Support NeoGAF

[Speevy]

HEY EVILORE WE NEED SMILEYS BACK STAT
?

You have a PS3 with custom firmware. BRING THEM BACK YOURSELF.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

I've said this before... but this board is crawling with industry folk. It actually IS in their interest to cheer Sony on.

And why would you assume all of us would think like that?

 

[captmcblack]

The PC and its openness is EXACTLY why people should be wtf when someone tries to tell you how you should be able to use what you paid for and own outright.

In fact, it's why you should be wtf about the way DLC is leveraged in the console space too. You would be run out of business selling Horse Armor on a PC. On console, we run to Gamestop to give them interest-free loans so we can pay more faster so we can buy that Horse Armor first. Shit is fucking ridiculous.

I bought my console. I can - and should - do whatever the fuck I want with it.
If you don't want me to putz around on the network and affect other people, fine - I can live with that. But if you want to make it illegal for me to be able to poke around in my own hardware, and run whatever the fuck I want on that hardware I pay for, that's bullshit.

I don't want to steal software.
I want to use my hardware to do what I please, because I paid money that I worked hard to earn to do it. If I'm wrong for that, whatever.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I've said this before... but this board is crawling with industry folk. It actually IS in their interest to cheer Sony on.

But there are industry folk here who admit to using homebrew and the value of it who are not cheering Sony on. People are so focused on PSN access and cheats with the PS3 that they are ignoring that there is a MUCH bigger issue at stake: do you or do you not own the piece of hardware you paid for. THAT is the issue. Piracy, PSN, cheats; none of these compare. At the end of the day this case may in fact determine whether that box you carry out of Best Buy this year is in fact yours or if you are just renting it.

 

[Dambrosi]

I've said this before... but this board is crawling with industry folk. It actually IS in their interest to cheer Sony on.

I haven't said this before, but, since I'm now a Libra all of a sudden due to the Zodiac apparently being all wrong for years, I might as well start now:

If you're not a friend of Justice...then you are Mankind's enemy!

Speevy: NOT YET I DON'T

But sooo~n...sooooooooo~n, my preciousssss...

 

[Speevy]

I wonder if you'd be fired from Activision or wherever if you went online with infinite ammo and mega jumps.

 

[test_account]

My PS3 is just that, IT IS MINE. I paid for it. I can use it as I like as long as its not hurting anybody else. I don't pirate. I don't cheat. It is my system. It isn't on rental from Sony. If I want to install a program that turns it into a talking robot I can do that. If I choose to install emulators galore I can do that as well. Sony doesn't own that console once I walk out of the retailer having handed over my money. You may choose to hand over your rights as a consumer to Sony but I choose not to.

Do you own the software/OS though? And are you allowed to modify the software anyway you want?

 

[Gravijah]

I wonder if you'd be fired from the Activision or wherever if you went online with infinite ammo and mega jumps.

They should make a Call of Duty with all of this shit automatically enabled.

 

[BocoDragon]

And why would you assume all of us would think like that?

I never said anything like "all of you".

LovingSteam said he doesn't understand how all these people are on Sony's side instead of looking after their own interests (as gamers, as consumers, etc.). Well, here on GAF, there are many people for whom Sony's interests does = their interests. I'm not at all surprised that there are people here who are vehemently pro-Sony's actions/anti-PS3 hacking.

But there are industry folk here who admit to using homebrew and the value of it who are not cheering Sony on. People are so focused on PSN access and cheats with the PS3 that they are ignoring that there is a MUCH bigger issue at stake: do you or do you not own the piece of hardware you paid for. THAT is the issue. Piracy, PSN, cheats; none of these compare. At the end of the day this case may in fact determine whether that box you carry out of Best Buy this year is in fact yours or if you are just renting it.

Yeah but if I'm a small PSN developer, then I'd sooner flush all your consumer rights down the toilet than have it threaten my wallet. "It's the economy, stupid."

 

[KtSlime]

Do you own the software/OS though? And are you allowed to modify the software anyway you want?

There was no copyright trespass, all changes were a config file and 4bytes.

But let's say we don't own software, the next question should be "does Sony own the software"

To this I say no, the US government, due to the will of the people has granted Sony a temporary monopoly on the software that they wrote so that they could recoup expenses.

However, copyright keeps getting extended, so much so, that I doubt that the PS3's OS will be out of copyright before I die. If companies that hold copyrights feel that they can keep walking over the rights of people, and feel that they should never give up their creations, why shouldn't people take back what belongs to them by force (or in this case hypothetical copyright infringement).

No one owns information, we're just nice enough to rent it out to the creator in hopes that they may make something new.

 

[captmcblack]

Do you own the software/OS though? And are you allowed to modify the software anyway you want?

I own that copy of the software/OS, and should be able to modify it as I want.

And if I don't own that copy of the software/OS, I do own the hardware and should be able to run my own software/OS on it.

Of course, running my own software/OS on it may enable piracy, but whatever.

 

[Speevy]

I believe that when a company closes, we have the right to that developer's work.

I don't mean we should download their games. I mean like, the person. They're not allowed to leave. Lock them in the building, they work for ME now. I am the consumer.

 

[Gravijah]

I believe that when a company closes, we have the right to that developer's work.

I don't mean we should download their games. I mean like, the person. They're not allowed to leave. Lock them in the building, they work for ME now. I am the consumer.

If you eat them, they become a part of you. Forever.

 

[Garcia]

What we need is a smart Gaffer to make a Firefox application where if you type :lol or , it will automatically link to your personal host and extract an image of appropriate mirth.

You realize this already exists don't ya? ... .

 

[InsertCredit]

I never said anything like "all of you".

[...]

Yeah but if I'm a small PSN developer, then I'd sooner flush all your consumer rights down the toilet than have it threaten my wallet. "It's the economy, stupid."

How about releasing drm free games and by actually supporting the consumer still making a profit? (insert gog.com reference)

 

[test_account]

There was no copyright trespass, all changes were a config file and 4bytes.

But let's say we don't own software, the next question should be "does Sony own the software"

To this I say no, the US government, due to the will of the people has granted Sony a temporary monopoly on the software that they wrote so that they could recoup expenses.

However, copyright keeps getting extended, so much so, that I doubt that the PS3's OS will be out of copyright before I die. If companies that hold copyrights feel that they can keep walking over the rights of people, and feel that they should never give up their creations, why shouldn't people take back what belongs to them by force (or in this case hypothetical copyright infringement).

No one owns information, we're just nice enough to rent it out to the creator in hopes that they may make something new.

This is actually an interesting question, because this goes for all software. And how much should we be allowed to modify the software? And should be be allowed to do anything with it, even go online with the modify software?

I own that copy of the software/OS, and should be able to modify it as I want.

And if I don't own that copy of the software/OS, I do own the hardware and should be able to run my own software/OS on it.

Of course, running my own software/OS on it may enable piracy, but whatever.

You own that copy indeed, but do you own the rights to the source code?

If you can find a way to run your own OS on a PS3, maybe that is legal?

 

[BocoDragon]

How about releasing drm free games and by actually supporting the consumer still making a profit? (insert gog.com reference)

Whatever makes me more money.. Will that make me more money?

Haha Im a pretty evil hypothetical game dev. School of Kotick for sure. Lol

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Whatever makes me more money.. Will that make me more money?

Releasing games without DRM certainly costs less money to make the product in the first place...

 

[KtSlime]

This is actually an interesting question, because this goes for all software. And how much should we be allowed to modify the software? And should be be allowed to do anything with it, even go online with the modify software?




You own that copy indeed, but do you own the rights to the source code?

If you can find a way to run your own OS on a PS3, maybe that is legal?

Well I think Sony has the right to not support CFW users online, however is it nice of them to do a blanket ban when in reality the ban will cause us to stop buying PSN games, and is really only needed for maintaining the welfare of people that don't like cheating, so instead of banning CFW users it makes more sense to ban cheaters. But I do think it is up to them.

If we had things my way, we'd get the source code the second the PS3 is pulled off of market, because it is no longer making Sony any cheddar, so their copyright has fulfilled its purpose, time to be given back to the Zeitgeist.

And as for running your own OS, we need the keys to do that. They made a closed circuit, the only way to run your own software OS included is to have it signed. So I guess, we found a way.

 

[test_account]

Yeah but if I'm a small PSN developer, then I'd sooner flush all your consumer rights down the toilet than have it threaten my wallet. "It's the economy, stupid."

I dont think that anyone here has accepted/agreed to give up all of their consumer rights to Sony (or to any company that are in a similar situation for that matter). Even if you have understanding/acceptance that a company does one thing, that doesnt mean that you necessarily gives up all your rights If this case had been about something completely different regarding the PS3, maybe many people would have a different opinion. People simply have different views on this specific case, but that doesnt mean that they want to give up all their consumer rights because of that =)

EDIT: I can give one example. If Sony had said that i was only allowed to have 6 months of warranty on my PS3, then i would not have agreed to this at all. Where i live we have like 2 years of warranty on stuff like consoles. So for me it depends on what the case is about I can have understanding for something, but basically have no understanding for something else.

 

[Massa]

I own that copy of the software/OS, and should be able to modify it as I want.

And if I don't own that copy of the software/OS, I do own the hardware and should be able to run my own software/OS on it.

Of course, running my own software/OS on it may enable piracy, but whatever.

If you think you should be able to modify the software you get a license to use then stick with something like Linux or FreeBSD. Proprietary software doesn't work like that.

 

[NullPointer]

I dont think that anyone here has accepted/agreed to give up all of their consumer rights to Sony (or to any company that are in a similar situation for that matter). Even if you have understanding/acceptance that a company does one thing, that doesnt mean that you necessarily gives up all your rights If this case had been about something completely different regarding the PS3, maybe many people would have a different opinion. People simply have different views on this specific case, but that doesnt mean that they want to give up all their consumer rights because of that =)

Pretty much.

One of the appeals of consoles is that they are closed systems. Proprietary systems running proprietary services that enable a "it just works" ecosystem of functionality.

Its not like there aren't open platforms available. So for many people its not a matter of consumer rights (since we can easily choose a different platform if we wanted to), its the cost benefit analysis of letting some people poke giant holes in that closed system for the purpose of homebrew or piracy or cheats on one side, and various attempts to keep the system intact and running as designed.

Either way this is a fascinating story, but I think people are looking at this in too stark black and white terms. I want as much customer satisfaction as I can get, but reality also dictates that content creators need to put some limits on what you can do if they want to have a viable platform.

But then again, maybe Steam has it all figured out.

 

[BocoDragon]

I dont think that anyone here has accepted/agreed to give up all of their consumer rights to Sony (or to any company that are in a similar situation for that matter). Even if you have understanding/acceptance that a company does one thing, that doesnt mean that you necessarily gives up all your rights If this case had been about something completely different regarding the PS3, maybe many people would have a different opinion. People simply have different views on this specific case, but that doesnt mean that they want to give up all their consumer rights because of that =)

That's basically what I was getting at. It's not the case that we have two sets of consumers, one who wants consumer freedom, and one who has been brainwashed by Sony into giving up consumer freedom.

Many people have an interest in preserving Sony's security, whether it's because they're industry and have a monetary interest, or they fear online cheating, or they simply understand that they would do what Sony us doing if they were in the same position.

 

[test_account]

Well I think Sony has the right to not support CFW users online, however is it nice of them to do a blanket ban when in reality the ban will cause us to stop buying PSN games, and is really only needed for maintaining the welfare of people that don't like cheating, so instead of banning CFW users it makes more sense to ban cheaters. But I do think it is up to them.

I think that the most ideal thing for Sony would be if they could have a system that could detect who uses CFW for legal stuff and who uses it for illegal stuff. This way people could still buy PS3 games, use homebrew, shop on the PS Store etc, while people who i.e cheated online would be banned. Such a solution would be very nice in my opinion But i think that such a system is nearly impossible to maintain, so it is probably much simpler to just have it like "modified code running is detected = ban", unfortunately.

If we had things my way, we'd get the source code the second the PS3 is pulled off of market, because it is no longer making Sony any cheddar, so their copyright has fulfilled its purpose, time to be given back to the Zeitgeist.

And as for running your own OS, we need the keys to do that. They made a closed circuit, the only way to run your own software OS included is to have it signed. So I guess, we found a way.

Yes, abandonware would be a nice thing indeed

About running our own OS, maybe it is legal to do such things with the keys. But i dont really know much about what the US law says about things like this.

 

[test_account]

Pretty much.

One of the appeals of consoles is that they are closed systems. Proprietary systems running proprietary services that enable a "it just works" ecosystem of functionality.

Its not like there aren't open platforms available. So for many people its not a matter of consumer rights (since we can easily choose a different platform if we wanted to), its the cost benefit analysis of letting some people poke giant holes in that closed system for the purpose of homebrew or piracy or cheats on one side, and various attempts to keep the system intact and running as designed.

Either way this is a fascinating story, but I think people are looking at this in too stark black and white terms. I want as much customer satisfaction as I can get, but reality also dictates that content creators need to put some limits on what you can do if they want to have a viable platform.

But then again, maybe Steam has it all figured out.

Good points

Although i fully see the point of view that we should be allowed to do pretty much everything that we want to do with our products, should we be allowed to break the security system if the company doesnt want us to do that? Or should we accept/respect such a decition and choose a different platform instead that is much more open, like a PC for example? As you say, we do indeed have a choice to chose another platform that is more open, if that is what we want from our product. I think that this is an interesting question.

I agree, much interesting stuff/questions in this story indeed

EDIT 2: Just to clearify, when i said "break the security system", i am mostly thinking about putting the info out on the internet so everyone can see how to break the security system. If we break the security system all by ourself and keep the info on how to do it to ourself only, then that would be something different in my opinion.

That's basically what I was getting at. It's not the case that we have two sets of consumers, one who wants consumer freedom, and one who has been brainwashed by Sony into giving up consumer freedom.

Many people have an interest in preserving Sony's security, whether it's because they're industry and have a monetary interest, or they fear online cheating, or they simply understand that they would do what Sony us doing if they were in the same position.

Ah ok, i missunderstood what you first said, sorry But i understand what you mean now and i agree


EDIT: Sorry for the double post.

 

[captmcblack]

If you think you should be able to modify the software you get a license to use then stick with something like Linux or FreeBSD. Proprietary software doesn't work like that.

If I run Sony's own software without modifications, and I run third-party/homebrew software that runs on Sony's unmodified software, that's fine then right?

Because that's what is about to happen since we have the keys to do so.

 

[MedIC86]

How about releasing drm free games and by actually supporting the consumer still making a profit? (insert gog.com reference)

kiek die toine op gaf ;D

 

[RedRedSuit]

But there are industry folk here who admit to using homebrew and the value of it who are not cheering Sony on. People are so focused on PSN access and cheats with the PS3 that they are ignoring that there is a MUCH bigger issue at stake: do you or do you not own the piece of hardware you paid for. THAT is the issue. Piracy, PSN, cheats; none of these compare. At the end of the day this case may in fact determine whether that box you carry out of Best Buy this year is in fact yours or if you are just renting it.

Bullshit. Well, maybe not bullshit, but I strongly disagree.

The practical effect of piracy is much greater than some cosmic right to fuck with your PS3. Don't get me wrong; in a perfect world where people follow ethical standards and don't pirate when given the technical ability to do so, no one -- not me, possibly not even Sony -- would be against the hacking of consoles (for homebrew and other reasonable purposes). We don't live in that world. We live in a world where hacks like this inevitably and immediately lead to piracy 99% of the time and ethical applications 1% of the time.

So yes, it's all well and good that people should be able to tinker with their property and hack it however they want... in principle. In practice, in this instance, this ability and publishing the results on the Internet will result in dirty, shitty, despicable piracy 99% of the time. So forgive me if I value the health of the industry whose product I enjoy (big budget video games) more than some concept. I don't want everything open and conducive to easy piracy, because that will just mean good, creative people will lose their jobs, and I will lose my favorite hobby, which I enjoy legitimately.

It's ridiculous to suggest that those that don't like this piracy-enabling activity are the ones acting incomprehensibly. They're the practical ones. Piracy is a HUGE issue, and I don't like being impugned for thinking it more important than "whether that box you carry out of Best Buy this year is in fact yours or if you are just renting it." The latter has little practical impact. The former has huge practical impact.

For the record, I am in no way in the game industry. I also think removing OtherOS was a dick move. However, I hope these irresponsible hackers feel some serious discomfort due to their actions.

 

[slider]

Whether I agree with you or not RedRedSuit I enjoy when people post coherently.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Bullshit. Well, maybe not bullshit, but I strongly disagree.

The practical effect of piracy is much greater than some cosmic right to fuck with your PS3. Don't get me wrong; in a perfect world where people follow ethical standards and don't pirate when given the technical ability to do so, no one -- not me, possibly not even Sony -- would be against the hacking of consoles (for homebrew and other reasonable purposes). We don't live in that world. We live in a world where hacks like this inevitably and immediately lead to piracy 99% of the time and ethical applications 1% of the time.

So yes, it's all well and good that people should be able to tinker with their property and hack it however they want... in principle. In practice, in this instance, this ability and publishing the results on the Internet will result in dirty, shitty, despicable piracy 99% of the time. So forgive me if I value the health of the industry whose product I enjoy (big budget video games) more than some concept. I don't want everything open and conducive to easy piracy, because that will just mean good, creative people will lose their jobs, and I will lose my favorite hobby, which I enjoy legitimately.

It's ridiculous to suggest that those that don't like this piracy-enabling activity are the ones acting incomprehensibly. They're the practical ones. Piracy is a HUGE issue, and I don't like being impugned for thinking it more important than "whether that box you carry out of Best Buy this year is in fact yours or if you are just renting it." The latter has little practical impact. The former has huge practical impact.

For the record, I am in no way in the game industry.

LOL @ 99% claims people make in this thread. I am 99% positive that your claim is 100% bull shit.

 

[plagiarize]

see here's how i feel about the whole signed code thing in the first place.

it's not about copy protection (well not entirely) it's about controlling what runs on your system.

back in the NES days people made unlicensed carts to run games that Nintendo wouldn't approve, or because they didn't like paying the licensing fees. i believe that Nintendo tried to argue that they didn't have a right to do this and it was decided that they did.

now that was a question of reverse engineering rather than using a software method, but i do think a big part of why Sony is upset by this is that now anyone can write software for the PS3.

even ignoring piracy completely, how might they feel if people make some free homebrew titles that run on any PS3. say some of those titles are better than some PSN games. say they're CLONES of some PSN games.

say a developer makes an AO hardcore porn game for PS3 move and releases it. hell, say they SELL it and Sony don't get a penny of their money.

signing code isn't just about piracy, it's about controlling your system and forcing people to pay you if they want to release content.

they really should have done a better job encrypting their keys.

 

[plagiarize]

Bullshit. Well, maybe not bullshit, but I strongly disagree.

The practical effect of piracy is much greater than some cosmic right to fuck with your PS3. Don't get me wrong; in a perfect world where people follow ethical standards and don't pirate when given the technical ability to do so, no one -- not me, possibly not even Sony -- would be against the hacking of consoles (for homebrew and other reasonable purposes). We don't live in that world. We live in a world where hacks like this inevitably and immediately lead to piracy 99% of the time and ethical applications 1% of the time.

So yes, it's all well and good that people should be able to tinker with their property and hack it however they want... in principle. In practice, in this instance, this ability and publishing the results on the Internet will result in dirty, shitty, despicable piracy 99% of the time. So forgive me if I value the health of the industry whose product I enjoy (big budget video games) more than some concept. I don't want everything open and conducive to easy piracy, because that will just mean good, creative people will lose their jobs, and I will lose my favorite hobby, which I enjoy legitimately.

It's ridiculous to suggest that those that don't like this piracy-enabling activity are the ones acting incomprehensibly. They're the practical ones. Piracy is a HUGE issue, and I don't like being impugned for thinking it more important than "whether that box you carry out of Best Buy this year is in fact yours or if you are just renting it." The latter has little practical impact. The former has huge practical impact.

For the record, I am in no way in the game industry. I also think removing OtherOS was a dick move. However, I hope these irresponsible hackers feel some serious discomfort due to their actions.

it's Sony's job to keep their system locked down. they failed. i don't think that means they deserve to suffer the harsh effects of piracy (they don't, no one does) but i also think as a corporation it's Sony's responsibility to protect themselves and not the government's responsibility to protect corporations.

you must hate the internet.

 

[RedRedSuit]

LOL @ 99% claims people make in this thread. I am 99% positive that your claim is 100% bull shit.

It's based on observations I've made over the course of my life, among friends and neighbors and co-workers and roommates... and hell, me, when I was young. It's always the same thing: 9 friends will use a hacked Xbox to play a hard drive full of stolen games; 1 will use it for that... and as media center. It's not a scientific study, but it gives me a common-sense feel for reality. Supposing, for the sake of argument, my anecdotal observations are non-representative of the larger reality, then my entire diatribe is based on a false premise and is wrong. I doubt this, but anything is possible. It doesn't matter much either way, but I'm making an argument based on the information available, and I feel I have more than enough of it.

 

[RedRedSuit]

Pretty much.

One of the appeals of consoles is that they are closed systems. Proprietary systems running proprietary services that enable a "it just works" ecosystem of functionality.

Its not like there aren't open platforms available. So for many people its not a matter of consumer rights (since we can easily choose a different platform if we wanted to), its the cost benefit analysis of letting some people poke giant holes in that closed system for the purpose of homebrew or piracy or cheats on one side, and various attempts to keep the system intact and running as designed.

Either way this is a fascinating story, but I think people are looking at this in too stark black and white terms. I want as much customer satisfaction as I can get, but reality also dictates that content creators need to put some limits on what you can do if they want to have a viable platform.

But then again, maybe Steam has it all figured out.

Agreed.

it's Sony's job to keep their system locked down. they failed. i don't think that means they deserve to suffer the harsh effects of piracy (they don't, no one does) but i also think as a corporation it's Sony's responsibility to protect themselves and not the government's responsibility to protect corporations.

I fully agree that it would've been better if Sony hadn't made this elementary security mistake. Nevertheless, even given that, I would like to see irresponsible actions (those of the hackers) punished. I'm not really interested in the legal technicalities so much as practical aspects of this. The whole "if you left your door unlocked, you're silly, but it's still not cool to steal your stuff" thing has been discussed ad nauseam by other people, so I don't really care to get into that.

 

[railGUN]

It's based on observations I've made over the course of my life, among friends and neighbors and co-workers and roommates... and hell, me, when I was young. It's always the same thing: 9 friends will use a hacked Xbox to play a hard drive full of stolen games; 1 will use it for that... and as media center. It's not a scientific study, but it gives me a common-sense feel for reality. Supposing, for the sake of argument, my anecdotal observations are non-representative of the larger reality, then my entire diatribe is based on a false premise and is wrong. I doubt this, but anything is possible. It doesn't matter much either way, but I'm making an argument based on the information available, and I feel I have more than enough of it.

Thinking 99% of the world pirates what they can pirate is absurd.

The whole "if you left your door unlocked, it's still not cool to steal your stuff" thing has been discussed ad nauseam by other people, so I don't really care to get into that.

That analogy is so completely wrong. Nothing was fucking stolen.

 

[test_account]

see here's how i feel about the whole signed code thing in the first place.

it's not about copy protection (well not entirely) it's about controlling what runs on your system.

back in the NES days people made unlicensed carts to run games that Nintendo wouldn't approve, or because they didn't like paying the licensing fees. i believe that Nintendo tried to argue that they didn't have a right to do this and it was decided that they did.

now that was a question of reverse engineering rather than using a software method, but i do think a big part of why Sony is upset by this is that now anyone can write software for the PS3.

even ignoring piracy completely, how might they feel if people make some free homebrew titles that run on any PS3. say some of those titles are better than some PSN games. say they're CLONES of some PSN games.

say a developer makes an AO hardcore porn game for PS3 move and releases it. hell, say they SELL it and Sony don't get a penny of their money.

signing code isn't just about piracy, it's about controlling your system and forcing people to pay you if they want to release content.

they really should have done a better job encrypting their keys.

Good points When someone uses like a billion dollars (or at least several of hundred millions of dollars) on creating a console that benefits 3rd party developers (since the console excist, people can make games for it), i can understand that they want their share of the cut for creating the console. Every console manufacturer rely much on software sales, even if they sell the console itself with profit. If they didnt get their share of the money from 3rd party software sales, making consoles probably wouldnt be very profitable (unless they have huge 1st party support where most of those games manages to sell with profit). So ye, it is probably not only about piracy indeed.

 

[captmcblack]

I don't give a fuck about what other people may do. Ban them from PSN when they're discovered pirating games. Send the cops after people if they make Polystation 3s that play illegal copied games in those mall kiosks. Shut down sellers of pirate PS3 game discs...whatever.

But after that, fuck you.

I want Sony to make money. I want them to protect their IP and their network. Shit, I already pay them regularly buying games and hardware since 1995, so it's not even an issue. But just like Tengen, AVE, Color Dreams, Camerica, Codemasters and others weren't wrong to sell their "unlicensed" games on NES, nobody should be wrong to merely possess the knowledge or ability to run so-called unlicensed software on PS3.

 

[RedRedSuit]

Thinking 99% of the world pirates what they can pirate is absurd.

Sure it is, but that's a straw man argument and not what I claimed at all. What I claimed is that when a closed console is hacked open, the vast majority of the time this capability is used is to play free games... typically hard drives full of them -- not for legitimate applications. There are some legitimate uses, and those can be popular (in fact if it's a foregone conclusion, I wouldn't mind benefitting from some of those myself), but most of the time it's piracy.

That analogy is so completely wrong. Nothing was fucking stolen.

Like I said, this has been discussed many times (without me) including in this thread, so I don't really care to get into it again, as it's not going to be productive.

 

[plagiarize]

It's based on observations I've made over the course of my life, among friends and neighbors and co-workers and roommates... and hell, me, when I was young. It's always the same thing: 9 friends will use a hacked Xbox to play a hard drive full of stolen games; 1 will use it for that... and as media center. It's not a scientific study, but it gives me a common-sense feel for reality. Supposing, for the sake of argument, my anecdotal observations are non-representative of the larger reality, then my entire diatribe is based on a false premise and is wrong. I doubt this, but anything is possible. It doesn't matter much either way, but I'm making an argument based on the information available, and I feel I have more than enough of it.

the question isn't this: "Is piracy wrong?"

because i think all around we can all agree that it is, even if we have committed that wrong in the past, or still commit that wrong.

the question is this: "Is disabling a copy protection measure for any reason at all wrong?"

you may think it is, but i do not. companies are well within their rights to implement any copyprotection scheme they think might minimise piracy. they are well within their right to prosecute the pirates and websites that share their games.

it doesn't need to be a crime to disable copy protection, because it's already a crime to copy games, and because disabling copy protection can be done for many legitimate reasons.

or look at it like this. whether or not you can actually RUN the copied code has nothing to do with whether or not you have commited piracy.

PS3 rips started appearing a long time before you could do anything with them. downloading those rips was piracy then and it's piracy now. whether you can do anything with those copied games is irrelevant to the legal discussion.

if i steal a PS3 game from a store it doesn't matter if i own a PS3 or not. just the same, if i download one, it doesn't matter if i can do anything with it.

all the games on my hacked PSP Go, i bought in one form or another, whether from the online store, whether from a retail store and ripped and copied on there so i can run it from an iso loader or like Quake, or Doom, or Sam and Max, copied from my PC to run through an engine port or Scumm VM.

my Wii has the homebrew channel installed. i haven't used it for anything but ripping my Wii games to my PC to run in Dolphin, and again to play Quake with a wii remote.

every piece of software on my PC is either open source or i legally own it. every single piece.

the easier it is to pirate, the more people will, yes. unquestionably. as with anything. but that doesn't mean that anything that makes it easier should be taken away ignoring whether or not that thing has other valid or legal reasons for existing, and that doesn't mean that someone like myself that doesn't pirate should be punished be the law.

if sony want to try and stop me running homebrew on my PSP through software changes, fine... but it shouldn't have anything to do with the law or courts.

 

[plagiarize]

I don't give a fuck about what other people may do. Ban them from PSN when they're discovered pirating games. Send the cops after people if they make Polystation 3s that play illegal copied games in those mall kiosks. Shut down sellers of pirate PS3 game discs...whatever.

But after that, fuck you.

I want Sony to make money. I want them to protect their IP and their network. Shit, I already pay them regularly buying games and hardware since 1995, so it's not even an issue. But just like Tengen, AVE, Color Dreams, Camerica, Codemasters and others weren't wrong to sell their "unlicensed" games on NES, nobody should be wrong to merely possess the knowledge or ability to run so-called unlicensed software on PS3.

exactly. the more they prosecute PIRATES the more people they will discourage from commiting piracy. the more they go after HOMEBREW because it could lead to piracy, the more people will support the people enabling homebrew on consoles.

 

[KHarvey16]

It always sounds off to me to judge an action based solely or primarily on the potential for the product of that action to be misused by others.

 

[RedRedSuit]

the question isn't this: "Is piracy wrong?"

because i think all around we can all agree that it is, even if we have committed that wrong in the past, or still commit that wrong.

the question is this: "Is disabling a copy protection measure for any reason at all wrong?"

you may think it is, but i do not.

Actually, I don't think it's wrong either... in a vacuum. I've done it myself -- for myself and legitimate purposes only.

However, the situation is not in a vacuum. Without a vacuum, it mostly just enables piracy. Disabling copy protection and then publishing this information, in situations like this, is irresponsible and damaging. Therefore, it is wrong. I recognize how difficult it is to make this case legally, which is why I'm glad I'm not in law. I can, however, make common sense judgments on the ethics of it.

the easier it is to pirate, the more people will, yes. unquestionably. as with anything. but that doesn't mean that anything that makes it easier should be taken away ignoring whether or not that thing has other valid or legal reasons for existing.

I recognize this. It is a question of weighing one against the other. I find that one easily outweighs the other. I understand that people can disagree with this. I'm quite sad it has come to the courts, too. If, however, it has the proper practical effect (disabling piracy), I'm all for it.

Too bad it won't, so it hardly matters even if Sony wins. Hackers like these will just be less public and blase about it; that's all.

 

[apana]

It always sounds off to me to judge an action based solely or primarily on the potential for the product of that action to be misused by others.

No way dude, Sony should like totally have the right to nuke our consoles if necessary.

 

[plagiarize]

Actually, I don't think it's wrong either... in a vacuum. I've done it myself -- for myself and legitimate purposes only.

However, the situation is not in a vacuum. Without a vacuum, it mostly just enables piracy. Disabling copy protection and then publishing this information, in situations like this, is irresponsible and damaging. Therefore, it is wrong. I recognize how difficult it is to make this case legally, which is why I'm glad I'm not in law. I can, however, make common sense judgments on the ethics of it.

morally, ethically, i don't disagree... but where i can't agree is in making everything morally or ethically wrong illegal.

'it's morally wrong' isn't a good enough standard for outlawing something for me. i think history shows that.

 

[RedRedSuit]

It always sounds off to me to judge an action based solely or primarily on the potential for the product of that action to be misused by others.

Yes. However, it's equally as off to ignore that potential in favor of an idealistic principle. If I synthesized a substance that could simultaneously cure cancer and kill a billion people with one vial, if would be folly not to consider the latter potential when deciding whether I should simply put my research on the Internet, and have the chips fall where they may.

morally, ethically, i don't disagree... but where i can't agree is in making everything morally or ethically wrong illegal.

'it's morally wrong' isn't a good enough standard for outlawing something for me. i think history shows that.

That is true.

 

[The Faceless Master]

some people seem to assume that piracy is a big deal because of the huge numbers thrown around, despite studies showing that the actual value of a pirated good is nowhere near the cost associated with the real good. i would bet cash money that there are at least 100k people out there with a complete collection of Nintendo DS roms, give or take a few days. would they all play, much less buy all... what is it now, 4000? of those if there was no piracy? no. but that contribution alone pushes DS piracy numbers to 400 million units, which sounds impressive on paper...

 

[KHarvey16]

Yes. However, it's equally as off to ignore that potential in favor of an idealistic principle. If I synthesized a substance that could simultaneously cure cancer and kill a billion people with one vial, if would be folly not to consider the latter potential when deciding whether I should simply put my research on the Internet, and have the chips fall where they may.

That analogy is flawed in this context. Do each of those deaths result from singular instances of the drug's misuse?

 

[KtSlime]

It's based on observations I've made over the course of my life, among friends and neighbors and co-workers and roommates... and hell, me, when I was young. It's always the same thing: 9 friends will use a hacked Xbox to play a hard drive full of stolen games; 1 will use it for that... and as media center. It's not a scientific study, but it gives me a common-sense feel for reality. Supposing, for the sake of argument, my anecdotal observations are non-representative of the larger reality, then my entire diatribe is based on a false premise and is wrong. I doubt this, but anything is possible. It doesn't matter much either way, but I'm making an argument based on the information available, and I feel I have more than enough of it.

Young kids do stupid shit and have no money.

They look up porn even though they are under 18.
They go to the skate park to get the bum to buy them a really crappy 40 of beast.
They stay out past curfew.
They sneak into R rated films
Etc.

As people mature, they learn that there are other ways of going about these things.
Kids being stupid kids is not evidence.

 

[RedRedSuit]

Young kids do stupid shit and have no money.

They look up porn even though they are under 18.
They go to the skate park to get the bum to buy them a really crappy 40 of beast.
They stay out past curfew.
They sneak into R rated films
Etc.

As people mature, they learn that there are other ways of going about these things.
Kids being stupid kids is not evidence.

That's not the kind of behavior or people I'm talking about, so the above really doesn't apply.

Fully grown adults I work with now, who are into gaming, fall into one of two camps: (1) those that don't use console hacks (the vast majority); and (2) those that do and mainly do it to play free games... just because. In my adult life, I've met many adults that bother with hacking consoles (mainly PS2 and Xboxes and Wiis; some 360s), and it was rare to find even one person using this for any legitimate reason, let alone for *exclusively* legitimate reasons.

Yes, it is evidence. I am not some prude. I am fully aware that poor high school kids who wouldn't buy games anyway are not a part of this.

 

[spwolf]

some people seem to assume that piracy is a big deal because of the huge numbers thrown around, despite studies showing that the actual value of a pirated good is nowhere near the cost associated with the real good. i would bet cash money that there are at least 100k people out there with a complete collection of Nintendo DS roms, give or take a few days. would they all play, much less buy all... what is it now, 4000? of those if there was no piracy? no. but that contribution alone pushes DS piracy numbers to 400 million units, which sounds impressive on paper...

just because nobody would actually buy 1000 DS games they just downloaded from single torrent, doesnt mean that they wouldnt buy any games.

not to mention that DS is bad example, didnt Nintendo themselves say that software sales in europe collapsed last year due to rampant piracy?