. Pretty much any version updated software could potentially be dragged into court under this reasoning.Eh that's basically what I said. Access to PSN is a feature and OtherOS is a feature. I paid for both features but I have to choose only one. Not fair deal. And how is it a fall out to software development? the same can be done with cellphones and computers there's no fall out whatsoever.
kuraimen
Actually they can, and they did.Still doesn't matter. What matters most here is the principle. A company can't advertise and sell a machine saying it has a feature to then take it away once people bought it.kuraimen
As a comsumer you have every right to seek a refund or take them to court about it. You do not however have the right to break security features that endanger other consumers.
If they can't do anything that will effect customers then their campaign is pretty much over. The worst thing that Anonymous is capable of is DDOS attacks, and they only organize actual street protests for extreme circumstances like Scientology. It's pretty much over for them, because now all they can do is refuse to buy Sony's products.http://www.gamespot.com/news/6307284.html?tag=latestheadlines%3Btitle%3B1
The good news for PS3 owners is that it appears as if Anonymous will be backing off its hostilities. An update to the loose-knit organization's website claims it would no longer be directing its efforts at bringing down services such as the PlayStation Network.
"Anonymous is not attacking the PSN at this time," the update reads. "Sony's official position is that the PSN is undergoing maintenance. We realize that targeting the PSN is not a good idea. We have therefore temporarily suspended our action, until a method is found that will not severely impact Sony customers."
"Anonymous is on your side, standing up for your rights," the message continues. "We are not aiming to attack customers of Sony. This attack is aimed solely at Sony, and we will try our best to not affect the gamers, as this would defeat the purpose of our actions. If we did inconvenience users, please know that this was not our goal."
The group went on to note that its campaign against Sony will continue "until we are satisfied with the outcome."
blue_hazy_basic
I'm siding with Sony from day one for a few reasons.
1.I get sick of dishonest thieves wish they would just admit the real reason they did things.
2.anything to keep the online arena and my fun safe..WilliamRLBaker
i disagree with tihs dude all the time but this is not one of them... he is right im tired of the this robin hood vibe the hackers are getting, like as if they are gonna make it better for everyone
[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"]
Weren't they responding to an immediate threat to their system? A few months before they removed OtherOS, GeoHot was claiming that he had hacked the PS3.
So it makes sense that they'd want to crack down on any weaknesses in their security, if only to try to slow the pirates down.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Hackers.. I have been a PC gamer for well over a decade.. And these developers need to adapt.. This was a common thing to happen that should have been fully expected.. But the way they are going about it is in fact screwing the legitimate purchaser.. Planeforger
Are you talking about Sony there, or the hackers? Because you'd be right either way. Haven't you heard that some of the more popular online games (such as the Call of Duty games) have been ruined by cheaters using hacks? Aren't you aware that the hackers shut down PSN for a while recently? And that's not even getting into the piracy/lost sales argument...
In the end I have no concern what so ever for these gaming industries.. The gaming industry is growing not shrinking, its the same old crying with Hollywood.. In how they claim they are losing so much money.. If thats the case than why is Hollywood and the gaming industry bigger than ever? How is this a excuse to use ineffective, expensive, or tedious methods that harm the legitimate purchasers the most.. sSubZerOo
It's entirely possible that they could be losing heaps of money to piracy while still growing. The fact that they're still making money doesn't justify piracy in any way, shape or form.
I think the only valid complaint there is the archaic ways in which Sony are responding to threats, but at the same time I can see a necessity for it, especially when the hackers could more easily get around less harsh methods.
Hacking is a fact of life.. Its going to happen.. Demonizing hackers isn't going to some how make it better.. The industry needs to adapt.. There are multiple ways they can do it.. And I am all for hacking if it makes a dev think twice in releasing a game with 5 to 10 hours of gameplay for $60.. Furthermore piracy specifically is a empty issue.. You can not directly compute copies pirated = actual lost profit. It doesn't work that way.. I will be concerned when the industry shows a loss.. Instead they are all getting monster profits.
Finally as a PS3 owner I could honestly care less.. Its rare, and PSn going down briefly I could still care less.. It was brief and didn't repeat it self.. I would take PSn down once a week for 12 hours if it meant they added things in it that are common on platforms like the PC and 360.. Why havn't they made a coherent party system? A cross game chat system? A better UI? They had years to do it.. Yet the PC platforms like Steam have had it since the mid 2000's.. In the end the blame can always be laid at the companies side.. Hackers are a fact of life, they are always going to be there.. It should be expected of a business to adapt to it for its customer base.
Yes it is a feature, the access to the service is the feature. There's a lawsuit going on right now actually disputing Sony's behavior. When people buy Windows 8 it won't say "it comes with backwards compatibility with all previous software" if it said that and it didn't come with it or was removed afterwards then THAT would be a problem. Actually what Sony is doing is what's opening a can of worms, by saying that they can legally remove any feature that came with the machine they could update the firmware and legally block bluray discs from playing for example, since it is just another feature. Potential to access is a feature, right to access is not. You did not lose the potential to access. Your hardware is still fully capable of accessing the network. It is like a cell phone, having one doesn't mean you get to make calls, only that you can potentially use it to connect to a cell network. Cell network providers are likewise not required to give you access simply because you have a cell phone. They can add all kinds of conditions, just like PSN can. So that's a non-starter as a legal argument. And yes, windows 8 won't say that, and neither did the new firmware. That's the point. You are claiming that is has too, that it has to support all features that a previous version did when it never claimed to do so. If we actually let that logic stand in court, it would be a mess of incredible proportions. People could sue Blizzard because mods that worked in one version no longer do (heck, since recent updates, the hardware requirements have also changed). People could sue MS because software (and hardware) supported in previous versions isn't anymore. Pretty much any version updated software could potentially be dragged into court under this reasoning.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] PSN is technically not a feature of the PS3 hardware. It is a service provided separately. You didn't pay for it when purchasing the PS3. OtherOS was a feature, but of the firmware. And as I said, it has fallout exactly, even though they changed, and you accepted it, you'd have to give people legal authority to dispute this, in the same manner than Windows 8 not running all previous version software could be sueable (or WoW not supporting all previous mods). Remember, they never ever claimed this new firmware could run OtherOS (it fact it does quite the opposite). You open up this can of worms and it will be a hell of mess. DerekLoffin
Funny that they themselves call it a feature
Playstation 3 Features
Gaming, PLAYSTATION NETWORK, Bluray, Multimedia, Connectivity
So yeah it is a feature
The rest of your post doesn't make any sense, why would I be complaining for a feature I didn't pay for in Windows 8? I paid for the OtherOS and PSN feature so I'm entitled to have them but if Windows 8 never told me they had those features to begin with then I can't compĺain since I know what I've paid for. When I bought my PS3 it said that it had the OtherOS function so that was one of the features I paid for.
Tell me this. Do you think that Sony has the right to take the Gaming feature away via a firmware update? how would you feel about that?
Not every update could be taken into court unless it takes away features that people paid for and that were advertised when they bought their console.
[QUOTE="jeffwulf"][QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]I fully believe this is fine. Using it for piracy or ruining the enjoyment of others isn't okay, but releasing how to open your PS3's software is 100% ethical in my book, even if it leads to people doing those things. This is like saying you would give a gun to a maniac, saying he should keep it incase someone might try to rob him. He has the right to have that gun though, as long as he doesn't kill anyone with it.So publicly giving the info and tools on how to hack it is fine?
Sandvichman
Actually they can, and they did.[QUOTE="kuraimen"]
Still doesn't matter. What matters most here is the principle. A company can't advertise and sell a machine saying it has a feature to then take it away once people bought it.Jynxzor
As a comsumer you have every right to seek a refund or take them to court about it. You do not however have the right to break security features that endanger other consumers.
Ok yeah they can but they shouldn't. having the OtherOS alone doesn't make you endanger other consumers just if misuse it. I have no problem Sony dealing with the misusers, I have a problem with them stepping over law abidding customers to do it though.
Jynxzor and Timstuff dominate every hacking thread on this board.
Potential to access is a feature, right to access is not. You did not lose the potential to access. Your hardware is still fully capable of accessing the network. It is like a cell phone, having one doesn't mean you get to make calls, only that you can potentially use it to connect to a cell network. Cell network providers are likewise not required to give you access simply because you have a cell phone. They can add all kinds of conditions, just like PSN can. So that's a non-starter as a legal argument. And yes, windows 8 won't say that, and neither did the new firmware. That's the point. You are claiming that is has too, that it has to support all features that a previous version did when it never claimed to do so. If we actually let that logic stand in court, it would be a mess of incredible proportions. People could sue Blizzard because mods that worked in one version no longer do (heck, since recent updates, the hardware requirements have also changed). People could sue MS because software (and hardware) supported in previous versions isn't anymore. Pretty much any version updated software could potentially be dragged into court under this reasoning.[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Yes it is a feature, the access to the service is the feature. There's a lawsuit going on right now actually disputing Sony's behavior. When people buy Windows 8 it won't say "it comes with backwards compatibility with all previous software" if it said that and it didn't come with it or was removed afterwards then THAT would be a problem. Actually what Sony is doing is what's opening a can of worms, by saying that they can legally remove any feature that came with the machine they could update the firmware and legally block bluray discs from playing for example, since it is just another feature.kuraimen
Funny that they themselves call it a feature
Playstation 3 Features
Gaming, PLAYSTATION NETWORK, Bluray, Multimedia, Connectivity
So yeah it is a feature
The rest of your post doesn't make any sense, why would I be complaining for a feature I didn't pay for in Windows 8? I paid for the OtherOS and PSN feature so I'm entitled to have them but if Windows 8 never told me they had those features to begin with then I can't compĺain since I know what I've paid for. When I bought my PS3 it said that it had the OtherOS function so that was one of the features I paid for.
Tell me this. Do you think that Sony has the right to take the Gaming feature away via a firmware update? how would you feel about that?
Not every update could be taken into court unless it takes away features that people paid for and that were advertised when they bought their console.
Come on man, you're trying to argue that a network is in your PS3 box, no. No judge in a million years is going to give you that one. You have a potential access point, that's it. As to your question, since I can't explain it any simpler for you, yes they have that right, just as you have the right to refuse the update. Just don't expect at the same time to get all the advantages of that update without taking it.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] Potential to access is a feature, right to access is not. You did not lose the potential to access. Your hardware is still fully capable of accessing the network. It is like a cell phone, having one doesn't mean you get to make calls, only that you can potentially use it to connect to a cell network. Cell network providers are likewise not required to give you access simply because you have a cell phone. They can add all kinds of conditions, just like PSN can. So that's a non-starter as a legal argument. And yes, windows 8 won't say that, and neither did the new firmware. That's the point. You are claiming that is has too, that it has to support all features that a previous version did when it never claimed to do so. If we actually let that logic stand in court, it would be a mess of incredible proportions. People could sue Blizzard because mods that worked in one version no longer do (heck, since recent updates, the hardware requirements have also changed). People could sue MS because software (and hardware) supported in previous versions isn't anymore. Pretty much any version updated software could potentially be dragged into court under this reasoning.
DerekLoffin
Funny that they themselves call it a feature
Playstation 3 Features
Gaming, PLAYSTATION NETWORK, Bluray, Multimedia, Connectivity
So yeah it is a feature
The rest of your post doesn't make any sense, why would I be complaining for a feature I didn't pay for in Windows 8? I paid for the OtherOS and PSN feature so I'm entitled to have them but if Windows 8 never told me they had those features to begin with then I can't compĺain since I know what I've paid for. When I bought my PS3 it said that it had the OtherOS function so that was one of the features I paid for.
Tell me this. Do you think that Sony has the right to take the Gaming feature away via a firmware update? how would you feel about that?
Not every update could be taken into court unless it takes away features that people paid for and that were advertised when they bought their console.
Come on man, you're trying to argue that a network is in your PS3 box, no. No judge in a million years is going to give you that one. You have a potential access point, that's it. As to your question, since I can't explain it any simpler for you, yes they have that right, just as you have the right to refuse the update. Just don't expect at the same time to get all the advantages of that update without taking it. To add to your point, Sony have the right to discontinue PSN whenever they want to, like devs can with online servers. So whilst it may/may not be a feature, it's one that Sony are perfectly within their right to remove.how does this have 6 pages? System wars is getting too out of hand with offtopic threads
[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]Good for them. I didn't want them to remove it and i am happy that it was restored by the hackers.Espada12
Well why didn't you want them to remove it? :s
Because it was an enticing feature, and a feature nonetheless. Why would i want them to remove a feature in the first place? I don't approve of a company removing a feature just because it is convenient to them.
Funny that they themselves call it a feature
Playstation 3 Features
Gaming, PLAYSTATION NETWORK, Bluray, Multimedia, Connectivity
So yeah it is a feature
The rest of your post doesn't make any sense, why would I be complaining for a feature I didn't pay for in Windows 8? I paid for the OtherOS and PSN feature so I'm entitled to have them but if Windows 8 never told me they had those features to begin with then I can't compĺain since I know what I've paid for. When I bought my PS3 it said that it had the OtherOS function so that was one of the features I paid for.
Tell me this. Do you think that Sony has the right to take the Gaming feature away via a firmware update? how would you feel about that?
Not every update could be taken into court unless it takes away features that people paid for and that were advertised when they bought their console.
kuraimen
If this is the case that OtherOS and PSN are features then why is noone sueing the Demon's Souls devs for removing a "Feature" where we can invade other peoples worlds and read messages? Is this any different or just another "Bu bu but Sony?!!?!?".
Come on man, you're trying to argue that a network is in your PS3 box, no. No judge in a million years is going to give you that one. You have a potential access point, that's it. As to your question, since I can't explain it any simpler for you, yes they have that right, just as you have the right to refuse the update. Just don't expect at the same time to get all the advantages of that update without taking it. If this is the case that OtherOS and PSN are features then why is noone sueing the Demon's Souls devs for removing a "Feature" where we can invade other peoples worlds and read messages? Is this any different or just another "Bu bu but Sony?!!?!?". Wth man, i didn't say that. You've missed out my comment on the quote =/[QUOTE="DarthJohnova"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]
Funny that they themselves call it a feature
Playstation 3 Features
Gaming, PLAYSTATION NETWORK, Bluray, Multimedia, Connectivity
So yeah it is a feature
The rest of your post doesn't make any sense, why would I be complaining for a feature I didn't pay for in Windows 8? I paid for the OtherOS and PSN feature so I'm entitled to have them but if Windows 8 never told me they had those features to begin with then I can't compĺain since I know what I've paid for. When I bought my PS3 it said that it had the OtherOS function so that was one of the features I paid for.
Tell me this. Do you think that Sony has the right to take the Gaming feature away via a firmware update? how would you feel about that?
Not every update could be taken into court unless it takes away features that people paid for and that were advertised when they bought their console.
JohnF111
Making something possible and actually doing it are two totally different things.Here's the bottom line: Hotz and the hackers claim they have the right to change their consoles, which they do. They do not, however, have the right to change anyone else's, which is what Hotz made possible and other hackers have taken advantage of.
789shadow
[QUOTE="789shadow"]Making something possible and actually doing it are two totally different things. Not really. George hots did nothing to stop the hack from being used by pirates, and it was probably illegal for him to post it online at all. You are not allowed to upload backups of movies and games onto the internet as long as you include a disclaimer "don't download these unless you own a legitimate copy." There is no way to police who downloads the hack and who doesn't. Hotz is indirectly responsible for everything bad that comes out of this hack, and yet he wants to stick his fingers in his ears while chanting "lalalalala" and pretend he has no responsibility for it whatsoever, much like the gun store clerk who sells a handgun to a teenager who goes on a school shooting. And sadly, he has a legion of blind sheep who agree with him.Here's the bottom line: Hotz and the hackers claim they have the right to change their consoles, which they do. They do not, however, have the right to change anyone else's, which is what Hotz made possible and other hackers have taken advantage of.
KC_Hokie
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="789shadow"]Making something possible and actually doing it are two totally different things.Not really. George hots did nothing to stop the hack from being used by pirates, and it was probably illegal for him to post it online at all. You are not allowed to upload backups of movies and games onto the internet as long as you include a disclaimer "don't download these unless you own a legitimate copy." There is no way to police who downloads the hack and who doesn't. Hotz is indirectly responsible for everything bad that comes out of this hack, and yet he wants to stick his fingers in his ears while chanting "lalalalala" and pretend he has no responsibility for it whatsoever, much like the gun store clerk who sells a handgun to a teenager who goes on a school shooting. And sadly, he has a legion of blind sheep who agree with him.Hacking something you own isn't illegal. Pirating something is. Hotz isn't being charged with a crime as he did not break any laws.Here's the bottom line: Hotz and the hackers claim they have the right to change their consoles, which they do. They do not, however, have the right to change anyone else's, which is what Hotz made possible and other hackers have taken advantage of.
Timstuff
Not really. George hots did nothing to stop the hack from being used by pirates, and it was probably illegal for him to post it online at all. You are not allowed to upload backups of movies and games onto the internet as long as you include a disclaimer "don't download these unless you own a legitimate copy." There is no way to police who downloads the hack and who doesn't. Hotz is indirectly responsible for everything bad that comes out of this hack, and yet he wants to stick his fingers in his ears while chanting "lalalalala" and pretend he has no responsibility for it whatsoever, much like the gun store clerk who sells a handgun to a teenager who goes on a school shooting. And sadly, he has a legion of blind sheep who agree with him.Hacking something you own isn't illegal. Pirating something is. Hotz isn't being charged with a crime as he did not break any laws.He didn't just hack something he owned though. He also provided the information and software on the internet for other people to hack their systems too, and there is no established legal protection for that activity which is why Sony is suing him.[QUOTE="Timstuff"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Making something possible and actually doing it are two totally different things.KC_Hokie
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Hacking something you own isn't illegal. Pirating something is. Hotz isn't being charged with a crime as he did not break any laws.He didn't just hack something he owned though. He also provided the information and software on the internet for other people to hack their systems too, and there is no established legal protection for that activity which is why Sony is suing him.It's not illegal to provide information and/or software that allows someone to hack something they own.[QUOTE="Timstuff"]Not really. George hots did nothing to stop the hack from being used by pirates, and it was probably illegal for him to post it online at all. You are not allowed to upload backups of movies and games onto the internet as long as you include a disclaimer "don't download these unless you own a legitimate copy." There is no way to police who downloads the hack and who doesn't. Hotz is indirectly responsible for everything bad that comes out of this hack, and yet he wants to stick his fingers in his ears while chanting "lalalalala" and pretend he has no responsibility for it whatsoever, much like the gun store clerk who sells a handgun to a teenager who goes on a school shooting. And sadly, he has a legion of blind sheep who agree with him.Timstuff
Find OtherOS on the box and then elaborate on how much exactly you paid for both it and PSN.Funny that they themselves call it a feature
Playstation 3 Features
Gaming, PLAYSTATION NETWORK, Bluray, Multimedia, Connectivity
So yeah it is a feature
The rest of your post doesn't make any sense, why would I be complaining for a feature I didn't pay for in Windows 8? I paid for the OtherOS and PSN feature so I'm entitled to have them but if Windows 8 never told me they had those features to begin with then I can't compĺain since I know what I've paid for. When I bought my PS3 it said that it had the OtherOS function so that was one of the features I paid for.
Tell me this. Do you think that Sony has the right to take the Gaming feature away via a firmware update? how would you feel about that?
Not every update could be taken into court unless it takes away features that people paid for and that were advertised when they bought their console.
kuraimen
[QUOTE="Timstuff"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Hacking something you own isn't illegal. Pirating something is. Hotz isn't being charged with a crime as he did not break any laws.He didn't just hack something he owned though. He also provided the information and software on the internet for other people to hack their systems too, and there is no established legal protection for that activity which is why Sony is suing him.It's not illegal to provide information and/or software that allows someone to hack something they own. This is true, jailbreaks for example as well as cracks for software are not illegal, however sharing pirated material and uploading said material IS illegal. What hotz did was not illegal, or rather, there's no grounds for them to sue yet because its quite the grey area. What he did was damaging to Sony's console but its really no different than say the latest windows crack, or a keygen that 'gives' you keys.KC_Hokie
It's not illegal to provide information and/or software that allows someone to hack something they own. This is true, jailbreaks for example as well as cracks for software are not illegal, however sharing pirated material and uploading said material IS illegal. What hotz did was not illegal, or rather, there's no grounds for them to sue yet because its quite the grey area. What he did was damaging to Sony's console but its really no different than say the latest windows crack, or a keygen that 'gives' you keys. Actually, no, that isn't true. The DMCA made that illegal. I refer you to:[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Timstuff"]He didn't just hack something he owned though. He also provided the information and software on the internet for other people to hack their systems too, and there is no established legal protection for that activity which is why Sony is suing him.Phazevariance
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html
This is true, jailbreaks for example as well as cracks for software are not illegal, however sharing pirated material and uploading said material IS illegal. What hotz did was not illegal, or rather, there's no grounds for them to sue yet because its quite the grey area. What he did was damaging to Sony's console but its really no different than say the latest windows crack, or a keygen that 'gives' you keys. Actually, no, that isn't true. The DMCA made that illegal. I refer you to:[QUOTE="Phazevariance"]
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]It's not illegal to provide information and/or software that allows someone to hack something they own.DerekLoffin
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html
Geohotz isn't being charged with a crime because he broke no law. It's purely a civil case.[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]Actually, no, that isn't true. The DMCA made that illegal. I refer you to:[QUOTE="Phazevariance"] This is true, jailbreaks for example as well as cracks for software are not illegal, however sharing pirated material and uploading said material IS illegal. What hotz did was not illegal, or rather, there's no grounds for them to sue yet because its quite the grey area. What he did was damaging to Sony's console but its really no different than say the latest windows crack, or a keygen that 'gives' you keys.
KC_Hokie
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html
Geohotz isn't being charged with a crime because he broke no law. It's purely a civil case. Just because it is a civil case does not mean a person did not break the law. There are several parts of the law, criminal is only one of those.Find OtherOS on the box and then elaborate on how much exactly you paid for both it and PSN. Don't know, that's not for me to know.[QUOTE="kuraimen"]
Funny that they themselves call it a feature
Playstation 3 Features
Gaming, PLAYSTATION NETWORK, Bluray, Multimedia, Connectivity
So yeah it is a feature
The rest of your post doesn't make any sense, why would I be complaining for a feature I didn't pay for in Windows 8? I paid for the OtherOS and PSN feature so I'm entitled to have them but if Windows 8 never told me they had those features to begin with then I can't compĺain since I know what I've paid for. When I bought my PS3 it said that it had the OtherOS function so that was one of the features I paid for.
Tell me this. Do you think that Sony has the right to take the Gaming feature away via a firmware update? how would you feel about that?
Not every update could be taken into court unless it takes away features that people paid for and that were advertised when they bought their console.
shinrabanshou
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] Potential to access is a feature, right to access is not. You did not lose the potential to access. Your hardware is still fully capable of accessing the network. It is like a cell phone, having one doesn't mean you get to make calls, only that you can potentially use it to connect to a cell network. Cell network providers are likewise not required to give you access simply because you have a cell phone. They can add all kinds of conditions, just like PSN can. So that's a non-starter as a legal argument. And yes, windows 8 won't say that, and neither did the new firmware. That's the point. You are claiming that is has too, that it has to support all features that a previous version did when it never claimed to do so. If we actually let that logic stand in court, it would be a mess of incredible proportions. People could sue Blizzard because mods that worked in one version no longer do (heck, since recent updates, the hardware requirements have also changed). People could sue MS because software (and hardware) supported in previous versions isn't anymore. Pretty much any version updated software could potentially be dragged into court under this reasoning.
DerekLoffin
Funny that they themselves call it a feature
Playstation 3 Features
Gaming, PLAYSTATION NETWORK, Bluray, Multimedia, Connectivity
So yeah it is a feature
The rest of your post doesn't make any sense, why would I be complaining for a feature I didn't pay for in Windows 8? I paid for the OtherOS and PSN feature so I'm entitled to have them but if Windows 8 never told me they had those features to begin with then I can't compĺain since I know what I've paid for. When I bought my PS3 it said that it had the OtherOS function so that was one of the features I paid for.
Tell me this. Do you think that Sony has the right to take the Gaming feature away via a firmware update? how would you feel about that?
Not every update could be taken into court unless it takes away features that people paid for and that were advertised when they bought their console.
Come on man, you're trying to argue that a network is in your PS3 box, no. No judge in a million years is going to give you that one. You have a potential access point, that's it. As to your question, since I can't explain it any simpler for you, yes they have that right, just as you have the right to refuse the update. Just don't expect at the same time to get all the advantages of that update without taking it. Not in the box but they adverttise it as a feature, meaning that when you buy the PS3 if you can't connect to PSN then that would be very misleading.[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]Come on man, you're trying to argue that a network is in your PS3 box, no. No judge in a million years is going to give you that one. You have a potential access point, that's it. As to your question, since I can't explain it any simpler for you, yes they have that right, just as you have the right to refuse the update. Just don't expect at the same time to get all the advantages of that update without taking it. Not in the box but they adverttise it as a feature, meaning that when you buy the PS3 if you can't connect to PSN then that would be very misleading. No, again they advertise a potential connection. You do not own PSN by buying a PS3. You still have to dance to Sony's tune if you want to use that potential.Funny that they themselves call it a feature
Playstation 3 Features
Gaming, PLAYSTATION NETWORK, Bluray, Multimedia, Connectivity
So yeah it is a feature
The rest of your post doesn't make any sense, why would I be complaining for a feature I didn't pay for in Windows 8? I paid for the OtherOS and PSN feature so I'm entitled to have them but if Windows 8 never told me they had those features to begin with then I can't compĺain since I know what I've paid for. When I bought my PS3 it said that it had the OtherOS function so that was one of the features I paid for.
Tell me this. Do you think that Sony has the right to take the Gaming feature away via a firmware update? how would you feel about that?
Not every update could be taken into court unless it takes away features that people paid for and that were advertised when they bought their console.
kuraimen
Here's the bottom line: Hotz and the hackers claim they have the right to change their consoles, which they do. They do not, however, have the right to change anyone else's, which is what Hotz made possible and other hackers have taken advantage of.
789shadow
Bottom line for me is Anon think they fight for freedom, when they want to take away the freedom of everyone else
[QUOTE="789shadow"]
Here's the bottom line: Hotz and the hackers claim they have the right to change their consoles, which they do. They do not, however, have the right to change anyone else's, which is what Hotz made possible and other hackers have taken advantage of.
gamer-adam1
Bottom line for me is Anon think they fight for freedom, when they want to take away the freedom of everyone else
That doesn't make any sense. Sony is the one who subpoenaed the IPs of everyone who went to certain websites. That's thousands maybe tens of thousands of IPs of regular people.
[QUOTE="gamer-adam1"][QUOTE="789shadow"]
Here's the bottom line: Hotz and the hackers claim they have the right to change their consoles, which they do. They do not, however, have the right to change anyone else's, which is what Hotz made possible and other hackers have taken advantage of.
KC_Hokie
Bottom line for me is Anon think they fight for freedom, when they want to take away the freedom of everyone else
That doesn't make any sense. Sony is the one who subpoenaed the IPs of everyone who went to certain websites. That's thousands maybe tens of thousands of IPs of regular people. And at what point in time did they say they were ever going to sue the people that watched it or are you inventing things that have not happened yet?[QUOTE="gamer-adam1"][QUOTE="789shadow"]
Here's the bottom line: Hotz and the hackers claim they have the right to change their consoles, which they do. They do not, however, have the right to change anyone else's, which is what Hotz made possible and other hackers have taken advantage of.
KC_Hokie
Bottom line for me is Anon think they fight for freedom, when they want to take away the freedom of everyone else
That doesn't make any sense. Sony is the one who subpoenaed the IPs of everyone who went to certain websites. That's thousands maybe tens of thousands of IPs of regular people.I ment in general, but still millions of people get screwed over everyday, Anon is only attacking Sony because of Hotz. or else they would of attacked before. Sony has the right to do what they did, and Anon is taking away there right
That doesn't make any sense. Sony is the one who subpoenaed the IPs of everyone who went to certain websites. That's thousands maybe tens of thousands of IPs of regular people.[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="gamer-adam1"]
Bottom line for me is Anon think they fight for freedom, when they want to take away the freedom of everyone else
gamer-adam1
I ment in general, but still millions of people get screwed over everyday, Anon is only attacking Sony because of Hotz. or else they would of attacked before. Sony has the right to do what they did, and Anon is taking away there right
Anon is doing this in response to what Sony did. Anon believes, as do I, that Sony went too far when subpoenaing everyone's IP who visited certain websites. Sony did this out of pure intimidation and was wrong. I therefore support Anon.[QUOTE="gamer-adam1"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]That doesn't make any sense. Sony is the one who subpoenaed the IPs of everyone who went to certain websites. That's thousands maybe tens of thousands of IPs of regular people.KC_Hokie
I ment in general, but still millions of people get screwed over everyday, Anon is only attacking Sony because of Hotz. or else they would of attacked before. Sony has the right to do what they did, and Anon is taking away there right
Anon is doing this in response to what Sony did. Anon believes, as do I, that Sony went too far when subpoenaing everyone's IP who visited certain websites. Sony did this out of pure intimidation and was wrong. I therefore support Anon. not everyone, only hackershttp://www.anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=787
[QUOTE="JohnF111"]If this is the case that OtherOS and PSN are features then why is noone sueing the Demon's Souls devs for removing a "Feature" where we can invade other peoples worlds and read messages? Is this any different or just another "Bu bu but Sony?!!?!?". Wth man, i didn't say that. You've missed out my comment on the quote =/Oops it messed up. Meant to quote kuraimen but seems that GS quote limit has pushed the names of the messages onto a different quote or something.. Fixed it now, except the wierd font i'm using i got no idea how to fix that.[QUOTE="DarthJohnova"] Come on man, you're trying to argue that a network is in your PS3 box, no. No judge in a million years is going to give you that one. You have a potential access point, that's it. As to your question, since I can't explain it any simpler for you, yes they have that right, just as you have the right to refuse the update. Just don't expect at the same time to get all the advantages of that update without taking it. DarthJohnova
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] Actually, no, that isn't true. The DMCA made that illegal. I refer you to:Geohotz isn't being charged with a crime because he broke no law. It's purely a civil case. Just because it is a civil case does not mean a person did not break the law. There are several parts of the law, criminal is only one of those. Unfortunately, some people have it in their heads that just because Hotz is not being hit with any criminal charges means that he did not break the law. You cannot sue someone if they did not break any law. Sony has stated in their LAWsuit that Hotz has broken multiple copyright LAWS as well as the LAW that we call the DMCA. He illegally distributed hacks and made the instructions for hacking the PS3 widely available to the entire internet. Just because you WANT what Hotz did to be legal does not make it so, but unfortunately that is the prevailing attitude of most hackers, cheaters and pirates since they seem to have no respect for intellectual property laws whatsoever, and thus have fooled themselves into thinking that they don't mean anything.http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html
DerekLoffin
Just because it is a civil case does not mean a person did not break the law. There are several parts of the law, criminal is only one of those. Unfortunately, some people have it in their heads that just because Hotz is not being hit with any criminal charges means that he did not break the law. You cannot sue someone if they did not break any law. Sony has stated in their LAWsuit that Hotz has broken multiple copyright LAWS as well as the LAW that we call the DMCA. He illegally distributed hacks and made the instructions for hacking the PS3 widely available to the entire internet. Just because you WANT what Hotz did to be legal does not make it so, but unfortunately that is the prevailing attitude of most hackers, cheaters and pirates since they seem to have no respect for intellectual property laws whatsoever, and thus have fooled themselves into thinking that they don't mean anything. Of course you can sue someone who didn't break the law. You can sue people over coffee being too hot (hurr durr, I expected cold coffee) because you spilled it on yourself, and become a millionaire off of it.[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Geohotz isn't being charged with a crime because he broke no law. It's purely a civil case. Timstuff
Anon is doing this in response to what Sony did. Anon believes, as do I, that Sony went too far when subpoenaing everyone's IP who visited certain websites. Sony did this out of pure intimidation and was wrong. I therefore support Anon. not everyone, only hackers[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="gamer-adam1"]
I ment in general, but still millions of people get screwed over everyday, Anon is only attacking Sony because of Hotz. or else they would of attacked before. Sony has the right to do what they did, and Anon is taking away there right
gamer-adam1
http://www.anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=787
So thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people who simply went to certain websites are all 'hackers'? That makes absolutely no sense.[QUOTE="Timstuff"]Unfortunately, some people have it in their heads that just because Hotz is not being hit with any criminal charges means that he did not break the law. You cannot sue someone if they did not break any law. Sony has stated in their LAWsuit that Hotz has broken multiple copyright LAWS as well as the LAW that we call the DMCA. He illegally distributed hacks and made the instructions for hacking the PS3 widely available to the entire internet. Just because you WANT what Hotz did to be legal does not make it so, but unfortunately that is the prevailing attitude of most hackers, cheaters and pirates since they seem to have no respect for intellectual property laws whatsoever, and thus have fooled themselves into thinking that they don't mean anything. Of course you can sue someone who didn't break the law. You can sue people over coffee being too hot (hurr durr, I expected cold coffee) because you spilled it on yourself, and become a millionaire off of it. Actually, that's not a good example, and I don't think the general point is correct either. That particular case was just a stretch of the law regarding safety of products. I do believe you actually do have to have some legal basis to bring it to court, even if it is a horrible stretch of a laws. Personal injury claims, for example, are part of the law, but can be horribly abused.[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] Just because it is a civil case does not mean a person did not break the law. There are several parts of the law, criminal is only one of those. DarkLink77
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="Timstuff"] Unfortunately, some people have it in their heads that just because Hotz is not being hit with any criminal charges means that he did not break the law. You cannot sue someone if they did not break any law. Sony has stated in their LAWsuit that Hotz has broken multiple copyright LAWS as well as the LAW that we call the DMCA. He illegally distributed hacks and made the instructions for hacking the PS3 widely available to the entire internet. Just because you WANT what Hotz did to be legal does not make it so, but unfortunately that is the prevailing attitude of most hackers, cheaters and pirates since they seem to have no respect for intellectual property laws whatsoever, and thus have fooled themselves into thinking that they don't mean anything.Of course you can sue someone who didn't break the law. You can sue people over coffee being too hot (hurr durr, I expected cold coffee) because you spilled it on yourself, and become a millionaire off of it. Actually, that's not a good example, and I don't think the general point is correct either. That particular case was just a stretch of the law regarding safety of products. I do believe you actually do have to have some legal basis to bring it to court, even if it is a horrible stretch of a laws. Personal injury claims, for example, are part of the law, but can be horribly abused. I know, but McDonald's didn't actually do anything wrong. That woman was an idiot, and the system rewarded her for it.DerekLoffin
So thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people who simply went to certain websites are all 'hackers'? That makes absolutely no sense. KC_HokieThese IP's were only used to try and get juristiction...but everyone needs to panic and bar the doors because the Sony police are gonna find you for watching a youtube video...
I'm pretty sure you would get laughed out of court if you tried to use nothing but a IP saying you watched a Youtube video, to try you for any sort of action. But again everyone is freaking out like Sony logged all the IP's for future deathsquad use, when infact the data was only for that one fact and will probably be destroyed afterwards, or is probably even being handled by a nuetral third party.
The DCMA has more holes in it than swiss cheese. KC_Hokie
And nobody said it wasn't, but until we see that addition in the next 12 months it's still covered. Instead of fighting this DMCA ruling Hotz just decided to scoff in the face of the law "twice now" it's not really the procedure people want to follow in a democratic society. So yeah, still legal ground.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment