ITT: SCEA, George Hotz and System Wars

[QUOTE="Twin-Blade"]

[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]

There's quite a lot that could be said about those blind SONY lovers who condem him, especially with quotes like : He should be imprisoned for life!!! He's scum!!! OMG, GO SONY!!!

He's not to blame for piracy, he not to blame for all the hackers on games like COD. He can't control other people, information on the other should be free. Should we condem Wikipedia for the VAST amount of potentially dangerous information it shares?

-Snooze-

He doesn't have control over them no. The same way you don't have control over a pack of rabid dogs. If you open the cage & those dogs go off & attack stuff, you should be responsible.

Except that's not even similar to what he's done.

What he's done is made public a way to do what you wish with the PS3. People will do illegal things, no doubt, some will use it for more noble, or less harmful things.

Should the fella who discovered Alcohol be held accountable for the COUNTLESS deaths a year, due to abusing it? Of course not, nor shoudl geo be held accountable for the countless people who will abuse his method.

Perhaps if devs focused less on people pirating their titles, and actually making them worth purchasing new, less people would pirate them. After playing GOW3 I almost sympathise with pirates (4 hours of garbage for £40? No thanks)

Should information not be free?

Creating something with value that can have dangerous applications is definitely a moral gray area that isn't distinctly "wrong." But Geohotz didn't "create" when he hacked the system and released the numbers to the public. There are definitely moral gray areas with hacking systems and the like. And maybe this is one of those moral gray areas. But, increasingly, it seems to me to be a reckless action done primarily for the sake of notoriety, with downsides that outweight he functionality that will come from this. Previously, people made claims that he did "not support piracy" and "resorted to the codes to bring back what Sony removed" and these claims made it seem like more of a dubious gray area to me. However, they turned out to be false.

You mentioned previously that PS2 sold amazing, but sometimes the games did not. Quite a few of them were just making by and are small miracles for ever being released. The later installments of the highly regarded Fatal Frame series, for example.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Well, there's isn't anything they can actually do, except make life miserable for these dudes and send a message that won't make a damn bit of difference. Pirates aren't going to stop pirating because a few people got sued.DarkLink77

It isn't likely that Geohotz will try and pull something like this again, after the lawsuit. He's been the biggest thorn in Sony's side and doing this will be a victory for Sony in that regard.

It also sets a precedent, not legally, but for hackers to be wary of taking such reckless actions.

Whats your point? We send one murderer to prison and he is replaced, should we stop doing that?

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]No. If I buy a hybrid and turn it into a race car, I just completed destroyed the car manufacturer's idea of what their product "should do."IronBass

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]shinrabanshou - Based on your original post, Sony is right and GeoHotz is wrong. Your 'analysis' couldn't have been more one-sided. KC_Hokie

He provided evidence that suggests that Sony is correct and that many of the claims about Geohotz have been proven incorrect.

Try and spin "people deserve free games if they hack their console" into him being anti-piracy. Go ahead.

Try and spin him planning to use the Other OS to release the keys as "the keys were a last resort because they removed Other OS!"

If you think the facts provided suggest something different, then go ahead. Spin away. Reality just so happens to support his argument and invalidate some of the arguments that have been made.

There are not always two equally valid sides to everything.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]shinrabanshou - Based on your original post, Sony is right and GeoHotz is wrong. Your 'analysis' couldn't have been more one-sided. KC_Hokie

He provided evidence that suggests that Sony is correct and that many of the claims about Geohotz have been proven incorrect.

Try and spin "people deserve free games if they hack their console" into him being anti-piracy. Go ahead.

Try and spin him planning to use the Other OS to release the keys as "the keys were a last resort because they removed Other OS!"

If you think the facts provided suggest something different, then go ahead. Spin away. Reality just so happens to support his argument and invalidate some of the arguments that have been made.

We should be more sympathetic to the theives and cheaters?

How about no scott?

Because it's a hybrid? It they intended it to be a race car, they probably would have... made a race car. :shock: ToU are not necessarily legal and binding, you know. Just ask Blizzard.DarkLink77

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

It isn't likely that Geohotz will try and pull something like this again, after the lawsuit. He's been the biggest thorn in Sony's side and doing this will be a victory for Sony in that regard.

It also sets a precedent, not legally, but for hackers to be wary of taking such reckless actions.

crimsonman1245

Whats your point? We send one murderer to prison and he is replaced, should we stop doing that?

Whats your point? We send one murderer to prison and he is replaced, should we stop doing that?

crimsonman1245

George Hotz is not a murderer, and this is a civil case, not a criminal one.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Because it's a hybrid? It they intended it to be a race car, they probably would have... made a race car. :shock: ToU are not necessarily legal and binding, you know. Just ask Blizzard.shinrabanshou

There are not always two equally valid sides to everything.

hakanakumono

In terms of "homebrew," can't indie developers release games under Sony's PSN?

Because it's a hybrid? It they intended it to be a race car, they probably would have... made a race car. :shock: DarkLink77

When I talked about what a product "should do" it was also implied the "what should not" (which is what we're talking about).

Who said you should not change you car? You can change everything you own unless specified so. The PS3 was not meant to be used as a grill, yet some guy actually did it, and nothing happened.

And even so, that's not the actual issue. The actuall issue is that he made it public, despite specified he shouldn't, and knowing the consequences.

It's a completely different case, that has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking here.

ToU are not necessarily legal and binding, you know. Just ask Blizzard.DarkLink77

We aren't talking about legality (I said that in my first post), that will the court decide. We're talking about conceptions, from the product maker and the consumer, and who's to blame if you don't get form your product what you wanted when the product's definition is completely different to what you want.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Well, there's isn't anything they can actually do, except make life miserable for these dudes and send a message that won't make a damn bit of difference. Pirates aren't going to stop pirating because a few people got sued.DarkLink77

It isn't likely that Geohotz will try and pull something like this again, after the lawsuit. He's been the biggest thorn in Sony's side and doing this will be a victory for Sony in that regard.

It also sets a precedent, not legally, but for hackers to be wary of taking such reckless actions.

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Because it's a hybrid? It they intended it to be a race car, they probably would have... made a race car. :shock: ToU are not necessarily legal and binding, you know. Just ask Blizzard.DarkLink77

There is in this case. Tons of grey area. A more balanced 'analysis' would have been nice.

KC_Hokie

I don't know. Originally, I felt more that way but leaned towards his actions being wrong. However, more evidence has come out to suggest that he was in fact wrong. I'm not siding with Sony as much as I can't help but feel that Geohotz was in the wrong.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]There are not always two equally valid sides to everything.

KC_Hokie

But feel free to provide said balance you feel is missing.

In terms of "homebrew," can't indie developers release games under Sony's PSN?

hakanakumono

You mentioned previously that PS2 sold amazing, but sometimes the games did not. Quite a few of them were just making by and are small miracles for ever being released. The later installments of the highly regarded Fatal Frame series, for example.

hakanakumono

It's far easier to blame poor sales on piracy, rather then admitting that perhaps we didn't market it well enough, or perhaps there just wasn't a lot of general interest, regardless of it's quality.

Personally, i've never heard of it.

[QUOTE="crimsonman1245"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] So GeoHotz goes down and a ton of other people replace him. DarkLink77

Whats your point? We send one murderer to prison and he is replaced, should we stop doing that?

Replace murder with theft and it still has the same effect, why you focused on that part is beyond me.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]There are not always two equally valid sides to everything.

shinrabanshou

But feel free to provide said balance you feel is missing.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

It isn't likely that Geohotz will try and pull something like this again, after the lawsuit. He's been the biggest thorn in Sony's side and doing this will be a victory for Sony in that regard.

It also sets a precedent, not legally, but for hackers to be wary of taking such reckless actions.

hbk7137

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="crimsonman1245"]

Whats your point? We send one murderer to prison and he is replaced, should we stop doing that?

crimsonman1245

Replace murder with theft and it still has the same effect, why you focused on that part is beyond me.

Because that's what you posted? :lol:

Also, piracy is not theft. Try again.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]There are not always two equally valid sides to everything.

shinrabanshou

But feel free to provide said balance you feel is missing.

He does have a lawyers so at the base case he does hace a legal defense which kinda contradicts that statement. I thought we are at teh point of getting juridiction of which state will actually get to try this case. Do we even have a location on where everything will be? AKa which judge, which court house? I thought everything was still in a paperwork battle at this point?

And a PS for everyone.. Geohotz is in a Civil Lawsuit, not a criminal case. Expect a huge financial price if he loses but no jailtime.

[QUOTE="crimsonman1245"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] So murderers and hackers are in the same league now. SW never fails to provide comedy. :lol:DarkLink77

Replace murder with theft and it still has the same effect, why you focused on that part is beyond me.

I dont understand what part of this is hard for you.

You kept spouting that Sony is just wasting time because taking down 1 guy isnt going to make others stop.

I foolishly tried to logically explain that prison doesnt deter any kind of crime whatsoever, but we still need to have it.

Why this is so hard for you to understand is beyond me.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

You mentioned previously that PS2 sold amazing, but sometimes the games did not. Quite a few of them were just making by and are small miracles for ever being released. The later installments of the highly regarded Fatal Frame series, for example.

-Snooze-

It's far easier to blame poor sales on piracy, rather then admitting that perhaps we didn't market it well enough, or perhaps there just wasn't a lot of general interest, regardless of it's quality.

Personally, i've never heard of it.

The party being sued always files to have the suit dropped before it goes to the actual hearing phase. The venue hasn't even been selected yet.KC_Hokie

Is that the balance you want provided? A fatuous statement that George Hotz opposes the claim?

"The venue at present is set as the Northern Californian district, as per a ruling that jurisdiction is appropriate based on effects doctrine, by Judge Illston.

George Hotz attornies continue to oppose this decision."

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]Because it's a hybrid? It they intended it to be a race car, they probably would have... made a race car. :shock: IronBass

When I talked about what a product "should do" it was also implied the "what should not" (which is what we're talking about).

Who said you should not change you car? You can change everything you own unless specified so. The PS3 was not meant to be used as a grill, yet some guy actually did it, and nothing happened.

And even so, that's not the actual issue. The actuall issue is that he made it public, despite specified he shouldn't, and knowing the consequences.

It's a completely different case, that has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking here.

ToU are not necessarily legal and binding, you know. Just ask Blizzard.DarkLink77

We aren't talking about legality (I said that in my first post), that will the court decide. We're talking about conceptions, from the product maker and the consumer, and who's to blame if you don't get form your product what you wanted when the product's definition is completely different to what you want.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The party being sued always files to have the suit dropped before it goes to the actual hearing phase. The venue hasn't even been selected yet.shinrabanshou

Is that the balance you want provided? A fatuous statement that George Hotz opposes the claim?

"The venue at present is set as the Northern Californian district, as per a ruling that jurisdiction is appropriate based on effects doctrine, by Judge Illston.

George Hotz attornies continue to oppose this decision."

[QUOTE="Twin-Blade"]

He doesn't have control over them no. The same way you don't have control over a pack of rabid dogs. If you open the cage & those dogs go off & attack stuff, you should be responsible.

-Snooze-

Except that's not even similar to what he's done.

What he's done is made public a way to do what you wish with the PS3. People will do illegal things, no doubt, some will use it for more noble, or less harmful things.

Should the fella who discovered Alcohol be held accountable for the COUNTLESS deaths a year, due to abusing it? Of course not, nor shoudl geo be held accountable for the countless people who will abuse his method.

Perhaps if devs focused less on people pirating their titles, and actually making them worth purchasing new, less people would pirate them. After playing GOW3 I almost sympathise with pirates (4 hours of garbage for £40? No thanks)

Should information not be free?

First of all, if I buy a game brand new & don't enjoy it, I still feel I should have paid for it as I experienced something that people worked on, thus I owe them. I guess we've been raised differently or something, so we won't see eye to eye. Secondly, what information? Risking mass piracy & hacking for homebrew & linux on a PS3?

As for my analogy, while it hasn't got anything to do with ownership, the fact of the matter is GeoHotz has enabled piracy & hacking, for whatever reason, & if deemed illegal, should be held accountable. The difference between Geo & your analogy is that there is no one person that invented alcohol all those century's ago (yet to this day there are laws that govern it), & I doubt they gave any thought to the problems that may arise as a result back then. GeoHotz knew what would happen as a result, & in today's world things are a bit different than they were century's or even decades ago.

Do you have a link to that?KC_Hokie

It also doesn't help Kevin Butler, PS3's 'PR' guy, Tweeted the root key to 70,000 of his followers with thousands more reading the news.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

You mentioned previously that PS2 sold amazing, but sometimes the games did not. Quite a few of them were just making by and are small miracles for ever being released. The later installments of the highly regarded Fatal Frame series, for example.

-Snooze-

It's far easier to blame poor sales on piracy, rather then admitting that perhaps we didn't market it well enough, or perhaps there just wasn't a lot of general interest, regardless of it's quality.

Personally, i've never heard of it.

I'm not blaming the sales on piracy. That's not really my point. The problem is that game costs keep increasing exponentially, but games are not selling more. Piracy may not be entirely to blame for a game's failure, but it definitely eats away at sales. More than ever, games are threatened. The PS3, prior to hack, was a very open console. Indie games could (and can still) be released under PSN, Other OS provided an option for Linux, the PS3 is region free, it supports a lot of video and audio, etc. It seems to me that the previous console hacks, aside from for piracy, enabled benefits that were already available or analogous on the system. So hacking the PS3 will only primarily contribute in piracy eating away at sales on what was once the only non-pirated very-expensive-to-produce-for-console.

Are you British? It goes by Project Zero or something over there. Regardless, it is pretty obscure.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Do you have a link to that?shinrabanshou

It's a computer. Hence Playstation 3 COMPUTER Entertainment System. It even had the option to run Linux at one point. Sony built a computer, they've said do themselves. It's purpose is to run software. They just got scared when they realized that people were going to run things they didn't want on it. You can't have it both ways.DarkLink77

We are back to the start. Just because it's a computer it doesn't mean it has to do everything you want to. It's still a closed system. Consoles are closed systems, everybody knows that. And if somebody doesn't know, he should have read the ToU and lincensing agreements.

As I said, if somebody wanted an open system, he should have got.... an open system. But getting a closed one and then complaining that is not open, that shows the consumer made the wrong decision.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]It's a computer. Hence Playstation 3 COMPUTER Entertainment System. It even had the option to run Linux at one point. Sony built a computer, they've said do themselves. It's purpose is to run software. They just got scared when they realized that people were going to run things they didn't want on it. You can't have it both ways.IronBass

We are back to the start. Just because it's a computer it doesn't mean it has to do everything you want to. It's still a closed system. Consoles are closes systems, everybody knows that. And if somebody doesn't know, he should have read the ToU and lincensing agreements.

As I said, if somebody wanted an open system, he should have got.... an open system. But getting a closed one and then complaining that is not open then... that shows the consumer made the wrong decision.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="crimsonman1245"]

Replace murder with theft and it still has the same effect, why you focused on that part is beyond me.

crimsonman1245

I dont understand what part of this is hard for you.

You kept spouting that Sony is just wasting time because taking down 1 guy isnt going to make others stop.

I foolishly tried to logically explain that prison doesnt deter any kind of crime whatsoever, but we still need to have it.

Why this is so hard for you to understand is beyond me.

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Do you have a link to that?KC_Hokie

But the current forum is the Northern California district, and it will continue to be so until such time as the court accepts Hotz Motion for Dismissal.

If the case is ultimately dismissed in Northern California, that has no impact on a case in New Jersey, with the exact same facts of the case.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]A TRO has been granted based on Northern California jurisdiction.

shinrabanshou

But the current forum is the Northern California district, and it will continue to be so until such time as the court accepts Hotz Motion for Dismissal.

And just because he doesn't have resources like LG to counter-sue doesn't mean anything more than he doesn't have the resources of an LG.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]It's a computer. Hence Playstation 3 COMPUTER Entertainment System. It even had the option to run Linux at one point. Sony built a computer, they've said do themselves. It's purpose is to run software. They just got scared when they realized that people were going to run things they didn't want on it. You can't have it both ways.IronBass

We are back to the start. Just because it's a computer it doesn't mean it has to do everything you want to. It's still a closed system. Consoles are closes systems, everybody knows that. And if somebody doesn't know, he should have read the ToU and lincensing agreements.

As I said, if somebody wanted an open system, he should have got.... an open system. But getting a closed one and then complaining that is not open then... that shows the consumer made the wrong decision.

what geo hotz is doing is fighting for your rights a ps3 owners to be able to use your console as you want. What sony wants to do is dicatate what circumstances you can use your ps3, despite you having spent hard earned money on it

what geo hotz is doing is fighting for your rights a ps3 owners to be able to use your console as you want. What sony wants to do is dicatate what circumstances you can use your ps3, despite you having spent hard earned money on it

tutt3r

No he isn't.

You shouldn't bill your system as an open platform (which is EXACTLY what they were doing when they proclaimed Linux support from the heavens), and then be mad when people treat it like an open platform after you realize making it an open platform wasn't a good idea. For God's sake, the military bought like 3,000 of the damn things and turned them into a supercomputer. Linux support was built in there to allow people to do things like that. You want a closed platform, try the N64. The PS3 was NEVER a closed platform.DarkLink77

:question:

Linux didn't mean the PS3 was an open system. Not even close.

If somebody actually thought that, then, there again, he should have read the ToU and LA before buying the damn thing.

The PS3 was not an open system, is not an open system, it was never supposed to be an open system.

"Full access" was out of the question from the start. If people didn't/don't agree with that, then they were/are free to buy a system that fits their needs more.

The stuff going on now is pre-argument phase. Where the actual case is held (where the arguments are made) hasn't been decided yet.KC_Hokie

And just because he doesn't have resources like LG to counter-sue doesn't mean anything more than he doesn't have the resources of an LG.

KC_Hokie

what geo hotz is doing is fighting for your rights a ps3 owners

tutt3r

I cant play CoD anymore...

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]You shouldn't bill your system as an open platform (which is EXACTLY what they were doing when they proclaimed Linux support from the heavens), and then be mad when people treat it like an open platform after you realize making it an open platform wasn't a good idea. For God's sake, the military bought like 3,000 of the damn things and turned them into a supercomputer. Linux support was built in there to allow people to do things like that. You want a closed platform, try the N64. The PS3 was NEVER a closed platform.IronBass

:question:

Linux didn't mean the PS3 was an open system. Not even close.

If somebody actually thought that, then, there again, he should have read the ToU and LA before buying the damn thing.

The PS3 was not an open system, is not an open system, it was never supposed to be an open system.

"Full access" was out of the question from the start. If people didn't/don't agree with that, then they were/are free to buy a system that fits their needs more.

Sony themselves called the System an open platformon their website. Your move.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The stuff going on now is pre-argument phase. Where the actual case is held (where the arguments are made) hasn't been decided yet.shinrabanshou

And just because he doesn't have resources like LG to counter-sue doesn't mean anything more than he doesn't have the resources of an LG.

KC_Hokie

And parties in civil suits always counter-sue when they have the resources. You can always claim damages. That way the odds of the case being settled out of court go up. That's why LG counter-sued Sony, for example.

I'm not sure what country you live in but you obviously don't understand the American civil law system. Contesting a pre-trial/case decision doesn't mean anything (for or again). The actual trial/case doesn't even start until April. And the venue hasn't even been selected yet.

And parties in civil suits always counter-sue when they have the resources. You can always claim damages. That way the odds of the case being settled out of court go up. That's why LG counter-sued Sony, for example.

KC_Hokie

The case could proceed to trial in California, or New Jersey, or could be settled out of court, or be dismissed completely.

At present all arguments are being heard in the Northern California district, as at present the Judge has determined Hotz subject to her jurisdiction.

In any event I've added the jurisdiction issue to the OP. :)

LG has specific claims with which it is using to counter-sue Sony. What specific claims would George Hotz use to counter-sue exactly?

Sony themselves called the System an open platform. Your move.DarkLink77

1) It's not a description of the system, but from a "feature" ("The Open Platform feature...")

And even so, unless specified, the meaning of "open platform" can be very different depending the usage. That's the problem with marketing materials, and why so many things can be said in so many different contexts.

2) It doesn't stop the ToU and LA from existing.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]I'm not sure what country you live in but you obviously don't understand the American civil law system. Contesting a pre-trial/case decision doesn't mean anything (for or again). The actual trial/case doesn't even start until April. And the venue hasn't even been selected yet.

And parties in civil suits always counter-sue when they have the resources. You can always claim damages. That way the odds of the case being settled out of court go up. That's why LG counter-sued Sony, for example.

shinrabanshou

LG has specific claims with which it is using to counter-sue Sony. What specific claims would George Hotz use to counter-sue exactly?

At present all arguments are being heard in the Northern California district, as at present the Judge has determined Hotz subject to her jurisdiction.shinrabanshou

You sure made it sound like you thought the rulings now were actual trial rulings (see above). And the list of 'damages' you can file in civil court is as long as the Oxford English dictionary. In civil cases you file a bunch (again, when you have the resources) and hope some stick.KC_Hokie

Everybody in SW is or should be aware that nothing has proceeded to trial yet.

The only trial ruling I have linked to in the OP is the Autodesk v Vernor ruling, and that was on notes unrelated to George Hotz.