Support NeoGAF

[mclem]

Europe has similar laws. And they've been around for decades.

And the one you quoted a while back has been discussed, and I think it's fair to say that there's at the very least wiggle room in it, if it's not completely irrelevant to the specific point about firmware modification.

 

[ReBurn]

no, but if you buy something for $300 instead of $600 because it is subsidized so that company can make money on selling software, expect them to protect their platform aggressively when faced with prospect of piracy.

All I'm gonna say is that I don't owe Sony anything just because they decided to subsidize the cost of their hardware to get people to buy it. They didn't do it to be my BFF, they did it because that's the only way they could get most people to buy their kit. Something's only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

That doesn't mean that they can decide what I do with it, regardless of what the prospects for misuse are. Since we're entertaining poor analogies in these discussions, if I were a billionaire jerk (as opposed to a normal jerk) I could have purchased ten thousand of Sony's $600 widget at $300 and used them as the exterior on a monument I built for myself. Sony would have just sunk $3 million into the rather unique exterior finish on my monument to me. Are they justified in coming after me because I didn't use them the way they wanted me to?

There's no explicit contract that I must purchase software for the PS3 consoles that I buy. There's no explicit contract that I ever play a single game on them, much less ever take them out of the box and plug them in. The loss is Sony's gamble, and I don't owe them anything if they lose.

 

[Raist]

So jailbreaking an iphone is illegal in europe?

We're talking about the "bypass security measures" bit.

 

[test_account]

Speaking about the iPhone, does anyone knows why it was decided that it is legal to hack it? I read something about that it was defined as "fair use", but who decides what "fair use" is or not?

 

[jorma]

We're talking about the "bypass security measures" bit.

How is it different do you mean?

The iphone jailbreak seems to me like a perfect precedent to the ps3 jailbreak.

 

[Zoe]

Speaking about the iPhone, does anyone knows why it was decided that it is legal to hack it? I read something about that it was defined as "fair use", but who decides what "fair use" is or not?

I believe someone mentioned on here that the AT&T monopoly had a part to play in it.

 

[BritBloke916]

Tensions are running high in this thread! Is it likely that we'll have to wait months or even years for the eventual outcome? Regardless of where you sit on the debate it's going to be fascinating to see what happens. If OJ Simpson can walk away a free man then anything can happen in the courtroom.

 

[jcm]

Speaking about the iPhone, does anyone knows why it was decided that it is legal to hack it? I read something about that it was defined as "fair use", but who decides what "fair use" is or not?

Under the DMCA, every three years the Librarian of Congress decides on exceptions to the anti-circumvention provisions. It's a very strange law.

I believe someone mentioned on here that the AT&T monopoly had a part to play in it.

There's actually two phone exceptions.

(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.

(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.

#2 is very much like running homebrew on the PS3.

 

[Zoe]

Under the DMCA, every three years the Librarian of Congress decides on exceptions to the anti-circumvention provisions. It's a very strange law.

And exceptions must be renewed at that time. There have been exceptions that were expired.

 

[Cheerilee]

Thanks to the DMCA, every idiot in America can sue Mel Brooks because Spaceballs told the world what their luggage combination was.

Edit: I just realized that my luggage is ten times more secure than my Visa passcode.

 

[mclem]

We're talking about the "bypass security measures" bit.

Out of interest, I'd like to hear your stance on this:

Network devices have a MAC Address embedded in the firmware. In principle, they should all be unique.

A number of software security systems work by checking the network MAC address of the system they are run on. If they coincide with the MAC of the licence, the software runs, otherwise it complains.

In principle, MACs should be unique... but they are often able to be modified. It's a very useful tool when working with networks - albeit also a bit specialist.

Should it become illegal to modify MACs? After all, it *can* be done to enable using multiple instances of a program on a single license, but there are other valid potential uses for it that do not infringe on any such laws.

And if it should not, what's the difference between modifying a MAC and modifying the PS3 firmware?

 

[Raist]

How is it different do you mean?

The iphone jailbreak seems to me like a perfect precedent to the ps3 jailbreak.

No, it's not. If only because it broke a monopoly situation, which governments (especially Europe) aren't usually too keen on.

 

[Massa]

Out of interest, I'd like to hear your stance on this:

Network devices have a MAC Address embedded in the firmware. In principle, they should all be unique.

A number of software security systems work by checking the network MAC address of the system they are run on. If they coincide with the MAC of the licence, the software runs, otherwise it complains.

In principle, MACs should be unique... but they are often able to be modified. It's a very useful tool when working with networks - albeit also a bit specialist.

Should it become illegal to modify MACs? After all, it *can* be done to enable using multiple instances of a program on a single license, but there are other valid potential uses for it that do not infringe on any such laws.

And if it should not, what's the difference between modifying a MAC and modifying the PS3 firmware?

PS3 firmware is a piece of software copyrighted by Sony and licensed for use under the conditions Sony decides. If you don't agree with Sony's licensing terms then your only option is to not use their work at all.

 

[Raist]

Out of interest, I'd like to hear your stance on this:

Network devices have a MAC Address embedded in the firmware. In principle, they should all be unique.

A number of software security systems work by checking the network MAC address of the system they are run on. If they coincide with the MAC of the licence, the software runs, otherwise it complains.

In principle, MACs should be unique... but they are often able to be modified. It's a very useful tool when working with networks - albeit also a bit specialist.

Should it become illegal to modify MACs? After all, it *can* be done to enable using multiple instances of a program on a single license, but there are other valid potential uses for it that do not infringe on any such laws.

And if it should not, what's the difference between modifying a MAC and modifying the PS3 firmware?

Apples to bananas. A MAC adress is not a piece of copyrighted software for which you have to buy a license.

 

[mclem]

PS3 firmware is a piece of software copyrighted by Sony and licensed for use under the conditions Sony decides. If you don't agree with Sony's licensing terms then your only option is to not use their work at all.

To dredge up a bit of EU law from earlier:

Article 6

Decompilation

1. The authorisation of the rightholder shall not be required where reproduction of the code and translation of its form within the meaning of points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met:

(a) those acts are performed by the licensee or by another person having a right to use a copy of a program, or on their behalf by a person authorised to do so;

(b) the information necessary to achieve interoperability has not previously been readily available to the persons referred to in point (a); and

(c) those acts are confined to the parts of the original program which are necessary in order to achieve interoperability.

 

[test_account]

I believe someone mentioned on here that the AT&T monopoly had a part to play in it.

Ah ok, i see. That would make sense i think. Although that there isnt exactly a human right to buy an iPhone, and there are other alternatives to the iPhone, at least it would make it some better competition, so that people didnt have to get AT&T (and possibly cancel their other cellphone provider deal) if they wanted an iPhone.

Under the DMCA, every three years the Librarian of Congress decides on exceptions to the anti-circumvention provisions. It's a very strange law.

True, but i wonder what the reason(s) is that they make these exemptions. Like with the iPhone (or cellphone in general), why was these devices granted exemptions?

There's actually two phone exceptions.

(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.

(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.

#2 is very much like running homebrew on the PS3.

Regarding #2, what does " for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications" mean (english isnt my native language)?

Thanks to the DMCA, every idiot in America can sue Mel Brooks because Spaceballs told the world what their luggage combination was.

Edit: I just realized that my luggage is ten times more secure than my Visa passcode.

What is shown in Spaceballs? (sorry, i havnt seen the movie ).

 

[spwolf]

All I'm gonna say is that I don't owe Sony anything just because they decided to subsidize the cost of their hardware to get people to buy it. They didn't do it to be my BFF, they did it because that's the only way they could get most people to buy their kit. Something's only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

That doesn't mean that they can decide what I do with it, regardless of what the prospects for misuse are. Since we're entertaining poor analogies in these discussions, if I were a billionaire jerk (as opposed to a normal jerk) I could have purchased ten thousand of Sony's $600 widget at $300 and used them as the exterior on a monument I built for myself. Sony would have just sunk $3 million into the rather unique exterior finish on my monument to me. Are they justified in coming after me because I didn't use them the way they wanted me to?

There's no explicit contract that I must purchase software for the PS3 consoles that I buy. There's no explicit contract that I ever play a single game on them, much less ever take them out of the box and plug them in. The loss is Sony's gamble, and I don't owe them anything if they lose.

sure, but under that same rule, they will not let you touch PSN with 12ft pole... tough luck.

 

[Raist]

Regarding #2, what does " for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications" mean (english isnt my native language)?

You can hack the PS3's firmware if your only goal is to run Linux, for instance. But not run ISOs.
Of course, the problem is that such hacks usually go together with piracy, but how can one prove (or disprove) that it was part of the goals or not?

 

[iapetus]

What is shown in Spaceballs? (sorry, i havnt seen the movie ).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzEz-SHJbB0

 

[Dambrosi]

No, it's not. If only because it broke a monopoly situation, which governments (especially Europe) aren't usually too keen on.

And who's to say Sony doesn't have a monopoly on developing firmwares for the PS3? The fact that Sony actually built the PS3 notwithstanding, of course. You don't see Nvidia or ATI complaining about the custom drivers for their graphics cards on guru3d.com, do you?

Microsoft got into trouble for something like that, as I recall. Yeah, it was something about them demanding royalties for every PC sold, whether it had Windows on it or not. There's more about it here: It's Wikipedia, but it'll do.

This particular quote, from the EU Commissioner in charge of making sure MS paid its fine and took its medicine, particularly tickled me:

The Commission must do its part.....It must not rely on one vendor, it must not accept closed standards, and it must refuse to become locked into a particular technology – jeopardizing maintenance of full control over the information in its possession

That was back in 2004, though. Seems like a lifetime ago now.

 

[test_account]

You can hack the PS3's firmware if your only goal is to run Linux, for instance. But not run ISOs.
Of course, the problem is that such hacks usually go together with piracy, but how can one prove (or disprove) that it was part of the goals or not?

Ah ok, i see, thanks So this lawsuit might boil down to what the intention was of releasing the PS3 decryption keys?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzEz-SHJbB0

Lol, nice I think i need to watch Spaceballs sometimes. Thanks for the link

 

[Raist]

And who's to say Sony doesn't have a monopoly on developing firmwares for the PS3? The fact that Sony actually built the PS3 notwithstanding, of course. You don't see Nvidia or ATI complaining about the custom drivers for their graphics cards on guru3d.com, do you?

You do realize these are completely different situations, right? I don't even know how you can compare a gaming console to a graphic card, seriously.
And talking about a monopoly situation for a FW is plain ridiculous.

The MS example is irrelevant as well. They're not the ones manufacturing PCs in the first place.

 

[Zoe]

And who's to say Sony doesn't have a monopoly on developing firmwares for the PS3? The fact that Sony actually built the PS3 notwithstanding, of course. You don't see Nvidia or ATI complaining about the custom drivers for their graphics cards on guru3d.com, do you?

Even if that were to ever come up as an issue, I think that would only mean that people would be allowed to create firmwares completely independent of Sony's. Right now everything out there piggy backs off of the official ones.

The AT&T monopoly is different because you're talking about a service that's heavily regulated by the government.

Ah ok, i see, thanks So this lawsuit might boil down to what the intention was of releasing the PS3 decryption keys?

Well, in the US that doesn't matter.

 

[jcm]

Ah ok, i see, thanks So this lawsuit might boil down to what the intention was of releasing the PS3 decryption keys?

Probably not. The exception applies only to mobile phones. There is no similar exception for video game consoles.

 

[Dambrosi]

Even if that were to ever come up as an issue, I think that would only mean that people would be allowed to create firmwares completely independent of Sony's. Right now everything out there piggy backs off of the official ones.

...or create homebrew programs that could run on official firmware.

Hypothetical Warning: Someone out there releases the NPDRM keys, which would instantly allow every homebrew app to run on ANY firmware. This would kill off the need for custom firmware, and probably be a nightmare for people who value online play on PSN, since Sony can't ban their own official firmwares.

According to this exception (if it applied to PS3s), the cracking of the DRM, the writing of OFW-compatible homebrew, its download, installation and legal use are all covered. Of course, illegal use of the same is not covered by the exemption, and Sony has every right to deny access to PSN to homebrew-equipped machines...if they can be detected.

At least, that's how I understand it. Please don't quote me on this, I'm no expert and I could be very wrong.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Hypothetical Warning: Someone out there releases the NPDRM keys, which would instantly allow every homebrew app to run on ANY firmware.

How would you get the apps installed?

 

[Dambrosi]

How would you get the apps installed?

Um...how about something like this?

Since the apps would be fully NPDRM'd, just download them through the browser and install them like any PSN game.

 

[Zoe]

Um...how about something like this?

Since the apps would be fully NPDRM'd, just download them through the browser and install them like any PSN game.

The PS3 version will feature a browser that is capable of installing .pkg files right from your PS3

How do you get that browser on the PS3?

 

[Beer Monkey]

Um...how about something like this?

Since the apps would be fully NPDRM'd, just download them through the browser and install them like any PSN game.

Good luck doing that without custom firmware. OFW doesn't allow downloading files and installing them through any means other than the Store.

 

[Dambrosi]

How do you get that browser on the PS3?

It's downloadable via the normal PS3 browser, which doesn't require PSN to work. Just like every other app on there.

Or, at least, it will be when it's ready.

Beer_Monkey: Use geohot's patch, then download the NPDRM'd HPR app with the web browser and install. Reflash to OFW, run HPR, download NPDRM'd apps, install, profit.

Of course, the HPR app would have to be able to spoof itself as the PS Store for this to work, and I have no idea how that could be achieved, and my head hurts now so I'll stop.

 

[Zoe]

It's downloadable via the normal PS3 browser, which doesn't require PSN to work. Just like every other app on there.

Or, at least, it will be when it's ready.

See above. If that were the case, people would be installing packages through the stock browser already.

And Sony could always change the browser to only allow package downloads from trusted domains anyway.

 

[squatingyeti]

Here's the problem that people against this are having: They keep going on about it being illegal because of the DMCA or some similar draconian bullshit law that was most likely adopted due to US pressure on their country. The problem is, just because something like the DMCA says it is illegal to due X, does not mean that is actually correct.

If someone contests that portion of the law, we may find out that the courts actually think the law itself has overstepped its bounds and the portion is itself illegal. For example, it WAS illegal to jailbreak an iPhone. Is there any debate about this at all? It took people challenging whether this should actually exist and they received an exemption. All the while, they WERE technically breaking the law until then. I say technically, because it should have not been illegal in the first place.

 

[Dambrosi]

See above. If that were the case, people would be installing packages through the stock browser already.

And Sony could always change the browser to only allow package downloads from trusted domains anyway.

Um...they are. See?

...

Actually, I could be completely wrong about that. Could someone with an OFW PS3 try it out?
Nevermind, tried to download from there myself, no dice.

 

[DangerousDave]

3D support was a fairly big one - they didn't HAVE to implement it, it might've even helped boost sales of their standalone 3D players a bit.
If they could only add native MKV support, it would be one less reason for homebrew.

There are always reasons for homebrew.

If they took regional lock, they will ask for divx.
If they put divx, they will ask for mkv.
If they put mkv, they will ask for OtherOS.
If they put OtherOS, they will ask for "adding backup install to avoid getting up to change the game".

There are a lot of people that simply want to play any game for free. It's a big demand and there will be always people that want to satisfy that demand.

 

[Zoe]

Um...they are. See?

...

Actually, I could be completely wrong about that. Could someone with an OFW PS3 try it out?

How To Install

Download the demo.
Place the .pkg file on the root of an external drive.
Install through the "Install Package Files" option on the XMB (custom firmware required).

.

 

[Dambrosi]

Yeah, Zoe, you were right about that. My second (impossible?) idea might work, though.

There are always reasons for homebrew.

If they took regional lock, they will ask for divx.
If they put divx, they will ask for mkv.
If they put mkv, they will ask for OtherOS.
If they put OtherOS, they will ask for "adding backup install to avoid getting up to change the game".

There are a lot of people that simply want to play any game for free. It's a big demand and there will be always people that want to satisfy that demand.

I do hope you're not implying any of us are like that. Besides which, that sounds like a slippery slope argument to me, and they never end well.

 

[phosphor112]

Here's the problem that people against this are having: They keep going on about it being illegal because of the DMCA or some similar draconian bullshit law that was most likely adopted due to US pressure on their country. The problem is, just because something like the DMCA says it is illegal to due X, does not mean that is actually correct.

If someone contests that portion of the law, we may find out that the courts actually think the law itself has overstepped its bounds and the portion is itself illegal. For example, it WAS illegal to jailbreak an iPhone. Is there any debate about this at all? It took people challenging whether this should actually exist and they received an exemption. All the while, they WERE technically breaking the law until then. I say technically, because it should have not been illegal in the first place.

Why do you guys insist on throwing around the word "draconian?" While some of you may think these laws are "harsh" they don't compare to anything that Draco had... or even laws from a place like Saudi Arabia.

 

[jorma]

No, it's not. If only because it broke a monopoly situation, which governments (especially Europe) aren't usually too keen on.

mods for all the consoles are sold legally, how do you explain that?

what monopoly? Where i live, iphone has no monopoly and all the carriers sell iphone plans. Would that not render the jb illegal? Why isnt it illegal then?

Only the R4 card is illegal and in the UK ony afaik, so that seems to be an anomaly in he EU

 

[Raist]

mods for all the consoles are sold legally, how do you explain that?

what monopoly? Where i live, iphone has no monopoly and all the carriers sell iphone plans. Would that not render the jb illegal? Why isnt it illegal then?

Only the R4 card is illegal and in the UK ony afaik, so that seems to be an anomaly in he EU

We're talking about the DMCA exception, which applies to the US where there was a monopoly. Same in Europe.

 

[Jobiensis]

We're talking about the DMCA exception, which applies to the US where there was a monopoly. Same in Europe.

No it doesn't. Please stop repeating incorrect things, it makes this thread even harder to read. Only one exception has to do with moving the phone to different providers to correct the monopoly situation. The other exception is pretty much exactly like the PS3 situation except that it is explicitly for phones.

SquatingYeti may have a point, some of the DMCA is really pushing in on the first amendment. I really wish the EFF would take this case up, because the more things we could get invalidated in that horrible set of laws the better.

 

[test_account]

Well, in the US that doesn't matter.

Probably not. The exception applies only to mobile phones. There is no similar exception for video game consoles.

I see. Personally i think that intentions should be taken into consideration, but to prove what the intentions were might be quite difficult though.

Here's the problem that people against this are having: They keep going on about it being illegal because of the DMCA or some similar draconian bullshit law that was most likely adopted due to US pressure on their country. The problem is, just because something like the DMCA says it is illegal to due X, does not mean that is actually correct.

If someone contests that portion of the law, we may find out that the courts actually think the law itself has overstepped its bounds and the portion is itself illegal. For example, it WAS illegal to jailbreak an iPhone. Is there any debate about this at all? It took people challenging whether this should actually exist and they received an exemption. All the while, they WERE technically breaking the law until then. I say technically, because it should have not been illegal in the first place.

That is true, sometimes laws can get changed. This makes me wonder, what happeneds if someone gets convicted for something and then some months later a law is changed, does this person get released from jail then?

But regarding the PS3 hacking, personally i think that still some question remains to be answered when it comes the legal issues, for example if it should be allowed to post decryption keys to a system that isnt our own, and especially when it is impossible to revoke these encryption keys due to various reasons. With the iPhone hacking, from what i know this was based of software exploits, and this did at least give Apple a fair chance to fix their security issues. But with decryption keys that cant be revoked, this might give the company an unfair chance to fix their security system. So should companies at least be given a fair chance to fix their security issues?

And even with being allowed to hack a system, the laws still put up some restrictions. From what i know, even if hacking/jailbreaking a cellphone itself is legal, i dont think that it is legal to run whatever program you want on it and modify whatever software that is on it (please correct me if i'm wrong on this though). So should the people who hacks/opens the system have a responisbility to make the hack, so that only legal things can be done on it? Or should they be allowed to open the system pretty much completely?

EDIT: I'm mostly thinking about gaming consoles hacking here, but maybe this can apply to other devices as well.

 

[ReBurn]

sure, but under that same rule, they will not let you touch PSN with 12ft pole... tough luck.

My monument to me doesn't require PSN access. That's what's so great about it.

 

[Raist]

No it doesn't. Please stop repeating incorrect things, it makes this thread even harder to read. Only one exception has to do with moving the phone to different providers to correct the monopoly situation. The other exception is pretty much exactly like the PS3 situation except that it is explicitly for phones.

SquatingYeti may have a point, some of the DMCA is really pushing in on the first amendment. I really wish the EFF would take this case up, because the more things we could get invalidated in that horrible set of laws the better.

That's not what I was talking about. What motivated that DMCA exception certainly included for a large part that monopoly issue.

Besides, I don't think the original jailbreak allowed piracy in any form whatsoever (AFAIK it was basically down to use custom wallpapers, install other apps, and swap providers of course), and I don't think anyone released the full public/private keys either.

 

[Liabe Brave]

Besides which, that sounds like a slippery slope argument to me, and they never end well.

No, slippery slope is when you delineate a specious series of events, claiming that this hypothetical future history leads to some hideous endpoint. He was merely saying that no matter how many features you add, there's always some subset of people for whom it's not good enough (present company excluded, of course).

 

[Zoe]

Justification for the DMCA exemption:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/dmca_2009/RM-2008-8.pdf
(starting on page 7)

This one's a bit more readable, but you can't select text:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34898232/2010-DMCA-Exemption-Announcement

 

[DangerousDave]

I do hope you're not implying any of us are like that. Besides which, that sounds like a slippery slope argument to me, and they never end well.

I really hope that, in the same way that there is a ban law about saying that ALL the homebrew users are pirates, some mod create a ban law about saying that NO ONE of the homebrew users are pirates. Because is the same fallacy.

The possibility of play free games is the main engine in the homebrew scene, independently if you use it or not. That's why you'll always got a backup loader before an XMBC port.

I've seen all the PSP scene, from the start. And always, in the tiff exploit, in the GTA LCS save exploit, in the half-byte loader exploit, etc, happens the same. A few people interested in install it until some backup loader is in.

And I think is not bannable to imply that pirates exist, even in GAF, if you keep clear that no every homebrew user is a pirate.

 

[Beer Monkey]

The possibility of play free games is the main engine in the homebrew scene, independently if you use it or not. That's why you'll always got a backup loader before an XMBC port.

Um, it's called low hanging fruit. What is easiest to code.

SNES9x = existing code, easy to port = arrived on 3.55jb before loaders.

Loaders = partially existing code (from 3.41 jig-jailbreak), needs tweaking = arrived after SNES9X but before XBMC.

XBMC = huge amount of code, needs GPU access for good performance, needs lots of work and a whole team = arrives very late.

 

[Zoe]

Perhaps I'm reading into this incorrectly, but it seems like part of the reason the iPhone exemption happened is because Apple does give users an avenue to create third party software. However, the final release of said software is up to Apple's discretion. The PS3 has always been a closed system where someone must be granted access by Sony to create something.

This may be relevant when Playstation Suite comes around though.

 

[Jobiensis]

I really hope that, in the same way that there is a ban law about saying that ALL the homebrew users are pirates, some mod create a ban law about saying that NO ONE of the homebrew users are pirates. Because is the same fallacy.

Wait, fallacies are bannable now? GAF could become a wasteland.

I thought it was because of the accusation and that it has a tendency to derail threads.

Thanks Zoe, that makes it pretty clear that AT&T's monopoly had nothing to do with the one mobile phone ruling, and the parallels to the PS3 are pretty compelling.

The questions on Apple's contracts are also added to the confusion on what ownership meant for software that is fixed on devices.

 

[DangerousDave]

Wait, fallacies are bannable now? GAF could become a wasteland.

I thought it was because of the accusation and that it has a tendency to derail threads.

The problem is when the hammer of ban menace is used to scare people about talking freely about the piracy implication in the security breachs of the consoles, and sometimes we create some kind of magical candy world where piracy is the exception, and all those millions of game torrent files are simply of people that have their original game in a disc but are too lazy to dump their own disc.

And if we have to discuss things as the damage that Sony argue in GeoHot demand, even if there is no way to have exact numbers about how many people is using the keys affair as a piracy exploit, we can't close our eyes to the reality and say that all of the people (or even most of the people) only want to use CFW to play XMBC. But, again, I talk about this because this is one of the topics of this thread. I didn't entered in the official homebrew thread because talking of piracy in that thread could derrail easily the legit homebrew discussion.

Also, that "I hope that you are not implying that there are pirates among us" is trying to make someone banned when you don't like what he says. Not the best way to have a positive discussion.