PS3 Hacker Raised All the Legal Funds Needed to Beat Sony in a Weekend

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

he is fighting an important consumer rights battle. I am amazed at the incredibly narrow scope that system warriors have. Alot of his support comes from people that dont even play video games.

markinthedark

He's misconstruing it to be a consumer rights battle.

How is it not a consumer rights battle?

He didn't receive a lawsuit for hacking his console.

Topic: PS3 Hacker Raised All the Legal Funds Needed to Beat Sony in a Weekend

trick91_basic

Lol, no.

Everyone is saying thsi will set a precedent if Geo loses, and that's simply untrue. They say we won't own the hardware: untrue.

The precedent it will set is: YOU DONT F-KIN SHARE OUR DIGITAL SIGNATURE PROCESS WITH THE WWW BECAUSE YOU FELT LIKE GLOATING OVER THE DISCOVERY ANOTHER TEAM MADE. and the other team, namely failOverflow, gave too much hints (like saying 2+3 to get 5).

But people keep spouting this bs that we will lose the right to modify our hardware, when the true modification was made in THEIR SOFTWARE.

I don't know its funny.... Shouldn't the one on trial here be sony? i mean they made these "security holes" geo just pointed them out.

if anyone if responible it is the person that "created" these holes.

Sony, you have no one to blame but yourself. *tssk* *tssk*

seriously though, if sony sued itself over this, and won, there would be no more ps3's AND sony would make money.

Its win/win

/that was a joke FYI

Why people her don't understand the real problem with this, Most of us are mad not because of HB software, its because he release the master key of the PS3, in that case you can affect a lot of people that the only thing they want to do is play video games, with online cheaters, piracy, stolen credit card information.....

Believe me I don't give a penny about the HB software. Can you understand that!!

And Jeez I can't beleive some people here supports communism that is really sad.

Pelon208

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

He's misconstruing it to be a consumer rights battle.

hakanakumono

How is it not a consumer rights battle?

He didn't receive a lawsuit for hacking his console.

whats the lawsuit for then?

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

How is it not a consumer rights battle?

markinthedark

He didn't receive a lawsuit for hacking his console.

whats the lawsuit for then?

Dunno, sharing a key that compromises the signing process of anything 3.55 and below? Which happens to be sony digital signature on the ps3? If you don't see a difference between modding your hardware and breaking into THEIR software and share this critical information with the WWW for the purpouse of getting attention (which he succeeded at) while personally doing a get@me statement.

Not to mention that the dude thinks he's the best in the world for doing the less-nice known method of jailbreaking the iphone, which needed hardware touching stuff, and for following failOverflow instructions on how to get the keys. I would personally love to see him doing a security job and getting absolutely beaten because breaking in is always easier that preventing the break in, even if it was assisted by the jigkick to begin with.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

He didn't receive a lawsuit for hacking his console.

blitzcloud

whats the lawsuit for then?

Dunno, sharing a key that compromises the signing process of anything 3.55 and below? Which happens to be sony digital signature on the ps3? If you don't see a difference between modding your hardware and breaking into THEIR software and share this critical information with the WWW for the purpouse of getting attention (which he succeeded at) while personally doing a get@me statement.

Not to mention that the dude thinks he's the best in the world for doing the less-nice known method of jailbreaking the iphone, which needed hardware touching stuff, and for following failOverflow instructions on how to get the keys. I would personally love to see him doing a security job and getting absolutely beaten because breaking in is always easier that preventing the break in, even if it was assisted by the jigkick to begin with.

Its not illegal to share knowledge though. The key isnt copyrighted, and cant be copyrighted.

If modifying software/hardware that you own is legal... which it is. Then its legal to share the knowledge on how to do it.

The only way what geohot did is illegal, is if Sony owns our system, and we dont. If we own it, we have the right to modify it... and we have the right to possess the knowledge and tools to do so.

Which is why this case will determine if we own our system or not... because for geohot to be guilty, that entails we do not have ownership of our PS3.

for geohot to be guilty, that entails we do not have ownership of our PS3.

markinthedark

You mean the firmware. When you buy a PS3, are you paying for ownership of the firmware? Think about that.

all i'm going to say is i hope he loses and have lost a little respect for the human race, i mean all the people who donated money could have donated to a waaay better cause.

all i'm going to say is i hope he loses and have lost a little respect for the human race, i mean all the people who donated money could have donated to a waaay better cause.

Chris_Williams

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

all i'm going to say is i hope he loses and have lost a little respect for the human race, i mean all the people who donated money could have donated to a waaay better cause.

SapSacPrime

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

all i'm going to say is i hope he loses and have lost a little respect for the human race, i mean all the people who donated money could have donated to a waaay better cause.

SapSacPrime

Our ability to hack into software and release signing codes to the internet? Such an important consumer right ... :roll:

[QUOTE="SapSacPrime"][QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

all i'm going to say is i hope he loses and have lost a little respect for the human race, i mean all the people who donated money could have donated to a waaay better cause.

hakanakumono

Our ability to hack into software and release signing codes to the internet? Such an important consumer right ... :roll:

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]for geohot to be guilty, that entails we do not have ownership of our PS3.

hakanakumono

You mean the firmware. When you buy a PS3, are you paying for ownership of the firmware? Think about that.

Yea, the code is copyrighted... but you own a license to the code and can change it however you want as long as you dont distribute copyrighted code.

Think of it like a book... I own the book... I can change the story in any way i think makes it better. Now i cant goto a printing press, print 1000 copies of my modified version and give them away because the text is copyrighted. But i can sell kits on ebay of pens/whiteout and instructions so people that also own a copy of the book can make their copy just like mine.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="SapSacPrime"] There are always better causes we could give our money too and it isn't down to anybody but you to decide how to spend yours, as for him losing I don't think you fully understand what this case really represents.SapSacPrime

Our ability to hack into software and release signing codes to the internet? Such an important consumer right ... :roll:

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="SapSacPrime"] There are always better causes we could give our money too and it isn't down to anybody but you to decide how to spend yours, as for him losing I don't think you fully understand what this case really represents.SapSacPrime

Our ability to hack into software and release signing codes to the internet? Such an important consumer right ... :roll:

We don't pay for the software at all. We don't buy the firmware when we buy the PS3. Just because you buy something does not mean you own it completely. Just like if you buy a piece of software you do not own the code itself. The idea that htis is a consumer rights battle is a farce. It's a clever one, but it's a farce.

It's not just "making an example" of him. It's not as if poor Geohotz was just going about his business. Geohotz has been at the forefront of several hacks now and has made it very public. Sony sees him as a potential threat for any protected electronics. Moreover, they feel he has done them an injustice by releasing their signing codes - which in my opinion, he has. It's a shame that anyone woudl be financially ruined, but sometimes people make bad decisions and have to reap the consequences. Geohotz is not stupid. He was asking to get burned.

[QUOTE="SapSacPrime"][QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

all i'm going to say is i hope he loses and have lost a little respect for the human race, i mean all the people who donated money could have donated to a waaay better cause.

hakanakumono

Our ability to hack into software and release signing codes to the internet? Such an important consumer right ... :roll:

You are, as well as several of you, seriously narrow minded. Do you not see what the implications are for this order? it has NOTHING to do with hacking or signed codes or master keys. At all.

This Groklaw article has an indepth article about what this all means.

I doubt, however, that you are actually going to read it all in order to understand what the real issue; So heres an oversimplified summary: Do companies have the right to remove features they promised? Selling a product that does not perform what it says is called false advertisement.

Sony is trying to sidestep this by saying "well, we don't think anyone actually wanted it so we got rid of it." Their pathetic defense is "Well, you can still have it as long as you dont update your console and lose access to PSN" also, another advertised feature. Your only option in either case is lost access to features promised.

The decision of this fight stretches beyond a few hackers ruining your 30 minutes of fun that no one actually cares about.

[QUOTE="blitzcloud"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

whats the lawsuit for then?

markinthedark

Dunno, sharing a key that compromises the signing process of anything 3.55 and below? Which happens to be sony digital signature on the ps3? If you don't see a difference between modding your hardware and breaking into THEIR software and share this critical information with the WWW for the purpouse of getting attention (which he succeeded at) while personally doing a get@me statement.

Not to mention that the dude thinks he's the best in the world for doing the less-nice known method of jailbreaking the iphone, which needed hardware touching stuff, and for following failOverflow instructions on how to get the keys. I would personally love to see him doing a security job and getting absolutely beaten because breaking in is always easier that preventing the break in, even if it was assisted by the jigkick to begin with.

Its not illegal to share knowledge though. The key isnt copyrighted, and cant be copyrighted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

Many people say that numbers can't be copyrighted, but you can chunk a professional digital photography you don't own into numbers by their gray value, and followed by their color value. Does this make it uncopyrightable in fact?

Xaos, geohot started messing with otherOS when it was available but not on the slim line. Sony were aware of the unpatchable holes on it and decided not to remove it. When geohot started claiming having access and stuff that could lead to the current scenario, they decided to cut it before it went any further. And since it's their software and it was an extra service not featured in the box neither in the manual (at least here), and introduced through a firmware update (YES BOIS, it was introduced in 1.60, not a feature that was in there from day 1), they have the same right to remove it if it was a security issue.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="SapSacPrime"] There are always better causes we could give our money too and it isn't down to anybody but you to decide how to spend yours, as for him losing I don't think you fully understand what this case really represents.XaosII

Our ability to hack into software and release signing codes to the internet? Such an important consumer right ... :roll:

You are, as well as several of you, seriously narrow minded. Do you not see what the implications are for this order? it has NOTHING to do with hacking or signed codes or master keys. At all.

This Groklaw article has an indepth article about what this all means.

I doubt, however, that you are actually going to read it all in order to understand what the real issue; So heres an oversimplified summary: Do companies have the right to remove features they promised? Selling a product that does not perform what it says is called false advertisement.

Sony is trying to sidestep this by saying "well, we don't think anyone actually wanted it so we got rid of it." Their pathetic defense is "Well, you can still have it as long as you dont update your console and lose access to PSN" also, another advertised feature. Your only option in either case is lost access to features promised.

The decision of this fight stretches beyond a few hackers ruining your 30 minutes of fun that no one actually cares about.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="SapSacPrime"] There are always better causes we could give our money too and it isn't down to anybody but you to decide how to spend yours, as for him losing I don't think you fully understand what this case really represents.XaosII

Our ability to hack into software and release signing codes to the internet? Such an important consumer right ... :roll:

You are, as well as several of you, seriously narrow minded. Do you not see what the implications are for this order? it has NOTHING to do with hacking or signed codes or master keys. At all.

This Groklaw article has an indepth article about what this all means.

I doubt, however, that you are actually going to read it all in order to understand what the real issue; So heres an oversimplified summary: Do companies have the right to remove features they promised? Selling a product that does not perform what it says is called false advertisement.

Sony is trying to sidestep this by saying "well, we don't think anyone actually wanted it so we got rid of it." Their pathetic defense is "Well, you can still have it as long as you dont update your console and lose access to PSN" also, another advertised feature. Your only option in either case is lost access to features promised.

The decision of this fight stretches beyond a few hackers ruining your 30 minutes of fun that no one actually cares about.

1. Other OS was not an advertised feature. It is not even listed on the PS3 box.

2. Other OS was a feature introduced to firmware and taken out of later firmware versions.

3. Anyone who had Other OS removed consented to it.

Sony is not obligated to provide PSN service to everyone. It's a free service to those who update their firmware. If you care about Other OS, you can choose to keep it. Just because it is a dilemma, does not mean it is not a valid choice. Yes Other OS removal from newer firmware versions sucks, but you can thank Geohotz for its removal.

Geohotz case, of course, isn't about Other OS at all. It's about hacking the firmware and the signing codes.

haha, i love when people call others narrow minded, unless you work for sony legal department i doubt you fully know whats going on yourselfChris_Williams

Care to enlighten us then?

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"] haha, i love when people call others narrow minded, unless you work for sony legal department i doubt you fully know whats going on yourselfXaosII

Care to enlighten us then?

1. Other OS was not an advertised feature. It is not even listed on the PS3 box.

2. Other OS was a feature introduced to firmware and taken out of later firmware versions.

3. Anyone who had Other OS removed consented to it.

Sony is not obligated to provide PSN service to everyone. It's a free service to those who update their firmware. If you care about Other OS, you can choose to keep it. Just because it is a dilemma, does not mean it is not a valid choice. Yes Other OS removal from newer firmware versions sucks, but you can thank Geohotz for its removal.

Geohotz case, of course, isn't about Other OS at all. It's about hacking the firmware and the signing codes.

hakanakumono

1. Incorrect; The PS3 manuals state you can run Linux on it - even the initial launch of the PS3.

2. Incorrect; Its compatibility was improved over time and made much easier to install linux, but it was not impossible to do so. It took a bit of extra steps, but i dont think this deterred many from doing so since it was likely tinkerers who were most attracted to this feature.

3. A company should not remove a feature that claims the device can perform. You are left with having OtherOS and no PSN - or PSN and no OtherOS. When both are claimed as features and have no reason to be mutually exclusive.

Yes, Sony is obligated provide access to PSN because its an advertised feature. While there is reasonable to expect that your system may require upgrades - those upgrades are not supposed to remove features regardless of consent.

Its like having a car and bringing it in for regular maintenence but they remove your radio because a few people have been "hacking" it to jam signals near them. You have the option of not having maintenance but your radio, or losing your radio but having maintenance. The typical expectation is that the radio gets fixed or adjusted - not removed.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="blitzcloud"]

Dunno, sharing a key that compromises the signing process of anything 3.55 and below? Which happens to be sony digital signature on the ps3? If you don't see a difference between modding your hardware and breaking into THEIR software and share this critical information with the WWW for the purpouse of getting attention (which he succeeded at) while personally doing a get@me statement.

Not to mention that the dude thinks he's the best in the world for doing the less-nice known method of jailbreaking the iphone, which needed hardware touching stuff, and for following failOverflow instructions on how to get the keys. I would personally love to see him doing a security job and getting absolutely beaten because breaking in is always easier that preventing the break in, even if it was assisted by the jigkick to begin with.

blitzcloud

Its not illegal to share knowledge though. The key isnt copyrighted, and cant be copyrighted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

Many people say that numbers can't be copyrighted, but you can chunk a professional digital photography you don't own into numbers by their gray value, and followed by their color value. Does this make it uncopyrightable in fact?

Xaos, geohot started messing with otherOS when it was available but not on the slim line. Sony were aware of the unpatchable holes on it and decided not to remove it. When geohot started claiming having access and stuff that could lead to the current scenario, they decided to cut it before it went any further. And since it's their software and it was an extra service not featured in the box neither in the manual (at least here), and introduced through a firmware update (YES BOIS, it was introduced in 1.60, not a feature that was in there from day 1), they have the same right to remove it if it was a security issue.

What you linked is different. It talks about a number that represents something besides a number, like information or a software license. Thats not the case with a root key.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"] haha, i love when people call others narrow minded, unless you work for sony legal department i doubt you fully know whats going on yourselfChris_Williams

Care to enlighten us then?

I dont even know what you're talking about. Its rather obvious to see what the case is about. Its less obvious to see what its implications are.

But people who think its about hacking are clueless. People who are annoyed because their 20 minutes of fun are being ruined by hackers are also clueless. If these are your concerns and your reason to dislike Geohot, then, yes, you are narrowminded because thats not what its about at all.

Seems like there's a lot less "come at me bro" and a lot more persecution complex in Geo these days.

The fact is Sony do not give the hardware or the software to us for free, we pay for it so it is our property to do with as we please.SapSacPrime

I doubt, however, that you are actually going to read it all in order to understand what the real issue; So heres an oversimplified summary: Do companies have the right to remove features they promised? Selling a product that does not perform what it says is called false advertisement.

XaosII

1. Incorrect; The PS3 manuals state you can run Linux on it - even the initial launch of the PS3.

2. Incorrect; Its compatibility was improved over time and made much easier to install linux, but it was not impossible to do so. It took a bit of extra steps, but i dont think this deterred many from doing so since it was likely tinkerers who were most attracted to this feature.

3. A company should not remove a feature that claims the device can perform. You are left with having OtherOS and no PSN - or PSN and no OtherOS. When both are claimed as features and have no reason to be mutually exclusive.

Yes, Sony is obligated provide access to PSN because its an advertised feature. While there is reasonable to expect that your system may require upgrades - those upgrades are not supposed to remove features regardless of consent.

Its like having a car and bringing it in for regular maintenence but they remove your radio because a few people have been "hacking" it to jam signals near them. You have the option of not having maintenance but your radio, or losing your radio but having maintenance. The typical expectation is that the radio gets fixed or adjusted - not removed.

XaosII

You receive a limited license to use the System Software, and are informed it is subject to change. This is printed on the box of the product, and if you do not agree with this you can choose not to purchase the product. The license is publically available prior to purchase. The license is provided every time there is a System Software update, and you agree to this license contract when you "agree."

Sony are not obligated to provide access to PSN, it's a private network.

A radio is not intangible property.

[QUOTE="SapSacPrime"]You do not have a consumer right to violate the DMCA.[QUOTE/]

shinrabanshou

Yes, you do. there isnt any good reason why this cant be applicable to the PS3.

OtherOS and it's removal are not a part of this case. This case is about the PS3 and the DMCA, not FTC advertising laws.

shinrabanshou

This case stretches beyond that. It sets potential precedence for warranties on modern electronics along with consumer expectations.

The cl@ssaction suit against sony for the removal of OtherOS is currently going under Sony's favor except under one charge: Sony violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by removing linux. They are also using this exact same act to argue against Geohot's actions. If Sony is claiming that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is valid for Geohotz actions - then they are also, by extension, claming Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is valid for their violation of removing Linux.

Despite the two cases being seperate, they are intertwined.

Yes, you do. there isnt any good reason why this cant be applicable to the PS3.

This case stretches beyond that. It sets potential precedence for warranties on modern electronics along with consumer expectations.

The cl@ssaction suit against sony for the removal of OtherOS is currently going under Sony's favor except under one charge: Sony violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by removing linux. They are also using this exact same act to argue against Geohot's actions. If Sony is claiming that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is valid for Geohotz actions - then they are also, by extension, claming Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is valid for their violation of removing Linux.

Despite the two cases being seperate, they are intertwined.

XaosII

This case is unlikely to set any legal precedent. The law as it stands is relatively clear.

The c.lass action suit may be a legal test of their license agreement as a contract. It won't be a test of whether a software is licensed if specified as so, since that was already tested in Autodesk vs Vernor.

Neither of them are using the CFAA properly.

Yes, you do. there isnt any good reason why this cant be applicable to the PS3.

XaosII

No you don't, and your link does nothing to support that you do. The DMCA has a exemptions, yes, but that in no way means you get to ignore it. It means you must act within the exemptions, which does not extend to consoles. It is very specific to mobile devices. You could certainly petition for an exemption to be added for consoles as well, but until it is, it isn't exempt.

People need to stop appealing to this exemption, because that is not the thing Geo has to appeal to. There is another case out there Geo can appeal to, I believe it was to do with medical devices, but it is a totally different case.

An online manual and quotes from former executives do not constitute advertising. It was not in the first launch PS3's because it was added via a firmware update itself, v1.6, as far as I'm aware.

You receive a limited license to use the System Software, and are informed it is subject to change. This is printed on the box of the product, and if you do not agree with this you can choose not to purchase the product. The license is publically available prior to purchase. The license is provided every time there is a System Software update, and you agree to this license contract when you "agree."

Sony are not obligated to provide access to PSN, it's a private network.

A radio is not intangible property.

shinrabanshou

1. OtherOS was added later yes - but the ability to install linux was possible and claimed since before the PS3 came out. OtherOS facilitates an installation of Linux, but it is not required. The new firmware removes the ability to install linux.

2. That doesn't make it right. EULA's/ToS have no set precedent in court and have not been ruled as valid. It'll vary from court to court.

3. Sony does have an obligation to fullfill to its consumers. im failing to see how an update with punitive results is favorable for consumers.

4. irrelevant.

1. OtherOS was added later yes - but the ability to install linux was possible and claimed since before the PS3 came out. OtherOS facilitates an installation of Linux, but it is not required. The new firmware removes the ability to install linux.

2. That doesn't make it right. EULA's/ToS have no set precedent in court and have not been ruled as valid. It'll vary from court to court.

3. Sony does have an obligation to fullfill to its consumers. im failing to see how an update with punitive results is favorable for consumers.

4. irrelevant.

XaosII

The System Software was subject to change. Nowhere is it specified that it is subject only to addition.

If the substance of their license agreement is found unconscionable then those terms will be overturned. That doesn't change that if software is specified as licensed it is.

Sony can shut down PSN, add restrictions to it, and in all likelihood face no legal ramifications because it's a private network.

Don't know how to feel about this. It is his property so I believe he should have the right to do what he wants with it. But putting the root key online is another thing. Hack your console, but keep it to yourself. cainetao11

WOW, I thought everyone hated him... And his rationale of "Why can't I hack MY OWN Ps3, wah, wah, wah!?" is dumb, once he's distributing it freely online, strongly affecting software sales and hacking it's pretty far from being just his own PS3...Mr_Alexander

If the US goverment can post vulnerabilities you can hardly argue that a private individual can't: Vulnerability DB

[QUOTE="Mr_Alexander"]WOW, I thought everyone hated him... And his rationale of "Why can't I hack MY OWN Ps3, wah, wah, wah!?" is dumb, once he's distributing it freely online, strongly affecting software sales and hacking it's pretty far from being just his own PS3...markop2003

If the US goverment can post vulnerabilities you can hardly argue that a private individual can't: Vulnerability DB

[QUOTE="markop2003"]

[QUOTE="Mr_Alexander"]WOW, I thought everyone hated him... And his rationale of "Why can't I hack MY OWN Ps3, wah, wah, wah!?" is dumb, once he's distributing it freely online, strongly affecting software sales and hacking it's pretty far from being just his own PS3...DerekLoffin

If the US goverment can post vulnerabilities you can hardly argue that a private individual can't: Vulnerability DB

do you think that applies to this case?

Freedom of speech/expression laws tend to be rather robust in developed countries. The anarchists cookbook is perfectly legal... even though its a big laundry list on how to do things that are illegal.

This is because we recognize the value of information and not stifling it... even if it may lead to something so evil such as running homebrew on a ps3! :o

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="markop2003"]

If the US goverment can post vulnerabilities you can hardly argue that a private individual can't: Vulnerability DB

do you think that applies to this case?

Freedom of speech/expression laws tend to be rather robust in developed countries. The anarchists cookbook is perfectly legal... even though its a big laundry list on how to do things that are illegal.

This is because we recognize the value of information and not stifling it... even if it may lead to something so evil such as running homebrew on a ps3! :o

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="markop2003"]

[QUOTE="Mr_Alexander"]WOW, I thought everyone hated him... And his rationale of "Why can't I hack MY OWN Ps3, wah, wah, wah!?" is dumb, once he's distributing it freely online, strongly affecting software sales and hacking it's pretty far from being just his own PS3...markinthedark

If the US goverment can post vulnerabilities you can hardly argue that a private individual can't: Vulnerability DB

do you think that applies to this case?

No, but using the logic "it's okay for the government to do X therefore it is okay for private citizens to also do X" is beyond broken because it is totally incorrect.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]

Say what?! You do know government agencies have significantly more power than private citizens in most cases, right?DerekLoffin

do you think that applies to this case?

No, but using the logic "it's okay for the government to do X therefore it is okay for private citizens to also do X" is beyond broken because it is totally incorrect.

true, but thats more a a superficial point than anything of substance pertaining to the argument. I see your distractionary debate tactics good sir :P

do you think that applies to this case?

Freedom of speech/expression laws tend to be rather robust in developed countries. The anarchists cookbook is perfectly legal... even though its a big laundry list on how to do things that are illegal.

This is because we recognize the value of information and not stifling it... even if it may lead to something so evil such as running homebrew on a ps3! :o

markinthedark

Developed countries recognise the value of creative works, thus intellectual property laws.

I can't wait for sony to crush him, Criminals like him dont deserve the attention or funds from us.Sp4rtan_3

So what have he done wrong?Robbazking

[QUOTE="Robbazking"] So what have he done wrong?shinrabanshou