This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Lulzsec Recent Rampage
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
...
You really don't get it, do you?
The reason why the iPhone jail-breaks have been permitted (noting that any jail breaking is an acknowledged breach of copyright, and needed to be specifically exempted from copyright actions) is because it limits competition (i.e. is anti-competitive). You even bolded it for me, and you're asking me where I came to my conclusion from?
Sony does not limit competition. There are no limitations of innovation for the PS3 - anybody can design software to be run on the PS3. Legally obtained software (i.e. PS3 DVDs purchased or games downloaded via the PSN) can be run on the PS3. For all the stuff that you've copied and pasted, Sony does not restrict what software it allows developers to write for the PS3, unlike the Apple and the iPhone. People can still publish home-brew applications to DVD and sell them to any PS3 user who hasn't jail-broken their console.
Therefore, there is no anti-competitive behaviour, and subsequently, there is a world of difference between jail-breaking an iPhone and jail-breaking a PS3.
By the same argument that chaosultimamage is making, if jail-breaking a PS3 was really legal, the EFF would have dealt with it already and obtained the necessary exemptions to publish PS3 hacks legally. They would have done so when Hotz was pulled in in the firsit place. The fact that they have not would suggest that there is no case for it.
Post by
OverZealous
What I'm wondering is how a bunch of 19 year old kids are doing so much damage to government sites. It's just sad.
You'd think these people would have enough security to keep DDoS attacks from taking down everything.
From my understanding, DDoS attacks are very hard to prevent. Much more so than say SQL injections etc.
Also, these guys, though stupid, definetly know what they're doing. They're not amateurs.
I agree though, you'd think government sites should have state of the art security... >.>
Post by
Xil3
What I'm wondering is how a bunch of 19 year old kids are doing so much damage to government sites. It's just sad.
You'd think these people would have enough security to keep DDoS attacks from taking down everything.
To quite a few of them, it's probably pretty much their life. It's bad that they can do so much damage though, definitely. On the other hand, that helps point out errors in the government sites' systems, which should then be rectified.
Edit: Also, dunno if people are aware of
this
.
Yes that was posted as well. Unfortunately with organizations such as Lulzsec and Anon there are 50 other super kids to take the "leaders" place. Hopefully this guy can shed some light to the police though and get this over with.
Post by
Xil3
...
You really don't get it, do you?
The reason why the iPhone jail-breaks have been permitted (noting that any jail breaking is an acknowledged breach of copyright, and needed to be specifically exempted from copyright actions) is because it limits competition (i.e. is anti-competitive). You even bolded it for me, and you're asking me where I came to my conclusion from?
Sony does not limit competition. There are no limitations of innovation for the PS3 - anybody can design software to be run on the PS3. Legally obtained software (i.e. PS3 DVDs purchased or games downloaded via the PSN) can be run on the PS3. For all the stuff that you've copied and pasted, Sony does not restrict what software it allows developers to write for the PS3, unlike the Apple and the iPhone.
People can still publish home-brew applications to DVD and sell them to any PS3 user who hasn't jail-broken their console.
Therefore, there is no anti-competitive behaviour, and subsequently, there is a world of difference between jail-breaking an iPhone and jail-breaking a PS3.
By the same argument that chaosultimamage is making, if jail-breaking a PS3 was really legal, the EFF would have dealt with it already and obtained the necessary exemptions to publish PS3 hacks legally. They would have done so when Hotz was pulled in in the firsit place. The fact that they have not would suggest that there is no case for it.
You cannot run home-brew applications on the PS3 without modding the console. Period. Thus Sony is limiting what you can do. Thus getting rid of anyone who would like to make third party applications for the PlayStation. They would have to go through Sony to get the application on the PS3. I cannot make a "RSS Feed" application and throw in on a DVD plop it in my PS3 and have it run. If you could there would have been no reason to mod it in the first place. I also bet if I presented an application for "busty women" they would say NO. Therefore restricting what I can do with the console I own. You can develop games for the PlayStation by purchasing the SDK which is around $2000 right now, even then Sony has to approve the game before it can be produced.
I also never got that link for where Apple took someone to court and won for jail-breaking.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Which is the right of Sony to do so, since the PS3's are their intellectual property and they choose what does or does not go on to them.
Post by
Xil3
Which is the right of Sony to do so, since the PS3's are their intellectual property and they choose what does or does not go on to them.
The iPhone is Apple's intellectual property and they can no longer keep people from installing third-party apps, so why should Sony have this right? Sony is no more important than Apple.
Post by
Adamsm
Which is the right of Sony to do so, since the PS3's are their intellectual property and they choose what does or does not go on to them.
The iPhone is Apple's intellectual property and they can no longer keep people from installing third-party apps, so why should Sony have this right? Sony is no more important than Apple.
I don't know; you should send a strongly worded letter to Sony and ask them to find out.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Xil3
Which is the right of Sony to do so, since the PS3's are their intellectual property and they choose what does or does not go on to them.
The iPhone is Apple's intellectual property and they can no longer keep people from installing third-party apps, so why should Sony have this right? Sony is no more important than Apple.
I don't know; you should send a strongly worded letter to Sony and ask them to find out.
The answer is it makes no sense for Sony to sue Hotz. If they hadn't sued Hotz, Sony Online wouldn't have been taken down. If that had never happened no one would have cared about Lulzsec or Anon. Now that the governments are arresting people and giving the Hacker groups all this attention, they are just going to keep doing stupid %^&*. Honestly the media should stop giving this stuff all this attention while the governments work to handle this. Anti-Sec is only doing it for attention now.
If anything Sony should have offered Hotz a job. He is 21 years old right now and he is hacking software that teams of Sony employees have worked to make secure. Pretty impressive to me.
Post by
Adamsm
Which is the right of Sony to do so, since the PS3's are their intellectual property and they choose what does or does not go on to them.
Once you purchase a console, it is your legal right to be able to do whatever you want with it, within the law. There is no law that prohibits you from cracking or modding your own devices and, as we've just been discussing, the law fully endorses this right.
The only thing remotely questionable is the whether or not you can post the How-Tos and stuff online, which as we've also determined, is not prohibited by law.
And I agree with both of those points; and apparently, at this point, Hotz does as well.
The answer is it makes no sense for Sony to sue Hotz.Other then, as the above says, he was going to release the information online which Sony did not want, which is what the Cease and Desist order was about; when he did not follow that, then they sued him.
Post by
Xil3
The answer is it makes no sense for Sony to sue Hotz.Other then, as the above says, he was going to release the information online which Sony did not want, which is what the Cease and Desist order was about; when he did not follow that, then they sued him.
I know that, what we have been saying though is that it is not right that they can sue him, yet Apple cannot sue someone who does the same thing to the iPhone. If it is legal for one it should be legal for the other. That is what upset so many people. You can't make a law saying you can jailbreak this device, but not this one. That is an irregularity in the law. So if you think that it should be illegal to jail-break the iPhone is well, then I have no beef with you, but if you think that it should be legal to jail-break iPhones, but not PS3s then I disagree wholeheartedly.
Post by
Adamsm
.....Someone was sued by Apple, and Apple lost and a law was put through that jailbreaking an iPhone was legal as you've been saying; same thing happened here, but Hotz settled so Sony won, which means, more then likely from here on in, if people are stupid enough to try to put up online how to jailbreak a PS3, they can be sued by the company. Sony would never have sued Hotz if he hadn't of said he was going to put it up online; had he just kept quiet, none of this would have happened.
One law for jailbreaking does not cover every single device ever to come; that's not how laws work; so yes in fact, they can make a law that says it's fine to jailbreak an iPhone but not a PS3 or a PSP, or any other computer device out there if the company that created it wants to fight back against it. That's the way the world works.
Post by
Murrdurr
I better keep my 1st gen slim PSP hidden then, damn thing acts like a little mini-computer with all the mods and crap on it lol. Running Linux is cool and all on my psp but I remember having linux on my 5.5gen Ipod, heh that thing was fun to mess with.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
If the principle applies for the iPhone, then the same principle(s) will apply to the PS3. Even if all it took was the appeal for exemption. There is no way that you can actually say that the process and uses are any different.
If, by law, it is okay to do whatever you want with your iPhone, then, by law, it is okay to do whatever you want with your PS3.
Except the PS3 is not covered by that law; it's really that simple. And yes, do whatever you want with your PS3.....just don't be stupid and brag about what you've done where someone can hear and slap you with a restraining order.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
/shrug Right, and because he did settle, which has set a bad precedent which Sony can now use to come down hard on anyone who tries to jailbreak a PS3 in the future and posts it up; it's possible someone can fight against it, but don't think we'll ever see an actual law.
And before someone says this is off topic again...the actual topic is moronic: again, who cares that a group of teen idiots decide that they'll fight the man?
Post by
120504
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
xaratherus
.....Someone was sued by Apple, and Apple lost and a law was put through that jailbreaking an iPhone was legal as you've been saying; same thing happened here, but Hotz settled so Sony won, which means, more then likely from here on in, if people are stupid enough to try to put up online how to jailbreak a PS3, they can be sued by the company. Sony would never have sued Hotz if he hadn't of said he was going to put it up online; had he just kept quiet, none of this would have happened. .
Actually, claiming that Sony won is incorrect. Settling a case is not a legal admission of guilt, and cannot be used as legal precedent. The only way it would be considered legal precedent is if Hotz had allowed it to go to court and the ruling had been in favor of the plaintiff. Sony can initiate further cases, but they cannot claim precedent of winning based on a case that was settled before it was heard by the court.
The settlement between Hotz and Sony simply made permanent the injuction that Hotz would not post the information online and would remove any copies that he had alread posted.
There are two primary reasons people settle court cases: First, the settlement will lead to financial recompense they consider acceptable in regards to the damages; or second, they believe that they have no chance of winning the case (or, on the defendant's side, that they have no chance of defending the case successfully).
Hotz had no financial resources that would be worthwhile to Sony, nor did Sony request that in settlement. Had Sony gone forward with the case and won, a legal precedent in their favor would have been set.
So why didn't they press on?
Likely because they knew precedent was already set
against
them, re: the Apple case mentioned earlier. And Hotz agreed because, well, once something's on the Internet, it's gone, baby. You can't put the genie back in the bottle once the Internet is involved.
So settling was a win-win situation for him, because the information was already distributed (stopping him from posting it again would not mean anything) and it saved him the costs of an extensive legal battle.
But the "essential use" exemption applies only to the actual owner of the device. Third parties are still prohibited from offering "circumvention services." This means that only the customer can perform the jailbreak. Anyone else who provides material assistance to a consumer wishing to switch carriers could still be subject to civil or criminal charges under the DMCA.
Knowing this, then the settlement was actually for both reasons: First, Sony was unsure that they could actually win the case; they would have to prove that Hotz's information constituted "expert advice or assistance" - part of the legal definition of "material assistance" - in order to win the case; second, even if they won, it's unlikely they could recoup any possible financial losses; Hotz would probably have just filed bankruptcy.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.