Sony has gone too far!

April 09, 2011

So beside any of the many complaints I have had about Sony.. when it comes to everything from intellectual property protection that inconveniences the buyers rather than the pirates. To changing games after the releases with everything from patched in advertisement(that affects the performance of the game), to simply bad design-choices that ruin the game's appeal. And all the way to bad aftermarket support that does not match the amount you initially paid for the product, etc.

They then sue people at random in order to "protect their property", in much the same way they held the screenshot feature in MAG back for over a year. Before finally releasing it in the end after all - the only difference from earlier: a prompt in the bottom of the picture saying the screen belongs to Sony.

Clearly figuring this out should at least take a year. And it demonstrates the care and dilligence with which Sony always approach practical challenges.

But now my patience has come to an end. Whenever I start up a game with Move-features now, I have to watch these silly directions every time - and they cannot be skipped!

This is a MAJOR ISSUE!!!! (

Most recent blog posts from Jostein Johnsen...

Deus Ex: HR - Review Augmentation

Cute girl playing sometimes erotic ninja action game on a 3ds

10.000 views..?

Most recent blog posts from Jostein Johnsen...
Deus Ex: HR - Review Augmentation Cute girl playing sometimes erotic ninja action game on a 3ds 10.000 views..?

Feedback

Leroux - April 09, 2011 (02:07 PM)
Free George Hotz.

zigfried - April 09, 2011 (05:15 PM)
Agreed.

//Zig

JoeTheDestroyer - April 09, 2011 (05:56 PM)
I concur.

honestgamer - April 09, 2011 (10:38 PM)
Reverse engineering should absolutely be a crime. Everything I've ever heard indicates that it already is, but if it isn't... then it needs to be.

Suskie - April 09, 2011 (11:25 PM)
^^^ Ninja edit FTW

JoeTheDestroyer - April 10, 2011 (01:41 AM)
*combo breaker!*

I was hoping the next person in line would say, "Indeed," or "Yes... Yes..." Possibly whilst puffing on a pipe.

Leroux - April 10, 2011 (06:38 AM)
I guess my computer engineering classes in college were illegal then.

zigfried - April 10, 2011 (09:13 AM)
In the United States even if an artifact or process is protected by trade secrets, reverse-engineering the artifact or process is often lawful as long as it is obtained legitimately.[21] Patents, on the other hand, need a public disclosure of an invention, and therefore, patented items do not necessarily have to be reverse-engineered to be studied. (However, an item produced under one or more patents could also include other technology that is not patented and not disclosed.) One common motivation of reverse engineers is to determine whether a competitor's product contains patent infringements or copyright infringements.

The reverse engineering of software in the US is generally illegal because most EULA prohibit it, and courts have found such contractual prohibitions to override the copyright law.

It's not illegal unless you agreed to a license agreement that forbids it. In the GeoHot case, Sony says he signed a license agreement, but he says he did not. And I imagine it would be tough to successfully argue that agreeing to such a license would govern every Sony device that someone would ever buy, so all he should need to do is reverse-engineer a PS3 that has never connected to PSN or had a firmware update. However, I think current PS3s require agreement to a license right out of the box... does the box tell us this, or is it a surprise after we've already dropped $400? (I'm too lazy to check)

Reverse-engineering is a useful way to learn about things. I don't support piracy, but if companies make it difficult or impossible to use and study my property -- through restrictive DRM or licensing agreements -- then I would not only support but encourage the hackers, even if their hacks have the side effect of enabling piracy. I have no present interest in studying my hardware, but it's my right as an owner of that property. And DRM just sucks.

For example, there's a popular language-learning software that costs hundreds of dollars but requires an internet connection at boot-up and only allows installation on one PC at a time (and unlike Microsoft Office, I hear they actually enforce it). If I ever get serious about learning Swedish, you can bet I'll be downloading the crack patch that gets around that limit and bypasses the licensing agreement. Sure, the crack patch enables people to pirate that product; not my problem. I'd feel more sympathy if the publisher weren't so annoying.

So basically, all of this annoying stuff is done in the name of fighting piracy, similar to how other freedoms are restricted in the name of protecting the children.

Some classic cases of rampant piracy revolve around games that surprisingly lacked a demo -- in hopes that people would be forced to buy the game to see what it's like (and be screwed if they didn't like it). The market responded by pirating those game instead. Now publishers are trying to circumvent the rental and used game sale processes, making it even harder to legally play games at a reduced cost.

Are they really trying to fight piracy? Really?

//Zig

honestgamer - April 10, 2011 (11:12 AM)
GeoHot willfully broke the terms of several EULA that he agreed to. He then shared the information that his illegal activities allowed him to gain in the most public forum that he could find: the Internet. He was caught in so many lies that he fled the country to avoid the legal prosecution that was clearly headed his way. I have nothing to spare him but my contempt.

Sony isn't a perfect company, but we live in a society that sides with the underdog because we hate big companies like Sony. The online world is populated by people from all over the world. Pay attention sometime and you'll find that many arguments in favor of piracy and hacking are calling for no less than the abolishment of the capitalist system. I happen to like the capitalist system. I happen to like the notion that if I create something special, I will have the right to benefit from it to the greatest extent that my skill and intelligence and hard work permit and that I don't have to worry about most of the reward for my hard work going to thieves. There are a surprising number of people online who feel that I am unreasonable to want that.

Let's not let distaste for Sony's long history of making money cause us to forget that GeoHot is scum. He doesn't deserve our adoration. He deserves his day in court, but he rejected that and fled to South America. What he did isn't just Sony's problem. It should concern everyone who has ever enjoyed the positive benefits of life in the 21st century.

WilltheGreat - April 10, 2011 (11:34 AM)
In the GeoHot case, Sony says he signed a license agreement, but he says he did not. And I imagine it would be tough to successfully argue that agreeing to such a license would govern every Sony device that someone would ever buy, so all he should need to do is reverse-engineer a PS3 that has never connected to PSN or had a firmware update.

There you go, Jason, I reposted the part that you seem to have missed.

You do this a lot, I've noticed.

honestgamer - April 10, 2011 (11:51 AM)
I didn't ignore that, Will. It just wasn't interesting or relevant.

Leroux - April 10, 2011 (11:53 AM)
You seem to not understand that while it opens the door for piracy, it also opens the door for intelligent, talented people to write or use their own software for the system they purchased.

Torrents are usually used to illegally acquire music. A torrent itself is not illegal.

People with guns can kill people with them. A gun is not illegal.

Being able to log into your Playstation 3 as root could allow you to crack and illegally play games. But being a root user and having read and write access to the system memory for hardware you purchased should not be illegal.

These are subtleties but important ones that should be protected for the sake of technological innovation.

Imagine if you bought a computer and you broke the license if you wanted to run an operating system other than Windows, per a Microsoft license you had to sign at your initial start up screen. You couldn't edit your registry or delete cache memory. You couldn't install or write any non-Microsoft approved software. That license seems to set up the beginnings of a monopoly as technological innovation is stymied -- it must go through Microsoft. Imagine Apple now doing the same. Imagine the consumer now having two choices: contractually remain ignorant to how a computer works, or have to essentially learn how to build their own machines.

The Playstation 3 is a computer. There's not much difference.

zigfried - April 10, 2011 (11:57 AM)
Pay attention sometime and you'll find that many arguments in favor of piracy and hacking are calling for no less than the abolishment of the capitalist system. I happen to like the capitalist system. I happen to like the notion that if I create something special, I will have the right to benefit from it to the greatest extent that my skill and intelligence and hard work permit and that I don't have to worry about most of the reward for my hard work going to thieves.

The above is part of why I favor hacking. It empowers creators, and it reveals what the market wants. Hacking also leads to better games.

//Zig

honestgamer - April 10, 2011 (12:21 PM)
Zig, it doesn't reveal what the market wants. It allows someone else to create a clone of someone else's creation and then sell it for less money so that the person who created it is no longer able to charge what the market would otherwise pay. That's fun for people who don't like to or simply can't spend much money on luxury items, but it removes much of the incentive to drive technological advancement.

Under the free market system, someone creates something and starts selling it. When people no longer buy it in sufficient quantities, that person or entity lowers the price so that it represents a value to a larger portion of the population. It's the simple law of supply and demand.

Hacking interferes with that dynamic by stripping away the value of something valuable. "I like what you did," a hacker is saying, "but I don't like that people are paying you this much money. Rather than let the free market system sort things out--as it would without interference--I'm going to cheat the process for my own gain or because I don't think what you did is all that great and I'm tired of seeing your efforts validated."

Hacking has led to technological advancements, but many of those have come about as a result of the free market system. It's possible for the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 to co-exist in a world without hacking. There's competition. The free market system is impacted in a positive way and technology continues to advance. It's similarly possible for similar but different devices to exist if someone creates something awesome and someone else hacks it, modifies it and then sells it at a lower price. However, the former situation doesn't harm the free market system and the latter one does.

Will's point appears to have been that although what GeoHot did violates the spirit of the EULA and (more importantly) the principles that drive the free market system, it technically skates around current legislation (which is always slow to catch up to reality when it comes to matters of technology). I agree that it is up to the courts to decide whether or not to prosecute GeoHot for his crimes. But of course, that's not really even relevant. GeoHot has done a bad thing and whether or not he pays for what he did, the fact remains that his actions represent an attack on the capitalist system. At this point, I'm mostly beyond caring what happens to GeoHot. I'll cheer if he is thrown in jail or financially ruined, obviously, but the real question was never whether or not GeoHot would get away with what he did. It was whether or not he should... and he shouldn't.

zigfried - April 10, 2011 (12:29 PM)
Zig, it doesn't reveal what the market wants. It allows someone else to create a clone of someone else's creation and then sell it for less money so that the person who created it is no longer able to charge what the market would otherwise pay.

The above is one aspect of the free market system, although that's not quite what I was getting at. People often hack to add new features to existing products, and then they distribute those hacked versions. Creators look at that and say "huh, I guess that's what people want. I'll add that to my next game but do it better"

In a capitalist system, chumps who keep repeating the same thing over and over get screwed -- and that's what SHOULD happen. If people keep paying for the same thing as they always have, innovation dies. From a societal standpoint, the whole point to the capitalist system is to increase innovation and reduce prices along the way.

You're assuming that all hackers just want to clone and sell stuff. That is absolutely not the motivation of many hackers. If they just wanted to clone other games, they'd join companies like Activision and work on series that other people created (like Call of Duty).

As for GeoHot, he may not have violated the EULA at all. That's one of the main points of the entire suit -- the dispute as to whether he violated it or not. Whether the EULA contains a statement against reverse-engineering is irrelevant if someone didn't agree to that license for a particular product they bought.

//Zig

honestgamer - April 10, 2011 (12:42 PM)
You seem to not understand that while it opens the door for piracy, it also opens the door for intelligent, talented people to write or use their own software for the system they purchased.

Of course I understand that. I don't agree that it should be permitted. That's all. If I create a system and I want to sell it to people but I want to restrict them from using my system to do something that doesn't benefit me, that is my right and it should be protected to the full extent of the law. New laws should be written to protect me and to prosecute anyone who opposes me. If people don't want to buy my system as a result, then they shouldn't and I will have a change of heart and decide to allow them to do additional things with my system because I want their money. That should be my right and the nature of reality means that I will relent and ultimately everyone's interests will be served. That is how capitalism works.

Torrents are usually used to illegally acquire music. A torrent itself is not illegal.

I know, and that's as it should be.

People with guns can kill people with them. A gun is not illegal.

I know, and that's as it should be.

Being able to log into your Playstation 3 as root could allow you to crack and illegally play games. But being a root user and having read and write access to the system memory for hardware you purchased should not be illegal.

It should be illegal if I created the hardware and I wish to exercise my right to have it deemed illegal as part of my EULA. If I fear that allowing people to have read and write access to my hardware will encourage piracy at a prohibitive level, then I should be able to prevent them from doing so with support from legislation. I may have reasons for doing so that outweigh the reasons a consumer has for wishing to do otherwise. The legal system should take my side on that. After all, the consumer has all the power because he can decide whether or not to buy what I am selling.

These are subtleties but important ones that should be protected for the sake of technological innovation.

I'm not sure that any of that is especially subtle, but I'll take your word for it. You have a tendency to say one or two things I agree with and then finish up a sentence with a point that is at odds with what you've just said or completely unrelated so that it looks like I'm disagreeing with something reasonable when I'm really not. Presumably, you're not arguing in favor of protecting guns and torrents for the sake of technological innovation, but rather are saying that people must have access to read and write to their PS3 in order for technological advancements to occur. The existence of plenty of similar hardware that got to a similar place using different technology begs to differ.

Imagine if you bought a computer and you broke the license if you wanted to run an operating system other than Windows, per a Microsoft license you had to sign at your initial start up screen. You couldn't edit your registry or delete cache memory. You couldn't install or write any non-Microsoft approved software. That license seems to set up the beginnings of a monopoly as technological innovation is stymied -- it must go through Microsoft. Imagine Apple now doing the same. Imagine the consumer now having two choices: contractually remain ignorant to how a computer works, or have to essentially learn how to build their own machines.

You seem to be saying that this is an unreasonable scenario. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point, and the reason I disagree is that if Microsoft were to make something so restrictive--or Apple--there would eventually come a point where that something wouldn't sell or (as you propose) someone else would learn how to build a similar machine and it would have fewer restrictions and would take away market share. The free market system works and it ensures that technology advances more successfully than hacking ever will.

The Playstation 3 is a computer. There's not much difference.

The PlayStation 3 could be a fig newton. What we call it isn't really relevant, is it? What's up for debate here is whether or not a manufacturer should have the right to restrict how people use its products. I say it should. You say it shouldn't. We disagree.

WilltheGreat - April 10, 2011 (12:54 PM)
GeoHot has done a bad thing

And again, no. At the very least, whether or not GeoHot acted improperly has yet to even be determined.

honestgamer - April 10, 2011 (01:06 PM)
No, Will, I just know how to see through BS when someone like GeoHot flings it at me. GeoHot couldn't have done what he did without agreeing to the EULA. It's so difficult as to be impossible without knowledge and experience that he denies having had, and that point has nothing whatsoever to do with my views of the legal system.

If someone went to court for the alleged crime of breathing oxygen three years ago and tried to make the argument that he in fact did not breathe oxygen, I would be similarly predisposed to finding him guilty because I know that people breathe oxygen. It's one of those things we do as human beings. If someone went to court for the alleged crime of robbing a bank, I'd be more interested in hearing arguments that support or contradict the claims.

Leroux - April 10, 2011 (01:09 PM)
"If I create a system and I want to sell it to people but I want to restrict them from using my system to do something that doesn't benefit me, that is my right and it should be protected to the full extent of the law."

Did you inform people of your restrictions and have them sign your contract at the sale of your system? Or did you place your constantly changing restrictions in sixty-two pages of fine print after the fact that someone needs to select OK to bypass in order to use their Netflix.

honestgamer - April 10, 2011 (01:20 PM)
If you accept the EULA to use Netflix, Leroux, that's not the first time that you ever accepted the EULA. It's at the very least the second or third time and probably more like the 20th time if you've had the system for awhile. After all, use of Netflix requires a PlayStation Network account, which is at least the second time that you agree to the EULA.

Of course Sony doesn't send a representative to greet everyone at every store where a PS3 might be sold, or supply stores with stacks of printed EULA, or ride along in the delivery vehicle if you order a PS3 from eBay or buy one from a friend. We all know that wouldn't be possible. So when you buy a PS3, the first thing you do is agree to a EULA or you return it to the store where you bought it or you send it to Sony for a refund.

Also, the EULA doesn't affect the typical person's use of the system and is similar to the EULA on any number of other devices that people use all the time. There's not a clause about giving up your first-born child and none of the terms prevent people from using the PS3 in the manner that it was obviously intended to be used. GeoHot can't reasonably pretend that he had no idea that he wasn't supposed to circumvent system security and hack the hardware, but he's trying to pretend that anyway (and trying to pretend, in effect, that he never even knew that Sony had a North American branch).

WilltheGreat - April 10, 2011 (01:21 PM)
Right, but the EULA that you agree to when you first set up the system is different from the updated EULA the software downloads when it first connects to the PSN.

honestgamer - April 10, 2011 (01:23 PM)
Yes, Will. EULAs do change over time. That's normal. Clauses prohibiting users from hacking hardware have been a standard component of all EULAs since at least the mid 80s, though, so it's not like any of that could have reasonably come as a surprise to Mr. GeoHot.

zigfried - April 10, 2011 (01:46 PM)
Actually, that has not been a standard inclusion in EULAs for computer (or videogame console) hardware.

//Zig

honestgamer - April 10, 2011 (01:46 PM)
As to the breathing oxygen analogy...are you saying that every human being must necessarily agree to an EULA in order to maintain respiratory functions? If not, then you're going to have to find something other than straws to grasp at.

A is not related B.

If I say that breathing is necessary, that does not mean by extension that I am grasping at straws. You need to find a better way to dismantle my points, one that actually addresses what I'm saying rather than putting words in my mouth that you might wish I had conveniently argued.

The point of my analogy was that it is not possible for a human being to cease to breathe oxygen and remain alive. A human cannot reasonably argue that he didn't breathe oxygen because his continued existence proves that he did. Similarly, GeoHot cannot argue that he didn't agree to the EULA because his very ability to hack the PS3 means that he did. The question of whether or not he is guilty of doing so is a blatant red herring.

This is my last post that will address your comments in this thread, Will. You either are unable to effectively mount counter-arguments to my points or you are unwiling to do so (perhaps because you enjoy getting a rise out of me). I'm not sure which it is, but given our positions on the extreme opposite ends of the debate, I think we can both consider one another incapable of influencing the other.

For that matter, for now and likely a good time to come, I'm tiring of the argument in general and plan to go do something more constructive.

Halon - April 10, 2011 (02:41 PM)
This is not a new phenomenon. I had so many Playstation games and probably only bought a quarter of them. The issue is with high speed Internet and such an easy access to information, file/information sharing is becoming more and more mainstream. Instead of penalizing people for doing nothing that was ever wrong and has been done for years and years now, it�s about time these companies change their damn business models.

This is a problem in music, movies, video games, and much more. I wish these executives would use their brains to innovate instead of looking for loopholes in the law to punish those who do their jobs for them.

JoeTheDestroyer - April 10, 2011 (03:48 PM)
I'm glad this didn't end in all out bloodshed.

True - April 10, 2011 (04:28 PM)
DEATH MATCH, BABY!!

fleinn - April 10, 2011 (04:29 PM)
Me too. The move-reminders really bring out the worst in people, don't they.

Just look at this:

..by the way. Generally, user-agreements will not be assumed to have legal operative force on their own for all kinds of reasons. From whether you agree without knowing what you agree to. And all the way to that it may break in on other consumer-protection laws that take precedence.

So the most likely use of the eula in a court-case would be to help describe the "provider"'s definition of how they see the "users" using the product. And then if it turns out the users have wilfully broken it, knowing it would be criminal, for example. But no one has (so far) been convicted in a property rights case because they wilfully broke an eula. It has to involve something criminal as well.

That's... generally why Sony's lawyers claim that geohot clearly knew what he was doing was a crime, and that he intended to break the measures in place that protected the ps3. Which imo is a completely sensible argument (apart from the entire "part of a large linux-conspiracy to sink Sony forever-stuff. But hey, lawyers say so many silly things).

..aside from that, though - the interesting thing about all of this is that the hypervisor abstraction (not a proprietary system, btw) is designed to protect underlying hardware, while exposing the details needed to access the system for the intended use.

You probably recognise this from other proprietary solutions as well. And, you know.. this is why the entire "removal of the linux/OtherOS" kerfuffle was such a mistake. Because that really did protect the ps3 while still allowing some of us to fiddle around with spu-code. Or others to play around with the sixaxis control. And the move-controller/pseye functions (there's very likely going to be a PC kit coming out for the move eventually, btw). Or just use the ps3 as a computer. It floored my quad-core on encoding, so there were... many very useful and legitimate uses for this. That didn't include piracy, and which didn't expose the inner workings of the ps3.

That was.. also the case after geodot posted the hack (which was built on something someone else had done, by the way). By itself it wasn't useful for anything. It was the same as gaining limited access to a PC's ram, without knowing or having real access to the program logic. This means that unless you can insert markers and then debug/insert data in the program on the fly (this is how you would hack or crack something - you insert markers in a program, and then use those to steer by, generally speaking). So without that high-level control, having access to the ram (limited access as well...) - it wasn't actually useful. And it didn't expose the source-code or solution for the programs running on the ps3 any more than a raw memory dump on a PC (which you can do in two seconds on any computer - windows has a function for it in the systems-menu..) exposes, say, the MSOffice source..

In fact, a mem-dump on the ps3 would be even less useful, because we don't know the way the architecture works.

So reverse-engineering the software and the protected areas with the help of the "hack" is nigh on impossible. In fact.. what eventually led to the ability to play backups on the ps3 wasn't the infamous hack, but very likely a leaked SDK/service module.

Funny thing is that Levand - the guy who was in charge of the linux-project until Sony cancelled it - is actually set to speak in one of the trials (there's two going on - the geohot case, and the class action suit) in not that long. I'm assuming he's going to explain a couple of things.

But generally - what Sony tries to achieve is to show that geodot wanted to break the ps3's systems wide open. And that he did this clearly understanding that it would lead to piracy+open access to the ps3's protected systems. That's the goal here.

Meanwhile, what the class-action suit tries to accomplish is to show that customers lost a bought and useful/used service without due compensation.

Neither of them truly address the fact that simply dropping linux back on the ps3 would not expose the system (as Sony fears), while satisfy all the customers (which Sony presumably wants). But hey - that's how the world works, and what else is new, right.. ;)

bloomer - April 11, 2011 (07:55 AM)
This is not a new phenomenon. I had so many Playstation games and probably only bought a quarter of them. The issue is with high speed Internet and such an easy access to information, file/information sharing is becoming more and more mainstream. Instead of penalizing people for doing nothing that was ever wrong and has been done for years and years now, it�s about time these companies change their damn business models.

Nothing that was ever wrong? Stealing copies of software etc. has always been wrong, and the law maintains it still is.

When you say 'mainstream', what is going on is that people do it because it's become too easy not to. I view it as a weakness of human nature, though a highly explicable one. Few people can force themselves to perform tasks inefficiently. If obtaining a piece of software which is for sale and not paying for it at the same time has become the act of clicking a link, it requires willpower for lots of people to do otherwise, because clicking a button is about the easiest, most efficient action in the world.

Once a generation grows up in this environment, they have the idea that this is how life should work.

This is a problem in music, movies, video games, and much more. I wish these executives would use their brains to innovate instead of looking for loopholes in the law to punish those who do their jobs for them.

It is also the problem for independent creators of anything these days, but people who make these sweeping statements about how executives should fix the problem tar everyone with this brush. They also don't offer solutions themselves, and given they're also the people paying nothing for the content they use, it's hard to press them about how much they're actually willing to pay to either own or use certain items that may take years of expertise to create. Zero dollars?

The problem is pretty intractable at the moment.

WilltheGreat - April 11, 2011 (10:36 AM)
people who make these sweeping statements about how executives should fix the problem tar everyone with this brush. They also don't offer solutions themselves, and given they're also the people paying nothing for the content they use, it's hard to press them about how much they're actually willing to pay to either own or use certain items that may take years of expertise to create. Zero dollars?

Speaking of tarring everyone with the same brush...

Leroux - April 11, 2011 (02:20 PM)
Sony settled out of court today, under the terms that information already made public no longer be disclosed by the person that originally made it public.

I guess there will be no cheering of jail sentences and financial ruin for this "scum" in the Venter household. Shucks.

fleinn - April 11, 2011 (03:31 PM)
"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by consent of the Parties that Hotz, whether as an individual or as a principal, officer, director or employee of any business entity, and his agents, servants, employees, distributors, suppliers, representatives and all other persons or entities acting in concert or participation with Hotz who receive notice of this Judgment, shall be and hereby are permanently enjoined and restrained from:"
..etc.

All of geodot's agents and servants, in fact. *groan*

Geohot after-trial appeal..

Halon - April 11, 2011 (04:09 PM)
Nothing that was ever wrong? Stealing copies of software etc. has always been wrong, and the law maintains it still is.

No, I'm just saying that copying/sharing has been going on for a while, and if companies are finally seeing this as a problem then they ought to come up with a solution.

zigfried - April 11, 2011 (04:59 PM)
When you said companies shouldn't penalize people for doing something that was never wrong, I thought you meant hacking into and fiddling with their own personal property (such as their PS3).

But even if we're talking about the clearly illegal practice of piracy, companies do need to find a different approach. As Bloomer pointed out, people are human and will tend towards what is easiest and cheapest. That being said, most people do want to follow the law... if it's only a small inconvenience to do so. Piracy was a huge topic of discussion for the music industry ten years ago, but it's died down because music is now available easily and legally for a low price at the click of a button. For those of us who like brick-and-mortar shops, it's an unfortunate trade, but the music industry survives. The anime industry, or at least the part of it that remains, has survived internet piracy by hosting their own free streaming sites. This started three or four years ago, and they now rely on advertising revenue and affiliated merchandise sales instead of video sales.

I don't know the solution for software -- and if I did, I wouldn't share it here. The solution may be different for an independent creator versus a corporate publisher, but when the solution is found (if it hasn't been already) then someone will become very, very rich.

//Zig

Halon - April 11, 2011 (05:24 PM)
I don�t think it was right, either. This is when I was 13-15 years old and had no money of my own. It was much easier to buy a modchip and then rent & burn games instead of shelling out $40 for one game.

The reason I brought copying/sharing up is because that is what I�m guessing Sony�s ultimate fear is. They want full control over their product and everything that comes in and out of it. Unfortunately for them, as the line between a home computer and gaming console becomes blurrier and blurrier, this is much harder for them to do.

Piracy was a huge issue on PC�s to the point where many people were predicting the death of PC gaming. However, you don�t really hear much about this anyone thanks to developers releasing games on programs such as Steam. I don�t have solutions for Sony (or Microsoft, or anyone else), either. If I did I�d most likely be working for them and making lots of money. ;)

bloomer - April 11, 2011 (06:14 PM)
Sorry for any confusion. I think I did okay for entering this huge topic on page 2.

zigfried - April 11, 2011 (07:22 PM)
What I find interesting -- aside from Sony settling in the first place -- is that the public injunction (which does not include the settlement terms) includes a clause stating that the jurisdiction will be New Jersey in case Hotz ever sues Sony for not holding up their end of the settlement. But there's no clue as to what Sony's end of the deal even is.

//Zig

fleinn - April 11, 2011 (08:49 PM)
..about the solution to piracy, etc.. You know.. the ps3 was it. It has an encryption scheme that prevents unsigned code from running on it. The encryption scheme has to run uninterrupted - it's part of the program code seen from the hardware interface layer. So even if you can hack the low-level code, it doesn't help you extract the program-logic.

..*badam-tish*

WilltheGreat - April 12, 2011 (02:19 PM)
But even if we're talking about the clearly illegal practice of piracy, companies do need to find a different approach. As Bloomer pointed out, people are human and will tend towards what is easiest and cheapest. That being said, most people do want to follow the law... if it's only a small inconvenience to do so. Piracy was a huge topic of discussion for the music industry ten years ago, but it's died down because music is now available easily and legally for a low price at the click of a button. For those of us who like brick-and-mortar shops, it's an unfortunate trade, but the music industry survives. The anime industry, or at least the part of it that remains, has survived internet piracy by hosting their own free streaming sites. This started three or four years ago, and they now rely on advertising revenue and affiliated merchandise sales instead of video sales.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Back when home video came out the film industry bigwigs were sure it was the end of all of them, but they survived. I think Steam and Impulse are a step in the right direction for video games, but we'll see how that turns out - especially now that GameStop has acquired Impulse.

Also, I accidentally clicked "Mark" on your post instead of "Reply". Sorry Zig! >_>'

overdrive - April 12, 2011 (03:53 PM)
Also, I accidentally clicked "Mark" on your post instead of "Reply". Sorry Zig! >_>'

Oh...that means I shouldn't have banned Zig? Whoops!!!!

Feedback
	Leroux - April 09, 2011 (02:07 PM) Free George Hotz.
	zigfried - April 09, 2011 (05:15 PM) Agreed. //Zig
	JoeTheDestroyer - April 09, 2011 (05:56 PM) I concur.
	honestgamer - April 09, 2011 (10:38 PM) Reverse engineering should absolutely be a crime. Everything I've ever heard indicates that it already is, but if it isn't... then it needs to be.
	Suskie - April 09, 2011 (11:25 PM) ^^^ Ninja edit FTW
	JoeTheDestroyer - April 10, 2011 (01:41 AM) combo breaker! I was hoping the next person in line would say, "Indeed," or "Yes... Yes..." Possibly whilst puffing on a pipe.
	Leroux - April 10, 2011 (06:38 AM) I guess my computer engineering classes in college were illegal then.
	zigfried - April 10, 2011 (09:13 AM) In the United States even if an artifact or process is protected by trade secrets, reverse-engineering the artifact or process is often lawful as long as it is obtained legitimately.[21] Patents, on the other hand, need a public disclosure of an invention, and therefore, patented items do not necessarily have to be reverse-engineered to be studied. (However, an item produced under one or more patents could also include other technology that is not patented and not disclosed.) One common motivation of reverse engineers is to determine whether a competitor's product contains patent infringements or copyright infringements. The reverse engineering of software in the US is generally illegal because most EULA prohibit it, and courts have found such contractual prohibitions to override the copyright law. It's not illegal unless you agreed to a license agreement that forbids it. In the GeoHot case, Sony says he signed a license agreement, but he says he did not. And I imagine it would be tough to successfully argue that agreeing to such a license would govern every Sony device that someone would ever buy, so all he should need to do is reverse-engineer a PS3 that has never connected to PSN or had a firmware update. However, I think current PS3s require agreement to a license right out of the box... does the box tell us this, or is it a surprise after we've already dropped $400? (I'm too lazy to check) Reverse-engineering is a useful way to learn about things. I don't support piracy, but if companies make it difficult or impossible to use and study my property -- through restrictive DRM or licensing agreements -- then I would not only support but encourage the hackers, even if their hacks have the side effect of enabling piracy. I have no present interest in studying my hardware, but it's my right as an owner of that property. And DRM just sucks. For example, there's a popular language-learning software that costs hundreds of dollars but requires an internet connection at boot-up and only allows installation on one PC at a time (and unlike Microsoft Office, I hear they actually enforce it). If I ever get serious about learning Swedish, you can bet I'll be downloading the crack patch that gets around that limit and bypasses the licensing agreement. Sure, the crack patch enables people to pirate that product; not my problem. I'd feel more sympathy if the publisher weren't so annoying. So basically, all of this annoying stuff is done in the name of fighting piracy, similar to how other freedoms are restricted in the name of protecting the children. Some classic cases of rampant piracy revolve around games that surprisingly lacked a demo -- in hopes that people would be forced to buy the game to see what it's like (and be screwed if they didn't like it). The market responded by pirating those game instead. Now publishers are trying to circumvent the rental and used game sale processes, making it even harder to legally play games at a reduced cost. Are they really trying to fight piracy? Really? //Zig
	honestgamer - April 10, 2011 (11:12 AM) GeoHot willfully broke the terms of several EULA that he agreed to. He then shared the information that his illegal activities allowed him to gain in the most public forum that he could find: the Internet. He was caught in so many lies that he fled the country to avoid the legal prosecution that was clearly headed his way. I have nothing to spare him but my contempt. Sony isn't a perfect company, but we live in a society that sides with the underdog because we hate big companies like Sony. The online world is populated by people from all over the world. Pay attention sometime and you'll find that many arguments in favor of piracy and hacking are calling for no less than the abolishment of the capitalist system. I happen to like the capitalist system. I happen to like the notion that if I create something special, I will have the right to benefit from it to the greatest extent that my skill and intelligence and hard work permit and that I don't have to worry about most of the reward for my hard work going to thieves. There are a surprising number of people online who feel that I am unreasonable to want that. Let's not let distaste for Sony's long history of making money cause us to forget that GeoHot is scum. He doesn't deserve our adoration. He deserves his day in court, but he rejected that and fled to South America. What he did isn't just Sony's problem. It should concern everyone who has ever enjoyed the positive benefits of life in the 21st century.
	WilltheGreat - April 10, 2011 (11:34 AM) In the GeoHot case, Sony says he signed a license agreement, but he says he did not. And I imagine it would be tough to successfully argue that agreeing to such a license would govern every Sony device that someone would ever buy, so all he should need to do is reverse-engineer a PS3 that has never connected to PSN or had a firmware update. There you go, Jason, I reposted the part that you seem to have missed. You do this a lot, I've noticed.
	honestgamer - April 10, 2011 (11:51 AM) I didn't ignore that, Will. It just wasn't interesting or relevant.
	Leroux - April 10, 2011 (11:53 AM) You seem to not understand that while it opens the door for piracy, it also opens the door for intelligent, talented people to write or use their own software for the system they purchased. Torrents are usually used to illegally acquire music. A torrent itself is not illegal. People with guns can kill people with them. A gun is not illegal. Being able to log into your Playstation 3 as root could allow you to crack and illegally play games. But being a root user and having read and write access to the system memory for hardware you purchased should not be illegal. These are subtleties but important ones that should be protected for the sake of technological innovation. Imagine if you bought a computer and you broke the license if you wanted to run an operating system other than Windows, per a Microsoft license you had to sign at your initial start up screen. You couldn't edit your registry or delete cache memory. You couldn't install or write any non-Microsoft approved software. That license seems to set up the beginnings of a monopoly as technological innovation is stymied -- it must go through Microsoft. Imagine Apple now doing the same. Imagine the consumer now having two choices: contractually remain ignorant to how a computer works, or have to essentially learn how to build their own machines. The Playstation 3 is a computer. There's not much difference.
	zigfried - April 10, 2011 (11:57 AM) Pay attention sometime and you'll find that many arguments in favor of piracy and hacking are calling for no less than the abolishment of the capitalist system. I happen to like the capitalist system. I happen to like the notion that if I create something special, I will have the right to benefit from it to the greatest extent that my skill and intelligence and hard work permit and that I don't have to worry about most of the reward for my hard work going to thieves. The above is part of why I favor hacking. It empowers creators, and it reveals what the market wants. Hacking also leads to better games. //Zig
	honestgamer - April 10, 2011 (12:21 PM) Zig, it doesn't reveal what the market wants. It allows someone else to create a clone of someone else's creation and then sell it for less money so that the person who created it is no longer able to charge what the market would otherwise pay. That's fun for people who don't like to or simply can't spend much money on luxury items, but it removes much of the incentive to drive technological advancement. Under the free market system, someone creates something and starts selling it. When people no longer buy it in sufficient quantities, that person or entity lowers the price so that it represents a value to a larger portion of the population. It's the simple law of supply and demand. Hacking interferes with that dynamic by stripping away the value of something valuable. "I like what you did," a hacker is saying, "but I don't like that people are paying you this much money. Rather than let the free market system sort things out--as it would without interference--I'm going to cheat the process for my own gain or because I don't think what you did is all that great and I'm tired of seeing your efforts validated." Hacking has led to technological advancements, but many of those have come about as a result of the free market system. It's possible for the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 to co-exist in a world without hacking. There's competition. The free market system is impacted in a positive way and technology continues to advance. It's similarly possible for similar but different devices to exist if someone creates something awesome and someone else hacks it, modifies it and then sells it at a lower price. However, the former situation doesn't harm the free market system and the latter one does. Will's point appears to have been that although what GeoHot did violates the spirit of the EULA and (more importantly) the principles that drive the free market system, it technically skates around current legislation (which is always slow to catch up to reality when it comes to matters of technology). I agree that it is up to the courts to decide whether or not to prosecute GeoHot for his crimes. But of course, that's not really even relevant. GeoHot has done a bad thing and whether or not he pays for what he did, the fact remains that his actions represent an attack on the capitalist system. At this point, I'm mostly beyond caring what happens to GeoHot. I'll cheer if he is thrown in jail or financially ruined, obviously, but the real question was never whether or not GeoHot would get away with what he did. It was whether or not he should... and he shouldn't.
	zigfried - April 10, 2011 (12:29 PM) Zig, it doesn't reveal what the market wants. It allows someone else to create a clone of someone else's creation and then sell it for less money so that the person who created it is no longer able to charge what the market would otherwise pay. The above is one aspect of the free market system, although that's not quite what I was getting at. People often hack to add new features to existing products, and then they distribute those hacked versions. Creators look at that and say "huh, I guess that's what people want. I'll add that to my next game but do it better" In a capitalist system, chumps who keep repeating the same thing over and over get screwed -- and that's what SHOULD happen. If people keep paying for the same thing as they always have, innovation dies. From a societal standpoint, the whole point to the capitalist system is to increase innovation and reduce prices along the way. You're assuming that all hackers just want to clone and sell stuff. That is absolutely not the motivation of many hackers. If they just wanted to clone other games, they'd join companies like Activision and work on series that other people created (like Call of Duty). As for GeoHot, he may not have violated the EULA at all. That's one of the main points of the entire suit -- the dispute as to whether he violated it or not. Whether the EULA contains a statement against reverse-engineering is irrelevant if someone didn't agree to that license for a particular product they bought. //Zig
	honestgamer - April 10, 2011 (12:42 PM) You seem to not understand that while it opens the door for piracy, it also opens the door for intelligent, talented people to write or use their own software for the system they purchased. Of course I understand that. I don't agree that it should be permitted. That's all. If I create a system and I want to sell it to people but I want to restrict them from using my system to do something that doesn't benefit me, that is my right and it should be protected to the full extent of the law. New laws should be written to protect me and to prosecute anyone who opposes me. If people don't want to buy my system as a result, then they shouldn't and I will have a change of heart and decide to allow them to do additional things with my system because I want their money. That should be my right and the nature of reality means that I will relent and ultimately everyone's interests will be served. That is how capitalism works. Torrents are usually used to illegally acquire music. A torrent itself is not illegal. I know, and that's as it should be. People with guns can kill people with them. A gun is not illegal. I know, and that's as it should be. Being able to log into your Playstation 3 as root could allow you to crack and illegally play games. But being a root user and having read and write access to the system memory for hardware you purchased should not be illegal. It should be illegal if I created the hardware and I wish to exercise my right to have it deemed illegal as part of my EULA. If I fear that allowing people to have read and write access to my hardware will encourage piracy at a prohibitive level, then I should be able to prevent them from doing so with support from legislation. I may have reasons for doing so that outweigh the reasons a consumer has for wishing to do otherwise. The legal system should take my side on that. After all, the consumer has all the power because he can decide whether or not to buy what I am selling. These are subtleties but important ones that should be protected for the sake of technological innovation. I'm not sure that any of that is especially subtle, but I'll take your word for it. You have a tendency to say one or two things I agree with and then finish up a sentence with a point that is at odds with what you've just said or completely unrelated so that it looks like I'm disagreeing with something reasonable when I'm really not. Presumably, you're not arguing in favor of protecting guns and torrents for the sake of technological innovation, but rather are saying that people must have access to read and write to their PS3 in order for technological advancements to occur. The existence of plenty of similar hardware that got to a similar place using different technology begs to differ. Imagine if you bought a computer and you broke the license if you wanted to run an operating system other than Windows, per a Microsoft license you had to sign at your initial start up screen. You couldn't edit your registry or delete cache memory. You couldn't install or write any non-Microsoft approved software. That license seems to set up the beginnings of a monopoly as technological innovation is stymied -- it must go through Microsoft. Imagine Apple now doing the same. Imagine the consumer now having two choices: contractually remain ignorant to how a computer works, or have to essentially learn how to build their own machines. You seem to be saying that this is an unreasonable scenario. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point, and the reason I disagree is that if Microsoft were to make something so restrictive--or Apple--there would eventually come a point where that something wouldn't sell or (as you propose) someone else would learn how to build a similar machine and it would have fewer restrictions and would take away market share. The free market system works and it ensures that technology advances more successfully than hacking ever will. The Playstation 3 is a computer. There's not much difference. The PlayStation 3 could be a fig newton. What we call it isn't really relevant, is it? What's up for debate here is whether or not a manufacturer should have the right to restrict how people use its products. I say it should. You say it shouldn't. We disagree.
	WilltheGreat - April 10, 2011 (12:54 PM) GeoHot has done a bad thing And again, no. At the very least, whether or not GeoHot acted improperly has yet to even be determined.
	honestgamer - April 10, 2011 (01:06 PM) No, Will, I just know how to see through BS when someone like GeoHot flings it at me. GeoHot couldn't have done what he did without agreeing to the EULA. It's so difficult as to be impossible without knowledge and experience that he denies having had, and that point has nothing whatsoever to do with my views of the legal system. If someone went to court for the alleged crime of breathing oxygen three years ago and tried to make the argument that he in fact did not breathe oxygen, I would be similarly predisposed to finding him guilty because I know that people breathe oxygen. It's one of those things we do as human beings. If someone went to court for the alleged crime of robbing a bank, I'd be more interested in hearing arguments that support or contradict the claims.
	Leroux - April 10, 2011 (01:09 PM) "If I create a system and I want to sell it to people but I want to restrict them from using my system to do something that doesn't benefit me, that is my right and it should be protected to the full extent of the law." Did you inform people of your restrictions and have them sign your contract at the sale of your system? Or did you place your constantly changing restrictions in sixty-two pages of fine print after the fact that someone needs to select OK to bypass in order to use their Netflix.
	honestgamer - April 10, 2011 (01:20 PM) If you accept the EULA to use Netflix, Leroux, that's not the first time that you ever accepted the EULA. It's at the very least the second or third time and probably more like the 20th time if you've had the system for awhile. After all, use of Netflix requires a PlayStation Network account, which is at least the second time that you agree to the EULA. Of course Sony doesn't send a representative to greet everyone at every store where a PS3 might be sold, or supply stores with stacks of printed EULA, or ride along in the delivery vehicle if you order a PS3 from eBay or buy one from a friend. We all know that wouldn't be possible. So when you buy a PS3, the first thing you do is agree to a EULA or you return it to the store where you bought it or you send it to Sony for a refund. Also, the EULA doesn't affect the typical person's use of the system and is similar to the EULA on any number of other devices that people use all the time. There's not a clause about giving up your first-born child and none of the terms prevent people from using the PS3 in the manner that it was obviously intended to be used. GeoHot can't reasonably pretend that he had no idea that he wasn't supposed to circumvent system security and hack the hardware, but he's trying to pretend that anyway (and trying to pretend, in effect, that he never even knew that Sony had a North American branch).
	WilltheGreat - April 10, 2011 (01:21 PM) Right, but the EULA that you agree to when you first set up the system is different from the updated EULA the software downloads when it first connects to the PSN.
	honestgamer - April 10, 2011 (01:23 PM) Yes, Will. EULAs do change over time. That's normal. Clauses prohibiting users from hacking hardware have been a standard component of all EULAs since at least the mid 80s, though, so it's not like any of that could have reasonably come as a surprise to Mr. GeoHot.
	zigfried - April 10, 2011 (01:46 PM) Actually, that has not been a standard inclusion in EULAs for computer (or videogame console) hardware. //Zig
	honestgamer - April 10, 2011 (01:46 PM) As to the breathing oxygen analogy...are you saying that every human being must necessarily agree to an EULA in order to maintain respiratory functions? If not, then you're going to have to find something other than straws to grasp at. A is not related B. If I say that breathing is necessary, that does not mean by extension that I am grasping at straws. You need to find a better way to dismantle my points, one that actually addresses what I'm saying rather than putting words in my mouth that you might wish I had conveniently argued. The point of my analogy was that it is not possible for a human being to cease to breathe oxygen and remain alive. A human cannot reasonably argue that he didn't breathe oxygen because his continued existence proves that he did. Similarly, GeoHot cannot argue that he didn't agree to the EULA because his very ability to hack the PS3 means that he did. The question of whether or not he is guilty of doing so is a blatant red herring. This is my last post that will address your comments in this thread, Will. You either are unable to effectively mount counter-arguments to my points or you are unwiling to do so (perhaps because you enjoy getting a rise out of me). I'm not sure which it is, but given our positions on the extreme opposite ends of the debate, I think we can both consider one another incapable of influencing the other. For that matter, for now and likely a good time to come, I'm tiring of the argument in general and plan to go do something more constructive.
	Halon - April 10, 2011 (02:41 PM) This is not a new phenomenon. I had so many Playstation games and probably only bought a quarter of them. The issue is with high speed Internet and such an easy access to information, file/information sharing is becoming more and more mainstream. Instead of penalizing people for doing nothing that was ever wrong and has been done for years and years now, it�s about time these companies change their damn business models. This is a problem in music, movies, video games, and much more. I wish these executives would use their brains to innovate instead of looking for loopholes in the law to punish those who do their jobs for them.
	JoeTheDestroyer - April 10, 2011 (03:48 PM) I'm glad this didn't end in all out bloodshed.
	True - April 10, 2011 (04:28 PM) DEATH MATCH, BABY!!
	fleinn - April 10, 2011 (04:29 PM) Me too. The move-reminders really bring out the worst in people, don't they. Just look at this: ..by the way. Generally, user-agreements will not be assumed to have legal operative force on their own for all kinds of reasons. From whether you agree without knowing what you agree to. And all the way to that it may break in on other consumer-protection laws that take precedence. So the most likely use of the eula in a court-case would be to help describe the "provider"'s definition of how they see the "users" using the product. And then if it turns out the users have wilfully broken it, knowing it would be criminal, for example. But no one has (so far) been convicted in a property rights case because they wilfully broke an eula. It has to involve something criminal as well. That's... generally why Sony's lawyers claim that geohot clearly knew what he was doing was a crime, and that he intended to break the measures in place that protected the ps3. Which imo is a completely sensible argument (apart from the entire "part of a large linux-conspiracy to sink Sony forever-stuff. But hey, lawyers say so many silly things). ..aside from that, though - the interesting thing about all of this is that the hypervisor abstraction (not a proprietary system, btw) is designed to protect underlying hardware, while exposing the details needed to access the system for the intended use. You probably recognise this from other proprietary solutions as well. And, you know.. this is why the entire "removal of the linux/OtherOS" kerfuffle was such a mistake. Because that really did protect the ps3 while still allowing some of us to fiddle around with spu-code. Or others to play around with the sixaxis control. And the move-controller/pseye functions (there's very likely going to be a PC kit coming out for the move eventually, btw). Or just use the ps3 as a computer. It floored my quad-core on encoding, so there were... many very useful and legitimate uses for this. That didn't include piracy, and which didn't expose the inner workings of the ps3. That was.. also the case after geodot posted the hack (which was built on something someone else had done, by the way). By itself it wasn't useful for anything. It was the same as gaining limited access to a PC's ram, without knowing or having real access to the program logic. This means that unless you can insert markers and then debug/insert data in the program on the fly (this is how you would hack or crack something - you insert markers in a program, and then use those to steer by, generally speaking). So without that high-level control, having access to the ram (limited access as well...) - it wasn't actually useful. And it didn't expose the source-code or solution for the programs running on the ps3 any more than a raw memory dump on a PC (which you can do in two seconds on any computer - windows has a function for it in the systems-menu..) exposes, say, the MSOffice source.. In fact, a mem-dump on the ps3 would be even less useful, because we don't know the way the architecture works. So reverse-engineering the software and the protected areas with the help of the "hack" is nigh on impossible. In fact.. what eventually led to the ability to play backups on the ps3 wasn't the infamous hack, but very likely a leaked SDK/service module. Funny thing is that Levand - the guy who was in charge of the linux-project until Sony cancelled it - is actually set to speak in one of the trials (there's two going on - the geohot case, and the class action suit) in not that long. I'm assuming he's going to explain a couple of things. But generally - what Sony tries to achieve is to show that geodot wanted to break the ps3's systems wide open. And that he did this clearly understanding that it would lead to piracy+open access to the ps3's protected systems. That's the goal here. Meanwhile, what the class-action suit tries to accomplish is to show that customers lost a bought and useful/used service without due compensation. Neither of them truly address the fact that simply dropping linux back on the ps3 would not expose the system (as Sony fears), while satisfy all the customers (which Sony presumably wants). But hey - that's how the world works, and what else is new, right.. ;)
	bloomer - April 11, 2011 (07:55 AM) This is not a new phenomenon. I had so many Playstation games and probably only bought a quarter of them. The issue is with high speed Internet and such an easy access to information, file/information sharing is becoming more and more mainstream. Instead of penalizing people for doing nothing that was ever wrong and has been done for years and years now, it�s about time these companies change their damn business models. Nothing that was ever wrong? Stealing copies of software etc. has always been wrong, and the law maintains it still is. When you say 'mainstream', what is going on is that people do it because it's become too easy not to. I view it as a weakness of human nature, though a highly explicable one. Few people can force themselves to perform tasks inefficiently. If obtaining a piece of software which is for sale and not paying for it at the same time has become the act of clicking a link, it requires willpower for lots of people to do otherwise, because clicking a button is about the easiest, most efficient action in the world. Once a generation grows up in this environment, they have the idea that this is how life should work. This is a problem in music, movies, video games, and much more. I wish these executives would use their brains to innovate instead of looking for loopholes in the law to punish those who do their jobs for them. It is also the problem for independent creators of anything these days, but people who make these sweeping statements about how executives should fix the problem tar everyone with this brush. They also don't offer solutions themselves, and given they're also the people paying nothing for the content they use, it's hard to press them about how much they're actually willing to pay to either own or use certain items that may take years of expertise to create. Zero dollars? The problem is pretty intractable at the moment.
	WilltheGreat - April 11, 2011 (10:36 AM) people who make these sweeping statements about how executives should fix the problem tar everyone with this brush. They also don't offer solutions themselves, and given they're also the people paying nothing for the content they use, it's hard to press them about how much they're actually willing to pay to either own or use certain items that may take years of expertise to create. Zero dollars? Speaking of tarring everyone with the same brush...
	Leroux - April 11, 2011 (02:20 PM) Sony settled out of court today, under the terms that information already made public no longer be disclosed by the person that originally made it public. I guess there will be no cheering of jail sentences and financial ruin for this "scum" in the Venter household. Shucks.
	fleinn - April 11, 2011 (03:31 PM) "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by consent of the Parties that Hotz, whether as an individual or as a principal, officer, director or employee of any business entity, and his agents, servants, employees, distributors, suppliers, representatives and all other persons or entities acting in concert or participation with Hotz who receive notice of this Judgment, shall be and hereby are permanently enjoined and restrained from:" ..etc. All of geodot's agents and servants, in fact. groan Geohot after-trial appeal..
	Halon - April 11, 2011 (04:09 PM) Nothing that was ever wrong? Stealing copies of software etc. has always been wrong, and the law maintains it still is. No, I'm just saying that copying/sharing has been going on for a while, and if companies are finally seeing this as a problem then they ought to come up with a solution.
	zigfried - April 11, 2011 (04:59 PM) When you said companies shouldn't penalize people for doing something that was never wrong, I thought you meant hacking into and fiddling with their own personal property (such as their PS3). But even if we're talking about the clearly illegal practice of piracy, companies do need to find a different approach. As Bloomer pointed out, people are human and will tend towards what is easiest and cheapest. That being said, most people do want to follow the law... if it's only a small inconvenience to do so. Piracy was a huge topic of discussion for the music industry ten years ago, but it's died down because music is now available easily and legally for a low price at the click of a button. For those of us who like brick-and-mortar shops, it's an unfortunate trade, but the music industry survives. The anime industry, or at least the part of it that remains, has survived internet piracy by hosting their own free streaming sites. This started three or four years ago, and they now rely on advertising revenue and affiliated merchandise sales instead of video sales. I don't know the solution for software -- and if I did, I wouldn't share it here. The solution may be different for an independent creator versus a corporate publisher, but when the solution is found (if it hasn't been already) then someone will become very, very rich. //Zig
	Halon - April 11, 2011 (05:24 PM) I don�t think it was right, either. This is when I was 13-15 years old and had no money of my own. It was much easier to buy a modchip and then rent & burn games instead of shelling out $40 for one game. The reason I brought copying/sharing up is because that is what I�m guessing Sony�s ultimate fear is. They want full control over their product and everything that comes in and out of it. Unfortunately for them, as the line between a home computer and gaming console becomes blurrier and blurrier, this is much harder for them to do. Piracy was a huge issue on PC�s to the point where many people were predicting the death of PC gaming. However, you don�t really hear much about this anyone thanks to developers releasing games on programs such as Steam. I don�t have solutions for Sony (or Microsoft, or anyone else), either. If I did I�d most likely be working for them and making lots of money. ;)
	bloomer - April 11, 2011 (06:14 PM) Sorry for any confusion. I think I did okay for entering this huge topic on page 2.
	zigfried - April 11, 2011 (07:22 PM) What I find interesting -- aside from Sony settling in the first place -- is that the public injunction (which does not include the settlement terms) includes a clause stating that the jurisdiction will be New Jersey in case Hotz ever sues Sony for not holding up their end of the settlement. But there's no clue as to what Sony's end of the deal even is. //Zig
	fleinn - April 11, 2011 (08:49 PM) ..about the solution to piracy, etc.. You know.. the ps3 was it. It has an encryption scheme that prevents unsigned code from running on it. The encryption scheme has to run uninterrupted - it's part of the program code seen from the hardware interface layer. So even if you can hack the low-level code, it doesn't help you extract the program-logic. ..badam-tish
	WilltheGreat - April 12, 2011 (02:19 PM) But even if we're talking about the clearly illegal practice of piracy, companies do need to find a different approach. As Bloomer pointed out, people are human and will tend towards what is easiest and cheapest. That being said, most people do want to follow the law... if it's only a small inconvenience to do so. Piracy was a huge topic of discussion for the music industry ten years ago, but it's died down because music is now available easily and legally for a low price at the click of a button. For those of us who like brick-and-mortar shops, it's an unfortunate trade, but the music industry survives. The anime industry, or at least the part of it that remains, has survived internet piracy by hosting their own free streaming sites. This started three or four years ago, and they now rely on advertising revenue and affiliated merchandise sales instead of video sales. Couldn't have said it better myself. Back when home video came out the film industry bigwigs were sure it was the end of all of them, but they survived. I think Steam and Impulse are a step in the right direction for video games, but we'll see how that turns out - especially now that GameStop has acquired Impulse. Also, I accidentally clicked "Mark" on your post instead of "Reply". Sorry Zig! >_>'
	overdrive - April 12, 2011 (03:53 PM) Also, I accidentally clicked "Mark" on your post instead of "Reply". Sorry Zig! >_>' Oh...that means I shouldn't have banned Zig? Whoops!!!!

© 1998-2024 HonestGamers
None of the material contained within this site may be reproduced in any conceivable fashion without permission from the author(s) of said material. This site is not sponsored or endorsed by Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft, or any other such party. Opinions expressed on this site do not necessarily represent the opinion of site staff or sponsors.