EFF Calls Sony's Lawsuit Against PS3 Hackers "Dangerous"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Garak73:

JDKJ:

Firestorm65:
"To the fullest extent permitted by law" this says that everything that follows is just fairy tales and wishes.

You can't tell me you honestly believe the law says you can't install linux on a MAC because Apple says so? The EXACT SAME THING.

Why is it fairy tales and wishes? Unless you can point to some law that permits you to do otherwise than Sony, by the terms of its EULA, would prohibit the end user from doing, then prohibited you are.

So if I bought a Dell with Windows 7 Pre-installed and the EULA said that I couldn't install any other OS it would be illegal for me to install Linux or any other version of Windows?

Cmon, that's bullshit. They can put it the EULA but it would have no legal weight.

That's not what the EULA we've been discussing says. It says you can't remove the licensor's software. If removing that software is a necessary step in installing "X" other software, then, technically, the licensor isn't telling you what you can or can't do with "X" software, they're only telling you what you can't do with their software. And that's well within their rights. But, unfortunately, the inescapable upshot is that you can't install "X" software.

JDKJ:

Garak73:

JDKJ:

Why is it fairy tales and wishes? Unless you can point to some law that permits you to do otherwise than Sony, by the terms of its EULA, would prohibit the end user from doing, then prohibited you are.

So if I bought a Dell with Windows 7 Pre-installed and the EULA said that I couldn't install any other OS it would be illegal for me to install Linux or any other version of Windows?

Cmon, that's bullshit. They can put it the EULA but it would have no legal weight.

That's not what the EULA we've been discussing says. It says you can't remove the licensor's software. If removing that software is a necessary step in installing "X" other software, then, technically, the licensor isn't telling you what you can or can't do with "X" software, they're only telling you what you can't do with their software. And that's well within their rights. But, unfortunately, the inescapable upshot is that you can't install "X" software.

So if Dell put in an EULA "you cannot uninstall Windows 7 Home Premium" then you would be legally bound by that?

I don't think so.

Garak73:

JDKJ:

Garak73:

So you are saying that anyone who still owns a PS3 (that didn't return it to the store after seeing that EULA) is now bound by any changes Sony makes to the EULA?

..and it's no more legally binding than if they had demanded your first born son.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. How can they be bound by any changes when they've got the option of discontinuing their use of Sony's software at any time they choose to do so?

Do you have any legal reasons why it isn't binding? Or are you just making a wholly unsupported legal conclusion?

Oh let me rephrase then.

So you are saying that anyone who still owns and uses a PS3 (that didn't return it to the store after seeing that EULA) is now bound by any changes Sony makes to the EULA?

The terms to which the user agreed provide that continued use of the software after any changes have been to the EULA are taken as agreement with those changes. So, yes, if the terms are changed and use continues, there is agreement to the changes.

JDKJ:

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. How can they be bound by any changes when they've got the option of discontinuing their use of Sony's software at any time they choose to do so?

Do you have any legal reasons why it isn't binding? Or are you just making a wholly unsupported legal conclusion?

The thing is that to people like me it seems like stuff like this would be like if a friend told you he'd play you in a game he invented (the ps3) for $50 (your 50 representing the money it takes to buy a ps3 and his 50 representing the enjoyment of the features of the console) So you take a look at the rules (The EULA) think they're fair and begin to play. Now in the middle of the game your friend (Sony) begins changing the rules, and suddenly, you think they're a lot less fair than before. You take the time to tell your friend this and her responds, well if you don't like it you can quit and just give me the the $50.

JDKJ:

Garak73:

JDKJ:

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. How can they be bound by any changes when they've got the option of discontinuing their use of Sony's software at any time they choose to do so?

Do you have any legal reasons why it isn't binding? Or are you just making a wholly unsupported legal conclusion?

Oh let me rephrase then.

So you are saying that anyone who still owns and uses a PS3 (that didn't return it to the store after seeing that EULA) is now bound by any changes Sony makes to the EULA?

The terms to which the user agreed provide that continued use of the software after any changes have been to the EULA are taken as agreement with those changes. So, yes, if the terms are changed and use continues, there is agreement to the changes.

Taken by who? Sony maybe but I doubt it would stand up in court.

It's like saying "If you don't type afdskdfgsdjfhsdjf then you are agreeing to pay me $100,000". It's a one sided agreement that the other party can easily ignore. There are no signatures, no notary public, no lawyers checking over the terms for legality. It's worthless.

Garak73:

JDKJ:

Garak73:

So if I bought a Dell with Windows 7 Pre-installed and the EULA said that I couldn't install any other OS it would be illegal for me to install Linux or any other version of Windows?

Cmon, that's bullshit. They can put it the EULA but it would have no legal weight.

That's not what the EULA we've been discussing says. It says you can't remove the licensor's software. If removing that software is a necessary step in installing "X" other software, then, technically, the licensor isn't telling you what you can or can't do with "X" software, they're only telling you what you can't do with their software. And that's well within their rights. But, unfortunately, the inescapable upshot is that you can't install "X" software.

So if Dell put in an EULA "you cannot uninstall Windows 7 Home Premium" then you would be legally bound by that?

I don't think so.

If you agreed to it, then, more likely than not, you are legally bound by it. Unless you have some basis in law or fact as to why you should not be held to that which you agreed.

JDKJ:

Garak73:

JDKJ:

That's not what the EULA we've been discussing says. It says you can't remove the licensor's software. If removing that software is a necessary step in installing "X" other software, then, technically, the licensor isn't telling you what you can or can't do with "X" software, they're only telling you what you can't do with their software. And that's well within their rights. But, unfortunately, the inescapable upshot is that you can't install "X" software.

So if Dell put in an EULA "you cannot uninstall Windows 7 Home Premium" then you would be legally bound by that?

I don't think so.

If you agreed to it, then, more likely than not, you are legally bound by it. Unless you have some basis in law or fact as to why you should not be held to that which you agreed.

Maybe because once you bought the hardware you can do with it as you see fit and there isn't any legal way that Dell can retain control of that hardware. An EULA is not above the law, if a EULA is in conflict with the law, the law wins. Deleting software is not a misuse of software.

That's how it should be anyway.

Garak73:

JDKJ:

Garak73:

Oh let me rephrase then.

So you are saying that anyone who still owns and uses a PS3 (that didn't return it to the store after seeing that EULA) is now bound by any changes Sony makes to the EULA?

The terms to which the user agreed provide that continued use of the software after any changes have been to the EULA are taken as agreement with those changes. So, yes, if the terms are changed and use continues, there is agreement to the changes.

Taken by who? Sony maybe but I doubt it would stand up in court.

It's like saying "If you don't type afdskdfgsdjfhsdjf then you are agreeing to pay me $100,000". It's a one sided agreement that the other party can easily ignore. There are no signatures, no notary public, no lawyers checking over the terms for legality. It's worthless.

No, it's not.

Firstly, that affirmative action can signify agreement is well-settled under U.S. law. Not even worth your time arguing that one. The classic law school example is the advertisement that the first 50 patrons to enter a department store on Friday get a $100 store credit. That's an offer, acceptance of which is made by showing up on Friday among the first 50 patrons. Offer plus acceptance plus consideration equals a binding contract. If you don't want to enter into the contract Sony proposes, then don't use their software. Plain and simple.

Secondly, your analogy is inapposite to the facts of the case. It describes failure to act as signifying agreement. That don't work as acceptance. But that's not what we have here. Here we have taking action as signifying agreement. That does work as acceptance. You're comparing an apple to an orange.

Garak73:

JDKJ:

Garak73:

So if Dell put in an EULA "you cannot uninstall Windows 7 Home Premium" then you would be legally bound by that?

I don't think so.

If you agreed to it, then, more likely than not, you are legally bound by it. Unless you have some basis in law or fact as to why you should not be held to that which you agreed.

Maybe because once you bought the hardware you can do with it as you see fit and there isn't any legal way that Dell can retain control of that hardware. An EULA is not above the law, if a EULA is in conflict with the law, the law wins. Deleting software is not a misuse of software.

That's how it should be anyway.

How it should also be is that I spend all my time in Vegas at the Palms, swigging Moet from the bottle while a fly model chick tongues my bung-hole. Make that two fly model chicks. But that ain't the way it is.

JDKJ:

Garak73:

JDKJ:

The terms to which the user agreed provide that continued use of the software after any changes have been to the EULA are taken as agreement with those changes. So, yes, if the terms are changed and use continues, there is agreement to the changes.

Taken by who? Sony maybe but I doubt it would stand up in court.

It's like saying "If you don't type afdskdfgsdjfhsdjf then you are agreeing to pay me $100,000". It's a one sided agreement that the other party can easily ignore. There are no signatures, no notary public, no lawyers checking over the terms for legality. It's worthless.

No, it's not.

Firstly, that affirmative action can signify agreement is well-settled under U.S. law. Not even worth you time arguing that one. The classic law school example is the advertisement that the first 50 patrons to enter a department store on Friday get a $100 store credit. That's an offer, acceptance of which is made by showing up on Friday among the first 50 patrons. Offer plus acceptance plus consideration equals a binding contract. If you don't want to enter into the contract Sony proposes, then don't use their software. Plain and simple.

Secondly, your analogy is inapposite to the facts of the case. It describes failure to act as signifying agreement. That don't work as acceptance. But that's not what we have here. Here we have taking action as signifying agreement. That does work as acceptance. You're comparing an apple to an orange.

Well whatever, I don't care anymore.

rant

It is clear to me that too many consumers care more about corporate rights than they do their own consumer rights. Explains how we got to where we are now.

I wonder if people would have accepted the idea of "licensing video games and hardware" in the NES era. If Nintendo had told consumers that they weren't really BUYING games or hardware, rather they were renting them and that Nintendo could change the terms of use at any time. I wonder if the industry would be alot smaller now.

The industry is too big, too greedy, too controlling. I wonder how many gamers are really starting to hate this industry now.

/rant over

Sutter Cane:

JDKJ:

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. How can they be bound by any changes when they've got the option of discontinuing their use of Sony's software at any time they choose to do so?

Do you have any legal reasons why it isn't binding? Or are you just making a wholly unsupported legal conclusion?

The thing is that to people like me it seems like stuff like this would be like if a friend told you he'd play you in a game he invented (the ps3) for $50 (your 50 representing the money it takes to buy a ps3 and his 50 representing the enjoyment of the features of the console) So you take a look at the rules (The EULA) think they're fair and begin to play. Now in the middle of the game your friend (Sony) begins changing the rules, and suddenly, you think they're a lot less fair than before. You take the time to tell your friend this and her responds, well if you don't like it you can quit and just give me the the $50.

Where the mess-up occurred is in looking at the rules, thinking they were fair, and agreeing to them. They aren't fair. They're horribly one-sided. But that's stupidity. And stupidity doesn't ever make a good legal defense. Retardation, perhaps, but not garden-variety stupidity.

JDKJ:

Garak73:

JDKJ:

The terms to which the user agreed provide that continued use of the software after any changes have been to the EULA are taken as agreement with those changes. So, yes, if the terms are changed and use continues, there is agreement to the changes.

Taken by who? Sony maybe but I doubt it would stand up in court.

It's like saying "If you don't type afdskdfgsdjfhsdjf then you are agreeing to pay me $100,000". It's a one sided agreement that the other party can easily ignore. There are no signatures, no notary public, no lawyers checking over the terms for legality. It's worthless.

No, it's not.

Firstly, that affirmative action can signify agreement is well-settled under U.S. law. Not even worth you time arguing that one. The classic law school example is the advertisement that the first 50 patrons to enter a department store on Friday get a $100 store credit. That's an offer, acceptance of which is made by showing up on Friday among the first 50 patrons. Offer plus acceptance plus consideration equals a binding contract. If you don't want to enter into the contract Sony proposes, then don't use their software. Plain and simple.

Secondly, your analogy is inapposite to the facts of the case. It describes failure to act as signifying agreement. That don't work as acceptance. But that's not what we have here. Here we have taking action as signifying agreement. That does work as acceptance. You're comparing an apple to an orange.

As much as i hate to admit it (since i'm kind of a proud person and dislike to see my opponets possible be right, it's a flaw of mine) nothing in your post sounds wrong here. The question that you're ignoring is whether EULA'S are truly legally binding and the much harder question of should they be. Garak73 is right when he says Just because an EULA says something, doesn't mean it is legally enforceable, and EULAs cannot trump the laws that are in place. The real question is, how far do consumer rights extend, and also how far should they extend.

voorhees123:

stinkychops:
I agree whole heartedly with the EFF. Sony's right to protect their property (which isn't really theirs) should not be used to set such dangerous legal precedents.

I agree to a point, you bought the console so we can do what we want with it. But when they cross the line when they opening it up for criminals to pirate games etc then sony has every right to protect it.

Rubbish. Opening up and modifying the hardware shouldn't be illegal. Pirating the software to run on the enabled consoles should.

It's a minor yet important difference.

Paragon Fury:

stinkychops:
I agree whole heartedly with the EFF. Sony's right to protect their property (which isn't really theirs) should not be used to set such dangerous legal precedents.

That PS3 is theirs though. In most Western, countries, buying a piece of electronic entertainment equipment does not mean you "own" that equipment; it means that you own the privilege to use that equipment. You can do pretty much what you want with it, but if the maker/designer catches you not being above-board with it, they have the reserved right to stop you or take it away.

Thats different from a "PC" or computer, in that no one faction truly "owns" that idea. But Sony wholly owns the idea and product of the Playstation, making it their toy, not yours.

And the EFF forgets the scale of this matter, and why Sony is doing this. What these hackers have done has compromised, nay, completely annihilated any semblance of integrity the PS3 had. They didn't just make so that their system could run homebrew games, or play illegal copies of games; they made it so that every little motherhubbard out-there can do whatever the fuck they want with the PS3, and Sony can't stop them. Unless they can fix it, its going to be JTAG Modern Warfare 2 all over again, except 7x worse.

The hackers may not have cast the first stone, but they left the big ass pile of rocks on Sony's lawn for everyone else to use. And that makes them just as guilty for what happens afterwards as the people who do it.

This whole notion of 'privileges' is something I disagree with entirely. This court case is an area where my views can either lose or gain ground. I'm well aware of what Sony and a lot of courts think on the issue, just because its "THE LAW!" doesn't mean I support it.

Sutter Cane:

JDKJ:

Garak73:

Taken by who? Sony maybe but I doubt it would stand up in court.

It's like saying "If you don't type afdskdfgsdjfhsdjf then you are agreeing to pay me $100,000". It's a one sided agreement that the other party can easily ignore. There are no signatures, no notary public, no lawyers checking over the terms for legality. It's worthless.

No, it's not.

Firstly, that affirmative action can signify agreement is well-settled under U.S. law. Not even worth you time arguing that one. The classic law school example is the advertisement that the first 50 patrons to enter a department store on Friday get a $100 store credit. That's an offer, acceptance of which is made by showing up on Friday among the first 50 patrons. Offer plus acceptance plus consideration equals a binding contract. If you don't want to enter into the contract Sony proposes, then don't use their software. Plain and simple.

Secondly, your analogy is inapposite to the facts of the case. It describes failure to act as signifying agreement. That don't work as acceptance. But that's not what we have here. Here we have taking action as signifying agreement. That does work as acceptance. You're comparing an apple to an orange.

As much as i hate to admit it (since i'm kind of a proud person and dislike to see my opponets possible be right, it's a flaw of mine) nothing in your post sounds wrong here. The question that you're ignoring is whether EULA'S are truly legally binding and the much harder question of should they be. Garak73 is right when he says Just because an EULA says something, doesn't mean it is legally enforceable, and EULAs cannot trump the laws that are in place. The real question is, how far do consumer rights extend, and also how far should they extend.

Finally!!

Someone who is willing to look at a complex situation for what it is and recognize the complexities involved and the thorny issues presented. As opposed to being just a disgruntled gamer who simply doesn't like the fact that the people who make the product they consume are more than willing to do whatever it takes to maximize profits -- even if it means screwing over the consumers of their products -- and, when not just straight-up bitching and moaning, are more than willing to make up legal mumbo-jumbo if they think it can help prove their case.

Hat's off to ya.

icame:

Zachary Amaranth:

icame:
Screw off EFF. I like my developers having money.

And since the only way for that to happen is crippling our rights....

I've already posted about 10 times in this thread arguing with another escapist. Just look at those if you'd like a response.

I don't care too much about a response. Just understand that your statement was silly.

Supporting dangerous litigation and telling the people looking out for you to screw off is ridiculous. Especially if your only grounds for doing so is that you want devs to have money...

dathwampeer:

Deshin:
snip

+10000000000000000 awesome points to you sir.

Seriously. You just made my day.

I'm so sick of the pedantry I see on these types of threads. People know perfectly well what sony is saying is incorrect. But everyone's so god damned anti-pirate these days that they'll ignore logic and reason if they think they're sticking it to the big bad long johns. Never mind the fact that a lot of people who open their consoles back up don't do it to pirate games.
It's fucking annoying.

Seconding this too. The constant "hurr dem peg legs iz ebil" is getting really grating, especially in places where it isn't even relevant and the "enemy of my enemy" mentality that leads to the dedicated hate monkeys supporting everything that agrees with them on that single issue, regardless of what else they are doing.

If they're really that passionate about swaying people's opinion, they should drop their "with us or against us" attitude that is driving everybody still on the fence right to the other side.

Asehujiko:

dathwampeer:
[quote="Deshin" post="7.259096.9768148"]snip

snip[quote]
Seconding this too. The constant "hurr dem peg legs iz ebil" is getting really grating, especially in places where it isn't even relevant and the "enemy of my enemy" mentality that leads to the dedicated hate monkeys supporting everything that agrees with them on that single issue, regardless of what else they are doing.

If they're really that passionate about swaying people's opinion, they should drop their "with us or against us" attitude that is driving everybody still on the fence right to the other side.

When you guys support homebrew on a platform like the PS3, do you even consider the impact it has on the other services of the system? Those of us who like to play the games on the PS3 cheater-free, and those of us who actually hold value to the trophies system, we're completely cheated now of these features. You guys wave your consumer rights flags for your own purposes, but what about the consumer rights of the rest of us who value the platform the way it was?

I'm really tired of this "it's for your own good" condecending attitude, as though supporters of hackers assume the rest of us have no understanding of the situation.

Andy Powell:

Asehujiko:

dathwampeer:
[quote="Deshin" post="7.259096.9768148"]snip

snip[quote]
Seconding this too. The constant "hurr dem peg legs iz ebil" is getting really grating, especially in places where it isn't even relevant and the "enemy of my enemy" mentality that leads to the dedicated hate monkeys supporting everything that agrees with them on that single issue, regardless of what else they are doing.

If they're really that passionate about swaying people's opinion, they should drop their "with us or against us" attitude that is driving everybody still on the fence right to the other side.

When you guys support homebrew on a platform like the PS3, do you even consider the impact it has on the other services of the system? Those of us who like to play the games on the PS3 cheater-free, and those of us who actually hold value to the trophies system, we're completely cheated now of these features. You guys wave your consumer rights flags for your own purposes, but what about the consumer rights of the rest of us who value the platform the way it was?

I'm really tired of this "it's for your own good" condecending attitude, as though supporters of hackers assume the rest of us have no understanding of the situation.

Talk about assuming the rest of us have no understanding of the situation. I was told in this very thread that, "if you paid attention, what they did is hack the hardware to allow their software to run. They didn't hack Sony code, they didn't steal anything. They broke a hardware lock on the software (in the form of an encryption chip). I don't think you understand what they did, you just hear "broke the protection" as if they are spoofing some software monitor like Punkbuster." As if I don't have the reading comprehension skills of a fifth-grader. Or the common sense of a cinder block. Is it possible to be any more insulting of my intelligence? I don't think so.

Breaking down hardware vs breaking down software aren't the same thing peeps.

the question that remains unanswered for me in all of this is

y one hacker's ability to circumvent software security necessarily means that his work be legally allowed to be made public?

well cracks for videogames are legal so i guess cracks for the PS3 OS should be too i guess.

DTWolfwood:
Breaking down hardware vs breaking down software aren't the same thing peeps.

the question that remains unanswered for me in all of this is

y one hacker's ability to circumvent software security necessarily means that his work be legally allowed to be made public?

well cracks for videogames are legal so i guess cracks for the PS3 OS should be too i guess.

No, the two aren't identical but they aren't unrelated. The only purpose served by cracking the hardware was to allow access to hacking the software.

Because the DMCA makes it illegal to knowingly traffic (i.e., publicly share) in information (even if it is only a portion of the information and not the whole) that can be used for an illegal purpose (e.g., telling someone how an access control mechanism can be circumvented in order to allow access to pirated video games).

BabyRaptor:

theriddlen:

Yes. But that brings up a really good idea, all mechanics must be certified to work on cars. And modification without certification is illegal.

Might want to expound on that idea some if you're serious about it. I'd rather not go to jail because I decided to change my own tire.

Edit it please, it looks like i said that.

JDKJ:

DTWolfwood:
Breaking down hardware vs breaking down software aren't the same thing peeps.

the question that remains unanswered for me in all of this is

y one hacker's ability to circumvent software security necessarily means that his work be legally allowed to be made public?

well cracks for videogames are legal so i guess cracks for the PS3 OS should be too i guess.

No, the two aren't identical but they aren't unrelated. The only purpose served by cracking the hardware was to allow access to hacking the software.

Because the DMCA makes it illegal to knowingly traffic (i.e., publicly share) in information (even if it is only a portion of the information and not the whole) that can be used for an illegal purpose (e.g., telling someone how an access control mechanism can be circumvented in order to allow access to pirated video games).

right so exactly y is it that SONY is being totted as the Villain here and the Hackers some kind of Crusader. I find it so strikingly odd that these hackers are lauded where as someone who cracks open videogame DRM as nothing more than a mere software pirate. (granted cracks are completely legal)

from what i can gather so far nothing of value has emerged from all of this in regards to the PS3 being hacked. All i get are buzz words like "homebrew" and "OtherOS" which in most cases means absolutely nothing to the ppl that use it. If i drop Linux into your PC and you have no clue how to use it, does it make it better compared to the proprietary Windows or even the MacOS?

seriously what REAL purpose has hacking the PS3 serve other than it being a glorified ego stroking? (if not piracy of videogames)

edit: fair enough that this is a case of Hardware tampering. that being said, unless the terms of agreement that the buying the PS3 only means you are leasing the service it provides and that you don't physically own the console, SONY is wasting money. as in they can't win this.

DTWolfwood:

JDKJ:

DTWolfwood:
Breaking down hardware vs breaking down software aren't the same thing peeps.

the question that remains unanswered for me in all of this is

y one hacker's ability to circumvent software security necessarily means that his work be legally allowed to be made public?

well cracks for videogames are legal so i guess cracks for the PS3 OS should be too i guess.

No, the two aren't identical but they aren't unrelated. The only purpose served by cracking the hardware was to allow access to hacking the software.

Because the DMCA makes it illegal to knowingly traffic (i.e., publicly share) in information (even if it is only a portion of the information and not the whole) that can be used for an illegal purpose (e.g., telling someone how an access control mechanism can be circumvented in order to allow access to pirated video games).

right so exactly y is it that SONY is being totted as the Villain here and the Hackers some kind of Crusader. I find it so strikingly odd that these hackers are lauded where as someone who cracks open videogame DRM as nothing more than a mere software pirate. (granted cracks are completely legal)

from what i can gather so far nothing of value has emerged from all of this in regards to the PS3 being hacked. All i get are buzz words like "homebrew" and "OtherOS" which in most cases means absolutely nothing to the ppl that use it. If i drop Linux into your PC and you have no clue how to use it, does it make it better compared to the proprietary Windows or even the MacOS?

seriously what REAL purpose has hacking the PS3 serve other than it being a glorified ego stroking? (if not piracy of videogames)

edit: fair enough that this is a case of Hardware tampering. that being said, unless the terms of agreement that the buying the PS3 only means you are leasing the service it provides and that you don't physically own the console, SONY is wasting money. as in they can't win this.

Then I guess Sony isn't wasting it's money because the agreement between Sony and all PS3 users says just that (i.e., the user does not own the software in the PS3 but, rather, has only licensed it from Sony, subject to all the restrictions that Sony may place on use of that software):

SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (Version 1.4) FOR THE PlayStation®3 SYSTEM

December 10, 2009

PLEASE READ THIS SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY TO UNDERSTAND YOUR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS.

ACCESS TO OR USE OF THE SYSTEM SOFTWARE IN THE SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC. ("SCE")'S PlayStation®3 COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM UNIT ("PS3™ system") IS EXPRESSLY CONDITIONED UPON ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.

This Agreement is a contract with SCE. This Agreement applies to any system software or firmware included in the PS3™ system, and any patches, updates, upgrades, or new versions of the system software or firmware provided to or made available for your PS3™ system through any SCE service or online network, SCE website or PS3™ system game disc (software is collectively, "System Software").

1. LICENSE GRANT

Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, all System Software is licensed to users solely for personal, non-commercial use on the PS3™ system in the country in which the PS3™ system was designed by SCE to operate. To the extent permitted by applicable law, your rights to use or access the current version of the System Software will cease upon installation of a newer version of the System Software onto your PS3™ system, whether such installation occurs through manual or automatic download by SCE through SCE's online network, or otherwise. SCE does not grant any license to System Software obtained by users in any manner other than through SCE's authorized distribution methods. Your use or access to open source software or freeware included with the System Software is subject to additional terms and conditions set forth in the instruction manual or documentation for the PS3™ system or at http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-license/index.html. Such additional terms are hereby incorporated by reference. You do not have any ownership rights or interests in the System Software. All intellectual property rights therein belong to SCE and its licensors, and all use or access to such System Software shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement and all applicable copyright and intellectual property laws. Except as expressly granted in this Agreement, SCE and its licensors reserve all rights, interests and remedies.

2. RESTRICTIONS

You may not lease, rent, sublicense, publish, modify, adapt, or translate any portion of the System Software. To the fullest extent permitted by law, you may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble any portion of the System Software, or create any derivative works, or otherwise attempt to create System Software source code from its object code. You may not (i) use any unauthorized, illegal, counterfeit, or modified hardware or software in connection with the System Software, including use of tools to bypass, disable, or circumvent any encryption, security, or authentication mechanism for the PS3™ system; (ii) violate any laws, regulations or statutes, or rights of SCE, its affiliated companies, or third parties in connection with your access to or use of the System Software, including the access, use, or distribution of any software or hardware that you know or should have known to be infringing or pirated; (iii) use any hardware or software to cause the System Software to accept or use unauthorized, illegal, or pirated software or hardware; (iv) obtain the System Software in any manner other than through SCE's authorized distribution methods; or (v) exploit the System Software in any manner other than to use it in your PS3™ system in accordance with the accompanying documentation and with authorized software or hardware, including use of the System Software to design, develop, update, or distribute unauthorized software or hardware for use in connection with the PS3™ system for any reason. Without limiting the scope of SCE's remedies, any violation of these restrictions will void the PS3™ system's warranty and affect your ability to obtain warranty services and repair services from SCE or its affiliated companies.

3. SERVICES AND UPDATES

From time to time, SCE may provide updates, upgrades or services to your PS3™ system to ensure it is functioning properly in accordance with SCE guidelines or provide you with new offerings. Some services may be provided automatically without notice when you are online, and others may be available to you through SCE's online network or authorized channels. Without limitation, services may include the provision of the latest update or download of new release that may include security patches, new technology or revised settings and features which may prevent access to unauthorized or pirated content, or use of unauthorized hardware or software in connection with the PS3™ system. Additionally, you may not be able to view your own content if it includes or displays content that is protected by authentication technology. Some services may change your current settings, cause a loss of data or content, or cause some loss of functionality. It is recommended that you regularly back up any data on the hard disk that is of a type that can be backed up. Other services or content may be made available to you by third parties who may require you to accept their terms and conditions and privacy policy ("Third Party Agreement"). SCE may refer to or provide you with links to websites that third parties independently operate or maintain ("Linked Sites"). SCE and its affiliated companies do not control or direct Linked Sites, nor do SCE and its affiliated companies monitor, approve, endorse, warrant or sponsor any information, conclusions, recommendations, advertisement, products, services or content described on Linked Sites. You acknowledge and agree that SCE and its affiliated companies have no liability to you for the information on the Linked Sites. Your reliance on any such information is at your own risk, and you assume all responsibilities and consequences resulting from your reliance. Please see your user's manual for information on controlling access to Linked Sites via PS3™ system's parental control. Notwithstanding any provision of any terms and conditions, in the event of any conflict between this Agreement and the Third Party Agreement, this Agreement shall control as between you and SCE.

4. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION/ AUTHENTICATION

SCE may retrieve information about your hardware and software for authentication, copy protection, account blocking, system monitoring/diagnostics, rules enforcement, game management, marketing purposes, tracking user behavior and other purposes. The information collected is not your personally identifying information. SCE may use DNAS (Dynamic Network Authentication System), a proprietary system designed to authenticate game titles and the PS3™ system when you connect the PS3™ system to a network, to collect this information. Any unauthorized transfer, exhibition, export, import or transmission of programs and devices circumventing DNAS may be prohibited by law. SCE reserves the right to use any other authentication or security system, or method in connection with the PS3™ system. You can find more information on how SCE or its affiliated companies may use the collected information by referring to the privacy policy on the SCE company's website for your territory. The applicable privacy policy applies to your use of the PS3™ system.

5. INTERNET FEATURES

Use of any feature that requires access to internet connection, including the PS3™ system's internet browser ("Internet Features") is at your own risk. Internet Features may require wireless LAN access which may NOT be available at your location, free of charge, or free from interruption or disconnections. See your wireless LAN provider for details. Internet Features may NOT support all wireless LAN access connection points or Web sites. Browsing websites, or accessing any of the content may result in viruses, loss or corruption of data, or other problems. You must comply with all applicable laws and regulations. See other terms and conditions of use in the user's manuals. You are responsible for all fees in connection with access to or use of the internet.

6. WARRANTY DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

The System Software and the contents, programs, services and websites on or provided through the System Software, including Internet Features and information on Linked Sites are provided "AS IS". SCE and its affiliated companies expressly disclaim any implied warranty of merchantability, warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and warranty of non-infringement. SCE AND ITS AFFILIATED COMPANIES EXCLUDE ALL LIABILITY FOR ANY LOSS OF DATA, LOSS OF PROFIT, OR ANY OTHER LOSS OR DAMAGE SUFFERED BY YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY, WHETHER DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL HOWEVER ARISING, AS A RESULT OF ACCESSING TO OR USING THE SYSTEM SOFTWARE OR ANY OF THE CONTENTS, PROGRAMS, FEATURES, SERVICES OR INFORMATION ON OR PROVIDED THROUGH THE SYSTEM SOFTWARE. SO LONG AS THIS PROVISION IS ENFORCEABLE IN YOUR JURISDICTION, THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS, EXCLUSIONS AND DISCLAIMERS SHALL APPLY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, EVEN IF ANY REMEDY FAILS OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.

7. TERMINATION

If SCE determines that you have violated the terms of this Agreement, SCE may take all actions to protect its interests, including denial of any services such as warranty services and repair services provided for your PS3™ system and termination of your access to PlayStation®Network, implementation of upgrades or devices intended to discontinue unauthorized use, or reliance on any other remedial efforts as reasonably necessary to prevent the use of a modified PS3™ system, or any pirated material or equipment. SCE and its licensors reserve the right to bring legal action in the event of a violation of this Agreement. SCE reserves the right to participate in any government or private legal action or investigation relating to your conduct.

8. EXPORT CONTROL

The PS3™ system may contain technology that is subject to certain restrictions under the export control laws and regulations of the United States, including but not limited to the Export Administration Regulations, and the embargo and sanctions regimes of the U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Asset Controls. As such, the PS3™ system may not be exported or re-exported to persons and entities prohibited by such laws and regulations.

9. GENERAL LEGAL

By using or accessing the System Software, you agree to be bound by all current terms of this Agreement. To access a printable, current copy of this Agreement, go to http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ on your personal computer. SCE, at its sole discretion, may modify the terms of this Agreement at any time, including any terms in the PS3™ system documentation or manual, or at http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-license/index.html. Please check back on this website from time to time for changes to this Agreement. Your continued access to or use of the System Software will signify your acceptance of any changes to this Agreement. In the event of any conflict between this Agreement and the Terms of Service and User Agreement for SCE's online network, the terms of this Agreement shall control the use of or access to, the System Software.

Document selection

Country / Region selection
©2009 Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved

Source: http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html

JDKJ:

fair enough that this is a case of Hardware tampering.

Correlation does not mean causation. To break open a PS3 to do whatever does not necessarily mean its to break open software. Now whether or not Hotz legal team catches on to that is to be seen XD

Hardware side the law should be with the hacker
Software side the law should be with SONY (emphasis on should less this be an iProduct lol)

DTWolfwood:

JDKJ:

fair enough that this is a case of Hardware tampering.

Correlation does not mean causation. To break open a PS3 to do whatever does not necessarily mean its to break open software. Now whether or not Hotz legal team catches on to that is to be seen XD

Hardware side the law should be with the hacker
Software side the law should be with SONY (emphasis on should less this be an iProduct lol)

I'm not so sure that the "hardware" part makes a difference. According to Sony, "[y]ou may not . . . use any unauthorized, illegal, counterfeit, or modified hardware or software in connection with the System Software, including use of tools to bypass, disable, or circumvent any encryption, security, or authentication mechanism for the PS3™ system . . . ."

The way I read it, if you use any unauthorized or modified hardware in connection with Sony's software (especially if the use is intended to bypass an access control mechanism), then you're on Sony's hook.

And while correlation does not mean causation, correlation doesn't negate the possibility of causation, either.

JDKJ:

I'm not so sure that the "hardware" part makes a difference. According to Sony, "[y]ou may not . . . use any unauthorized, illegal, counterfeit, or modified hardware or software in connection with the System Software, including use of tools to bypass, disable, or circumvent any encryption, security, or authentication mechanism for the PS3™ system . . . ."

The way I read it, if you use any unauthorized hardware in connection with Sony's software (especially if the use is intended to bypass an access control mechanism), then you're on Sony's hook.

They can expressly forbid the use of outside hardware in conjunction with their own, but it isn't illegal to do so by law if you own the equipment.

Its comparable to the PS2 mod chip. A modded PS2 isn't illegal to have or own, the content you use for it is.

another example, to use the spoon and lighter together isn't illegal, to freebase the crack thats on it is. XD

Okay, so first of all Sony fails at creating a save Security System in, if i have understood that rigth, a very stupid and probably even in a irresponsible ligth-headed way.

THEN Sony removes Linux wich causes the hackers to start hacking the PS3 cause they want Linux on their consoles and do stuff with it that they wouldn't have to hack the console for, if Sony hadn't removed Linus. X-P

And now Sony is suing the Hackers to stop their doing or something wich in my eyes costs them uselessly money cause well THE DATA IS ALREADY OUT THERE! Not to forgett that they want to forbidd people from doing wioth their property what they want to do wich i am sure hurts the one or other rigths or something of the US and other countrys.

Pff, what's next? Is Sony thinking about anti piracy measures that will only hurt their own customers who bougth the games in the first place?

Oh wait....

JUST adding this to the overall theme of me not owning the console that i just bougth:

Bullshit, for a very simple reason: if they would tell everyone that they are paying for something but then aren't actually owning it, nobody would buy it in the first place especially not for several hundred dollars (or what you have)!
NO one would loan something for that price, especially not if there isn't even something like a service where you can get a new one when your current console breaks.

JDKJ:
Talk about assuming the rest of us have no understanding of the situation. I was told in this very thread that, "if you paid attention, what they did is hack the hardware to allow their software to run. They didn't hack Sony code, they didn't steal anything. They broke a hardware lock on the software (in the form of an encryption chip). I don't think you understand what they did, you just hear "broke the protection" as if they are spoofing some software monitor like Punkbuster." As if I don't have the reading comprehension skills of a fifth-grader. Or the common sense of a cinder block. Is it possible to be any more insulting of my intelligence? I don't think so.

Did I mention theft of code in my reply? I don't believe I did.. Project much? What I was talking about was the running of hackers code. What's being threatened now (besides piracy which I never even touched on), is the OTHER services that those of us who are using the platform for its intended purpose are being screwwed over for. The Trophies system is under attack now thanks to all that user-made code that you're defending. What's next, the rest of the PSN?

When all this kind of crap happens, who gets CONSTANTLY SCREWWED in the end? The users who actually remain legitimate. The PSP platform is a glowwing example. Not only did we get screwwed out of advanced PSN features, but we also got a highly enemic line of software support because most developers figured there was no money to be made on the platform. Regardless of most people's views on the PSP platform, it's hard to argue against the idea that the software lineup would have been better had the hacking not taken place.

Andy Powell:

JDKJ:
Talk about assuming the rest of us have no understanding of the situation. I was told in this very thread that, "if you paid attention, what they did is hack the hardware to allow their software to run. They didn't hack Sony code, they didn't steal anything. They broke a hardware lock on the software (in the form of an encryption chip). I don't think you understand what they did, you just hear "broke the protection" as if they are spoofing some software monitor like Punkbuster." As if I don't have the reading comprehension skills of a fifth-grader. Or the common sense of a cinder block. Is it possible to be any more insulting of my intelligence? I don't think so.

Did I mention theft of code in my reply? I don't believe I did.. Project much? What I was talking about was the running of hackers code. What's being threatened now (besides piracy which I never even touched on), is the OTHER services that those of us who are using the platform for its intended purpose are being screwwed over for. The Trophies system is under attack now thanks to all that user-made code that you're defending. What's next, the rest of the PSN?

When all this kind of crap happens, who gets CONSTANTLY SCREWWED in the end? The users who actually remain legitimate. The PSP platform is a glowwing example. Not only did we get screwwed out of advanced PSN features, but we also got a highly enemic line of software support because most developers figured there was no money to be made on the platform. Regardless of most people's views on the PSP platform, it's hard to argue against the idea that the software lineup would have been better had the hacking not taken place.

You may have misread my post (although, truth be told, I do oftentimes project). Now that I re-read it, it isn't clear that I was actually agreeing with your position on assumption of misunderstanding. I didn't say the "theft of code" thing. That and all the other "blah, blah, blah" in my quotation marks was said to me by another poster to this thread and evidences, I believe, an assumption that I'm not bright enough to understand the situation. Which may well be a correct assumption. But it is an assumption, nevertheless.

DTWolfwood:

JDKJ:

I'm not so sure that the "hardware" part makes a difference. According to Sony, "[y]ou may not . . . use any unauthorized, illegal, counterfeit, or modified hardware or software in connection with the System Software, including use of tools to bypass, disable, or circumvent any encryption, security, or authentication mechanism for the PS3™ system . . . ."

The way I read it, if you use any unauthorized hardware in connection with Sony's software (especially if the use is intended to bypass an access control mechanism), then you're on Sony's hook.

They can expressly forbid the use of outside hardware in conjunction with their own, but it isn't illegal to do so by law if you own the equipment.

Its comparable to the PS2 mod chip. A modded PS2 isn't illegal to have or own, the content you use for it is.

another example, to use the spoon and lighter together isn't illegal, to freebase the crack thats on it is. XD

Or, to use another example, all dogs have four legs and a cat has four legs therefore a cat is a dog. : P

JDKJ:
You may have misread my post (although, truth be told, I do oftentimes project). Now that I re-read it, it isn't clear that I was actually agreeing with your position on assumption of misunderstanding. I didn't say the "theft of code" thing. That and all the other "blah, blah, blah" in my quotation marks was said to me by another poster to this thread and evidences, I believe, an assumption that I'm not bright enough to understand the situation. Which may well be a correct assumption. But it is an assumption, nevertheless.

Oh.. You're right, I think I may have misread your reply.. My apologies.. However, you gotta admit that it was a bit on the convoluted side with all those quotes from other posts. ^_~

The way things appear to me, it's these people screaming about a consumers rights to run unauthorized code on their consoles, when it's this code that is threatening the features that legitimate purpose users are appreciating. It seems pretty clear that the ones who are getting their consumers rights violated, are the legitimate purpose users.

If you ask me, the legitimate purpose users should be filing a class action lawsuit against those who are responsible for circumventing the securities and allowing this unauthorized code to be run on the platform. Who's rights take precedent here?

Garak73:

Charley:
A friend of mine made an interesting point, saying this PS3 case is perfectly acceptable is very similar to saying it's okay to take a key and cut it to open the door to someone else's house.

It's not what it was made to do, but you own the key so you can tinker with it however you like - even if the result could very easily lead to illegal activity. You wouldn't think that was acceptable, so how is this any better?

Breaking into a house that is not your own is not comparable to breaking into a PS3 that you do own.

Besides, you can make a key to fit a lock you don't own. It's when you use it that you broke the law.

So by extension, it'd be okay for me to make a key to your house, then pass copies around saying "you -could- open this guy's house with this, but I'm not promoting that."?

Yes, it's a slightly silly example, but the ethics behind it are the same. GeoHot and co. know fine well what they've done opens the door wide for piracy, simply saying "oh we didn't mean for it to do that" doesn't cover it.

You own the PS3, you can install whatever legal software you want. A PS3 is a computer, trying to state otherwise just shows how much you don't know.

SomethingAmazing:

Haelium:

So people shouldn't be allowed modify cars? Does that include mechanics? And so we should monitor what people do on the internet purely because they might be downloading stuff that they shouldn't?

Yes. But that brings up a really good idea, all mechanics must be certified to work on cars. And modification without certification is illegal.

Yes.

Piracy is a huge problem. And while we're at it, we can do other things with the monitoring. Like stopping crimes before they happen. That sort of thing.

So, I really don't mean any offense, but please stay a few miles away from any job that'd remotely put you in any position to decide that sort of thing. Mr. Orwell would probably immediately gnaw his way out of his coffin, could he read what you're writing here.

Ot: EFF is pretty much right. Let's hope the lawsuit is crushed like it should, and while we're at it, let's hope we can get past that whole "you only bought the privilege to use our stuff in ways we want to" bullcrap.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here