Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 14 Jan 2011.
Good luck to him on this, it's hardly in the same league as publishing security vulnerability hacks with sample code that can *only* serve the black hat hackers. Nor is it stealing or facilitating theft by others.
Good for him, hopefully if he wins, larger companies and corporations will have to realise that when they sell a device to a customer they no longer have any rights over it.
Sony removes Linux from PS3 and then wonders why people go on and try to get it back on there. I hope the court rules the same as it did with Apple and jailbreak (also developed by Hotz).
If you buy hardware, you should be able to do with it whatever you want, atleast you should be able to run *nux on anything that is basically a computer.
so how does this differ from jailbreaking iPhone's?
I disagree. Sony produce a fantastic product and sell it for less than the cost of manufacture (I realise this probably isn't the case now) on the assumption that they will recouperate costs through the sale of games. I can fully understand why Sony would be pissed off with this guy for wanting to use 'homebrew' games on the console. I can't actually understand why he even wants to do it in the first place? Why dedicate all your time to hacking the PS3 when PC's are already 'open' and much more suitable for what he wants to do.
I realise that there is unswayable bandwagon of geeks who think every piece of hardware should have no conditions attached to its use and anything said to the contrary is akin to blasphemy. So whatever I say is falling on deaf ears but I think this guy should lose on principle, and also for his greed and stupidity.
"Why dedicate all your time to hacking the PS3 when PC's are already 'open'"
I often make my own bread, but 15 minutes from me is a bread shop thats better at making bread - am i stupid?
"I think this guy should lose on principle, and also for his greed and stupidity"
where's the greed? i dont see where he gets any $$$. it's another accomplishment to his portfolio
your argument is like saying inkjet printers sell for less than cost so you have no right to modify the printer (i know you dont have to) to accept your own ink. Even if you legitimately pay for your ink and dont steal it.
In responce to lacuna, I think that hardware should come with no strings attached. Though services may come with strings. As in hooking the moded PS3 up to PSN might get it banned from the network, but the actual hardware should in no way become void and unusable.
Also informing of other ways to use the hardware that you bought should in no way open the informer up for legal attacks.
But that's just like, my opinion... man.
I think Sony suing this guy is pathetic, the only reason he was able to crack their system was because they were incompetent in securing it. Unlike are other hacks this isn't using a hardware device to bypass it, these people broke the public/private keys because of the very poor way Sony deployed it.
If I were a Sony licensee I would be very angry at Sony.
It doesn't. That's the point.
You buy something, you should be able to do whatever you want with it, it's that simple.
There's no rules saying you cant use a PS3 as a pair of pants if you want, so there shouldn't be rules to stop you from using YOUR hardware in other non standard ways if you want.
Its not his fault that Sony's business model requires end users to purchase X amount of software to recoup the losses made when selling the console. But i do appreciate your point with the millions of dollars of R&D that go into the making of electronic items.
If someone leaves their house unlocked and someone walks in it's trespass which is illegal. Just because something isn't secured doesn't mean that it's not illegal.
The DMCA in america makes it illegal to circumvent encryption regardless of how badly encrypted stuff is, as an example.
I don't see any harm as long as he doesn't publish his method. I agree with the point that sony didn't have to sell the ps3 at a loss and perhaps in the future they won't as an insurance policy against piracy.
That's just an example of a law that's been bought by corporations. It's not necessarily a law that's in place because it's good for the people that pay for it's enforcement.
The trespasser doesn't own the house so they don't have the right to walk in, the person who bought the PS3 owns the PS3 so they can do what they want with it. If Sony still own the PS3 once you've bought it then you're not really buying it, you're just paying for a permanent loan...
I'm pretty sure they can argue the encryption on it is their interlectual property. Therefore they own it
Another way of looking at it is if you buy an operating system you don't own it.
You own the rights to use it within the EULA.
Surely pointing out that their door is unlocked isn't illegal??
Anyway, all he's done is publicly point out a security flaw. People do this on a regular basis, so I think Sony haven't got much hope of succeeding here.
Separate names with a comma.