Sony Threatens Permabans for PlayStation 3 Hackers

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Sony Threatens Permabans for PlayStation 3 Hackers

image

Sony declares that any PS3 security circumvention "invalidates the consumer's right to access that system".

Not too long ago, a hacking group publicly released an "LV0 decryption key". This gave enterprising hackers a means of easily decrypting changes in the PSN security code, and the potential to circumvent the security on any upcoming firmware updates. Sony are well aware that custom firmware on the platform leads to software piracy, and it has published a consumer alert stating that anyone found running unauthorized software on the console will be issued a permanent ban.

In the statement, Sony reminds consumers that using such software violates the license agreement terms for using the PlayStation 3's system software and the terms of service for using the PlayStation Network. "Violation of the System Software License Agreement for the PlayStation 3 system invalidates the consumer's right to access that system. Consumers running unauthorized or pirated software may have their access to the PlayStation Network and access to Sony Entertainment Network services through PlayStation 3 system terminated permanently.

"To avoid permanent termination, consumers must immediately cease using and delete all unauthorized or pirated software from their PlayStation 3 systems," the statement warns. It concludes by stating that the permanent bans are "to help provide a safe, fair, online environment."

Judging from the last statement, it sounds like users still have a chance to remove any custom firmware from their systems before Sony starts combing through the ranks to catch anyone optimistic enough to connect a hacked console to the PlayStation Network.

Source: PSN Consumer Alerts via Eurogamer

Permalink

cant say they werent warned although i am waiting for people to try and defend the people who do it

I think a max payne 3 method might be effective.
caught once....then you are permanently in a cheat pool. have fun!

But then why should PS pay to operate that...

So let me get this straight... You didn't buy one piece of software.
So Sony removes all incentive to buy software.

Wouldn't this result in that person never buying software again?

I'm not going to defend people who pirate but it still seems like a wrong thing to do to Brick a system that someone has bought and paid for. What you are calling a permaban i am reading as disabling the PS3 entirely, so forgive me if i got that bit wrong. A permaban from live/online/whatever i am quite behind, i mean why bother allowing pirates to play with the shinies, taking away something someone has paid for though...i cant get behind that

TheSYLOH:
So let me get this straight... You didn't buy one piece of software.
So Sony removes all incentive to buy software.

Wouldn't this result in that person never buying software again?

possibly but id also say that alot doing it would still have software they purchased as well as pirated stuff. its a rare pirate that only has pirate stuff

This isn't news. Sony has already stated that once the warranty expires, consumers have no right to complain if they remove features from their products.

So no access to buying digital games or dlc and can't play online. But don't the hackers already just download all their games and dlc for free and play online with their friends by circumventing the need to use sony's official servers? I can't see this as being THAT much of a deterrant...

If they could prove that the unauthorized software actually DID make the PSN unfair or unsafe for other players then I'd be all for it.

wombat_of_war:

TheSYLOH:
So let me get this straight... You didn't buy one piece of software.
So Sony removes all incentive to buy software.

Wouldn't this result in that person never buying software again?

possibly but id also say that alot doing it would still have software they purchased as well as pirated stuff. its a rare pirate that only has pirate stuff

PLEASE we all know pirates are nothing but hardend remorseless criminals who are set on deliberately ruining the gaming experience for everyone. They don't do things like invent totally benign mods that slightly alter the ascetic of the game to make it more enjoyable from their perspective! ~_~

Sony talking about consumer rights... I can't lawl hard enough at that.

Remember those people who bought a PS3 for the Linux support? or for backward compatibility?

Sony & a lot of other companies have it in their heads that they still own the thing they just sold you

*shrug* Seems fair. You can do it their way OR your way, but not both. I guess you could just buy a second PS3...

TheSYLOH:
So let me get this straight... You didn't buy one piece of software.
So Sony removes all incentive to buy software.

Wouldn't this result in that person never buying software again?

You would think so, but it doesn't seem to work out that way in their heads.

Zombie_Moogle:
Remember those people who bought a PS3 for the Linux support? or for backward compatibility?

Sony & a lot of other companies have it in their heads that they still own the thing they just sold you

Unfortunately, they've got legal support (in the US), so they're going to keep on with it.

I think we all saw this coming. Though, they are using the term permaban, but talking like they will disable the system somehow. I don't think that word means what they think it means. Regardless, when push comes to shove, we all knew Sony would stamp it's collective feet like a little child. As always, the problem isn't preventing piracy, it's the the part where people who aren't guilty of it will get hit. It happened with XBox Live, and it happens with things like WoW all the time.

TheSYLOH:
So let me get this straight... You didn't buy one piece of software.
So Sony removes all incentive to buy software.

Wouldn't this result in that person never buying software again?

Heck, it's even worse than that. The big thing this allows is homebrew -- piracy has been possible on the PS3 for quite a while now. So it's not even "you didn't buy that piece of software, so we're gonna ban you now." It's "you used this piece of free community made software, so we're gonna act like a two year old and take our ball home because we don't like the competition."

Zombie_Moogle:
Remember those people who bought a PS3 for the Linux support? or for backward compatibility?

Yeah, but they're not the majority. Most people bought their PS3 to play new games. The "buying a PS3 for Linux" argument died years ago when Sony took out Linux from the PS3. It's not like they duped anyone into buying a PS3 after that. Same can be said for backwards compatibility. They were nice features to have but no primary to the PS3.

Sony & a lot of other companies have it in their heads that they still own the thing they just sold you

Sony owns the software. They didn't sell that to you. The sold you the hardware.

Anyways the vast majority of people using the decryption codes are surely NOT using them to get back their Linux support or backwards compatibility so those are not even an issue that can be argued.

AzrealMaximillion:

Zombie_Moogle:
Remember those people who bought a PS3 for the Linux support? or for backward compatibility?

Yeah, but they're not the majority. Most people bought their PS3 to play new games. The "buying a PS3 for Linux" argument died years ago when Sony took out Linux from the PS3. It's not like they duped anyone into buying a PS3 after that. Same can be said for backwards compatibility. They were nice features to have but no primary to the PS3.

Sony & a lot of other companies have it in their heads that they still own the thing they just sold you

Sony owns the software. They didn't sell that to you. The sold you the hardware.

Anyways the vast majority of people using the decryption codes are surely NOT using them to get back their Linux support or backwards compatibility so those are not even an issue that can be argued.

That's a lie and they know it. You're part of the problem for believing it. In no other product (and yes, it's a product, not a service) would this fly. Software companies get away with it because judges are mostly old men for whom a computer is that big thing that takes up an entire room.

Owyn_Merrilin:

AzrealMaximillion:

Zombie_Moogle:
Remember those people who bought a PS3 for the Linux support? or for backward compatibility?

Yeah, but they're not the majority. Most people bought their PS3 to play new games. The "buying a PS3 for Linux" argument died years ago when Sony took out Linux from the PS3. It's not like they duped anyone into buying a PS3 after that. Same can be said for backwards compatibility. They were nice features to have but no primary to the PS3.

Sony & a lot of other companies have it in their heads that they still own the thing they just sold you

Sony owns the software. They didn't sell that to you. The sold you the hardware.

Anyways the vast majority of people using the decryption codes are surely NOT using them to get back their Linux support or backwards compatibility so those are not even an issue that can be argued.

That's a lie and they know it. You're part of the problem for believing it. In no other product (and yes, it's a product, not a service) would this fly. Software companies get away with it because judges are mostly old men for whom a computer is that big thing that takes up an entire room.

So tell me, when you buy a copy of a Windows OS, do you own the Windows OS? Or do you own a license to use the OS? Same rules apply.

AzrealMaximillion:

Owyn_Merrilin:

AzrealMaximillion:
Yeah, but they're not the majority. Most people bought their PS3 to play new games. The "buying a PS3 for Linux" argument died years ago when Sony took out Linux from the PS3. It's not like they duped anyone into buying a PS3 after that. Same can be said for backwards compatibility. They were nice features to have but no primary to the PS3.

Sony owns the software. They didn't sell that to you. The sold you the hardware.

Anyways the vast majority of people using the decryption codes are surely NOT using them to get back their Linux support or backwards compatibility so those are not even an issue that can be argued.

That's a lie and they know it. You're part of the problem for believing it. In no other product (and yes, it's a product, not a service) would this fly. Software companies get away with it because judges are mostly old men for whom a computer is that big thing that takes up an entire room.

So tell me, when you buy a copy of a Windows OS, do you own the Windows OS? Or do you own a license to use the OS? Same rules apply.

You own a copy of Windows.

A better example would be, when you buy a microwave, do you own the entire microwave or just the hardware parts? I think most people would agree that you own the entire microwave. Only in the game industry does this "you don't own the software inside" BS fly.

AzrealMaximillion:

Owyn_Merrilin:

AzrealMaximillion:
Yeah, but they're not the majority. Most people bought their PS3 to play new games. The "buying a PS3 for Linux" argument died years ago when Sony took out Linux from the PS3. It's not like they duped anyone into buying a PS3 after that. Same can be said for backwards compatibility. They were nice features to have but no primary to the PS3.

Sony owns the software. They didn't sell that to you. The sold you the hardware.

Anyways the vast majority of people using the decryption codes are surely NOT using them to get back their Linux support or backwards compatibility so those are not even an issue that can be argued.

That's a lie and they know it. You're part of the problem for believing it. In no other product (and yes, it's a product, not a service) would this fly. Software companies get away with it because judges are mostly old men for whom a computer is that big thing that takes up an entire room.

So tell me, when you buy a copy of a Windows OS, do you own the Windows OS? Or do you own a license to use the OS? Same rules apply.

You own a /copy/ of Windows OS. That's why the word "copy" is a part of "copyright" -- literally the right to make copies. It's no different than books. If you buy a book, you own that copy of the book. What you don't own is the right to make further copies of it. Software is in the same class of copyrightable products. The software companies are just peddling this licensing crap to try to get around some basic consumer rights, like the right of first sale, that are supposed to protect us from greedy corporations.

AzrealMaximillion:

Zombie_Moogle:
Remember those people who bought a PS3 for the Linux support? or for backward compatibility?

Yeah, but they're not the majority. Most people bought their PS3 to play new games. The "buying a PS3 for Linux" argument died years ago when Sony took out Linux from the PS3. It's not like they duped anyone into buying a PS3 after that. Same can be said for backwards compatibility. They were nice features to have but no primary to the PS3.

Sony & a lot of other companies have it in their heads that they still own the thing they just sold you

Sony owns the software. They didn't sell that to you. The sold you the hardware.

Anyways the vast majority of people using the decryption codes are surely NOT using them to get back their Linux support or backwards compatibility so those are not even an issue that can be argued.

Yes, we bought the hardware, & from what it sounds like they may be bricking that too if anyone has the audacity to use their property in a way Sony disapproves of. Devices are cracked for any number of reasons. If you were to want to put linux on your PS3 (which is entirely reasonable, given they were advertised with that ability), that bares no additional cost to Sony. They wanna void my warranty, fair enough; but don't tell me you're in the right to remotely shut off my console.

If piracy counts as theft despite no physical property being taken, than this is breaking & entering at least

Crono1973:

You own a copy of Windows.

A better example would be, when you buy a microwave, do you own the entire microwave or just the hardware parts? I think most people would agree that you own the entire microwave. Only in the game industry does this "you don't own the software inside" BS fly.

Owyn_Merrilin:
[quote="AzrealMaximillion" post="7.393791.15928653"]

You own a /copy/ of Windows OS. That's why the word "copy" is a part of "copyright" -- literally the right to make copies. It's no different than books. If you buy a book, you own that copy of the book. What you don't own is the right to make further copies of it. Software is in the same class of copyrightable products. The software companies are just peddling this licensing crap to try to get around some basic consumer rights, like the right of first sale, that are supposed to protect us from greedy corporations.

You're both wrong. The Windows OS EULA states that Windows is licensed not sold.

You can look up the EULA for any Windows OS and read it for yourselves, but it clearly states that the OS is not your to do whatever with. No matter how BS you think it is.

Nice, Sony can go head and ban them, but only if they want to loose visibility of what the hackers are doing. A custom firmware will allow the user to bypass the PSN, and reloading valid firmware would make them look legit if they want to log back on. This is just an idle threat to dissuade some from joining the hackers.

AzrealMaximillion:

Crono1973:

You own a copy of Windows.

A better example would be, when you buy a microwave, do you own the entire microwave or just the hardware parts? I think most people would agree that you own the entire microwave. Only in the game industry does this "you don't own the software inside" BS fly.

Owyn_Merrilin:
[quote="AzrealMaximillion" post="7.393791.15928653"]

You own a /copy/ of Windows OS. That's why the word "copy" is a part of "copyright" -- literally the right to make copies. It's no different than books. If you buy a book, you own that copy of the book. What you don't own is the right to make further copies of it. Software is in the same class of copyrightable products. The software companies are just peddling this licensing crap to try to get around some basic consumer rights, like the right of first sale, that are supposed to protect us from greedy corporations.

You're both wrong. The Windows OS EULA states that Windows is licensed not sold.

You can look up the EULA for any Windows OS and read it for yourselves, but it clearly states that the OS is not your to do whatever with. No matter how BS you think it is.

And when do you see the EULA? If you said "after the contract of sale has already been completed," you'd be right. You don't even see the stupid thing until you're already in the process of installation. In other words, after you've already bought the software. For it to really be a license, they would have to make you sign it in order to buy it in the first place, like you do when you lease an apartment. They can call it a license all they want, but that doesn't make it so.

AzrealMaximillion:

Crono1973:

You own a copy of Windows.

A better example would be, when you buy a microwave, do you own the entire microwave or just the hardware parts? I think most people would agree that you own the entire microwave. Only in the game industry does this "you don't own the software inside" BS fly.

Owyn_Merrilin:
[quote="AzrealMaximillion" post="7.393791.15928653"]

You own a /copy/ of Windows OS. That's why the word "copy" is a part of "copyright" -- literally the right to make copies. It's no different than books. If you buy a book, you own that copy of the book. What you don't own is the right to make further copies of it. Software is in the same class of copyrightable products. The software companies are just peddling this licensing crap to try to get around some basic consumer rights, like the right of first sale, that are supposed to protect us from greedy corporations.

You're both wrong. The Windows OS EULA states that Windows is licensed not sold.

You can look up the EULA for any Windows OS and read it for yourselves, but it clearly states that the OS is not your to do whatever with. No matter how BS you think it is.

LOL, right the EULA says you don't really own it. Good one.

I own every copy of Windows from 95 forward and Microsoft has never told me that my license has expired nor will they ever, despite what BS they put in their EULA. A permanent license = ownership.

Zombie_Moogle:

AzrealMaximillion:

Zombie_Moogle:
Remember those people who bought a PS3 for the Linux support? or for backward compatibility?

Yeah, but they're not the majority. Most people bought their PS3 to play new games. The "buying a PS3 for Linux" argument died years ago when Sony took out Linux from the PS3. It's not like they duped anyone into buying a PS3 after that. Same can be said for backwards compatibility. They were nice features to have but no primary to the PS3.

Sony & a lot of other companies have it in their heads that they still own the thing they just sold you

Sony owns the software. They didn't sell that to you. The sold you the hardware.

Anyways the vast majority of people using the decryption codes are surely NOT using them to get back their Linux support or backwards compatibility so those are not even an issue that can be argued.

Yes, we bought the hardware, & from what it sounds like they may be bricking that too if anyone has the audacity to use their property in a way Sony disapproves of. Devices are cracked for any number of reasons. If you were to want to put linux on your PS3 (which is entirely reasonable, given they were advertised with that ability), that bares no additional cost to Sony. They wanna void my warranty, fair enough; but don't tell me you're in the right to remotely shut off my console.

If piracy counts as theft despite no physical property being taken, than this is breaking & entering at least

Theft no longer requires physical property being taken.

Its been like that for a while, what with identity theft and such. I'm not saying its cool what Sony is doing but people have to get this idea out of their heads that we completely own what we buy these days. You don't even own the OS that let's you look at the words I'm typing to you. That's licensed. You don't own the firmware on your cellphone, tablet, PC, or gaming system. The only reason Apple allows jailbreaking on iPhones is because A) its was made legal, and B) it sold more iPhone to people who didn't want to wait for deal to be made with phone companies other than Verizon at the time. More money for them.

Sony on the other hand has to make sure that publishers don't lose money putting games on their console. Any game pirated isn't a loss for Sony directly, its a loss for publishers, which then give Sony shit for not having a secure console.

Sony isn't handling it the best way, but what there are doing does make some sense. This isn't about Linux or backwards compatibility anymore. Its about not having publishers go to the competition.

Owyn_Merrilin:

AzrealMaximillion:

Crono1973:

You own a copy of Windows.

A better example would be, when you buy a microwave, do you own the entire microwave or just the hardware parts? I think most people would agree that you own the entire microwave. Only in the game industry does this "you don't own the software inside" BS fly.

Owyn_Merrilin:
[quote="AzrealMaximillion" post="7.393791.15928653"]

You own a /copy/ of Windows OS. That's why the word "copy" is a part of "copyright" -- literally the right to make copies. It's no different than books. If you buy a book, you own that copy of the book. What you don't own is the right to make further copies of it. Software is in the same class of copyrightable products. The software companies are just peddling this licensing crap to try to get around some basic consumer rights, like the right of first sale, that are supposed to protect us from greedy corporations.

You're both wrong. The Windows OS EULA states that Windows is licensed not sold.

You can look up the EULA for any Windows OS and read it for yourselves, but it clearly states that the OS is not your to do whatever with. No matter how BS you think it is.

And when do you see the EULA? If you said "after the contract of sale has already been completed," you'd be right. You don't even see the stupid thing until you're already in the process of installation. In other words, after you've already bought the software. For it to really be a license, they would have to make you sign it in order to buy it in the first place, like you do when you lease an apartment. They can call it a license all they want, but that doesn't make it so.

The EULA is in that paper booklet you get from the plastic case you get your copy of Windows in. Sorry but you can also read it online if you really feel worried about it. Point is it's there. I'd had this same argument with people when Geohotz was playing the hero as he was getting sued by Sony. And what happened? A week or two after Sony drops the case against him, PSN got hacked and shutdown, no one was willing to admit that they were wrong about how leaking PS3 security codes could bend them over a table and they paid for it with their credit card info.

I'm not going to say that Sony is handling this well, but I'll be damned if I'm going to defend people abusing the codes.

AzrealMaximillion:

Owyn_Merrilin:

AzrealMaximillion:

You're both wrong. The Windows OS EULA states that Windows is licensed not sold.

You can look up the EULA for any Windows OS and read it for yourselves, but it clearly states that the OS is not your to do whatever with. No matter how BS you think it is.

And when do you see the EULA? If you said "after the contract of sale has already been completed," you'd be right. You don't even see the stupid thing until you're already in the process of installation. In other words, after you've already bought the software. For it to really be a license, they would have to make you sign it in order to buy it in the first place, like you do when you lease an apartment. They can call it a license all they want, but that doesn't make it so.

The EULA is in that paper booklet you get from the plastic case you get your copy of Windows in. Sorry but you can also read it online if you really feel worried about it. Point is it's there. I'd had this same argument with people when Geohotz was playing the hero as he was getting sued by Sony. And what happened? A week or two after Sony drops the case against him, PSN got hacked and shutdown, no one was willing to admit that they were wrong about how leaking PS3 security codes could bend them over a table and they paid for it with their credit card info.

I'm not going to say that Sony is handling this well, but I'll be damned if I'm going to defend people abusing the codes.

So tell me smart guy, why doesn't Microsoft just revoke all those Windows XP licenses so people will be forced to upgrade?

Crono1973:

LOL, right the EULA says you don't really own it. Good one.

I own every copy of Windows from 95 forward and Microsoft has never told me that my license has expired nor will they ever, despite what BS they put in their EULA. A permanent license = ownership.

If a permanent license meant complete ownership than we would be able to have a homebrew Windows OS that you didn't need to pirate Microsoft Office or Photoshop onto. The license is permanent yes, but you can't say you own a damn thing if you can't modify it in unlimited ways.

You can modify a car you own to have a spoiler and bigger speakers, you can modify a house you own to have an intricate Christmas lighting system, but you can't change a license of a Windows OS and call it legal. That's the way MS has it placed.

AzrealMaximillion:

Owyn_Merrilin:

AzrealMaximillion:

You're both wrong. The Windows OS EULA states that Windows is licensed not sold.

You can look up the EULA for any Windows OS and read it for yourselves, but it clearly states that the OS is not your to do whatever with. No matter how BS you think it is.

And when do you see the EULA? If you said "after the contract of sale has already been completed," you'd be right. You don't even see the stupid thing until you're already in the process of installation. In other words, after you've already bought the software. For it to really be a license, they would have to make you sign it in order to buy it in the first place, like you do when you lease an apartment. They can call it a license all they want, but that doesn't make it so.

The EULA is in that paper booklet you get from the plastic case you get your copy of Windows in. Sorry but you can also read it online if you really feel worried about it. Point is it's there. I'd had this same argument with people when Geohotz was playing the hero as he was getting sued by Sony. And what happened? A week or two after Sony drops the case against him, PSN got hacked and shutdown, no one was willing to admit that they were wrong about how leaking PS3 security codes could bend them over a table and they paid for it with their credit card info.

I'm not going to say that Sony is handling this well, but I'll be damned if I'm going to defend people abusing the codes.

Couple of things here: one, Geohotz had absolutely nothing to do with the PSN getting hacked. He made it possible to run homebrew on the hardware, not to hack into their servers. That was done with good old fashioned PCs.

Two, even if it's in the booklet, where is the booklet kept? Inside the package, which you can't open until after you've already bought it. And putting it online doesn't help either, unless you're buying it online. The fact remains that you aren't shown the agreement until after money has already changed hands. You can go look it up if you know it exists and you really want to, but that doesn't change the fact that in a very real sense, it has absolutely nothing to do with your purchase until you've already bought and paid for the software. And please, wake up. This is an attack on your consumer rights. Quit praising companies for doing it. You're reminding me of Uncle Ruckus[1] from The Boondocks.

[1] the black white supremacist

Crono1973:

AzrealMaximillion:

Owyn_Merrilin:

And when do you see the EULA? If you said "after the contract of sale has already been completed," you'd be right. You don't even see the stupid thing until you're already in the process of installation. In other words, after you've already bought the software. For it to really be a license, they would have to make you sign it in order to buy it in the first place, like you do when you lease an apartment. They can call it a license all they want, but that doesn't make it so.

The EULA is in that paper booklet you get from the plastic case you get your copy of Windows in. Sorry but you can also read it online if you really feel worried about it. Point is it's there. I'd had this same argument with people when Geohotz was playing the hero as he was getting sued by Sony. And what happened? A week or two after Sony drops the case against him, PSN got hacked and shutdown, no one was willing to admit that they were wrong about how leaking PS3 security codes could bend them over a table and they paid for it with their credit card info.

I'm not going to say that Sony is handling this well, but I'll be damned if I'm going to defend people abusing the codes.

So tell me smart guy, why doesn't Microsoft just revoke all those Windows XP licenses so people will be forced to upgrade?

They don't revoke licenses.

Come on think this through. MS will just stop selling Windows XP(if they haven't already) and then cease support for it. Just like they did to Windows 95 and 98 and so on. You find me a new copy of Windows 95 on a shelf and tell me you can successfully install it, then I'll eat my words.

AzrealMaximillion:

Crono1973:

LOL, right the EULA says you don't really own it. Good one.

I own every copy of Windows from 95 forward and Microsoft has never told me that my license has expired nor will they ever, despite what BS they put in their EULA. A permanent license = ownership.

If a permanent license meant complete ownership than we would be able to have a homebrew Windows OS that you didn't need to pirate Microsoft Office or Photoshop onto. The license is permanent yes, but you can't say you own a damn thing if you can't modify it in unlimited ways.

You can modify a car you own to have a spoiler and bigger speakers, you can modify a house you own to have an intricate Christmas lighting system, but you can't change a license of a Windows OS and call it legal. That's the way MS has it placed.

It doesn't work that way because you're buying a copy, not a copyright. Tell me, do you have the right to modify books if you buy them, even though they don't have a license agreement? The answer is no, because that's covered as a derivative work under copyright law. EULAs are not needed to do what you're saying they do, because copyright law already covers all that. Software companies use them because copyright law has limitations in place to protect consumers, and software companies don't like not being able to run roughshod over people.

Edit: By "modify books" I mean "write your own version of it and publish it," which is what you're implying with modifying windows. Obviously you can do whatever you want with your own copy (write on it, tear out pages, whatever), just like you can do with the disc your copy of windows comes on.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Couple of things here: one, Geohotz had absolutely nothing to do with the PSN getting hacked. He made it possible to run homebrew on the hardware, not to hack into their servers. That was done with good old fashioned PCs.

Two, even if it's in the booklet, where is the booklet kept? Inside the package, which you can't open until after you've already bought it. And putting it online doesn't help either, unless you're buying it online. The fact remains that you aren't shown the agreement until after money has already changed hands. You can go look it up if you know it exists and you really want to, but that doesn't change the fact that in a very real sense, it has absolutely nothing to do with your purchase until you've already bought and paid for the software. And please, wake up. This is an attack on your consumer rights. Quit praising companies for doing it. You're reminding me of Uncle Ruckus[] from The Boondocks.

I'm not praising companies for "attacking consumer rights". I'm lambasting people who defend pirates.

I'm also telling you that the reality of the situation is that you don't own the software you buy in a lot of cases. Sorry but that's how patches and updates happen. There is no bubble of "owning what you buy". And you honestly should not have a problem with it if you haven't modded a PS3 to pirate or own an illegitimate Windows OS. This isn't an attack on consumer rights, its getting rid of people who are abusing the software. If you're not on that category, then what are you worried about. Sony won't ban you from using your PS3 is its not modded. And if it is, well then don't go online and game with it. That's the risk you take when you mod a console. Modded 360s have existed since launch, but most of them can't access LIVE.

AzrealMaximillion:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Couple of things here: one, Geohotz had absolutely nothing to do with the PSN getting hacked. He made it possible to run homebrew on the hardware, not to hack into their servers. That was done with good old fashioned PCs.

Two, even if it's in the booklet, where is the booklet kept? Inside the package, which you can't open until after you've already bought it. And putting it online doesn't help either, unless you're buying it online. The fact remains that you aren't shown the agreement until after money has already changed hands. You can go look it up if you know it exists and you really want to, but that doesn't change the fact that in a very real sense, it has absolutely nothing to do with your purchase until you've already bought and paid for the software. And please, wake up. This is an attack on your consumer rights. Quit praising companies for doing it. You're reminding me of Uncle Ruckus[] from The Boondocks.

I'm not praising companies for "attacking consumer rights". I'm lambasting people who defend pirates.

I'm also telling you that the reality of the situation is that you don't own the software you buy in a lot of cases. Sorry but that's how patches and updates happen. There is no bubble of "owning what you buy". And you honestly should not have a problem with it if you haven't modded a PS3 to pirate or own an illegitimate Windows OS. This isn't an attack on consumer rights, its getting rid of people who are abusing the software. If you're not on that category, then what are you worried about. Sony won't ban you from using your PS3 is its not modded. And if it is, well then don't go online and game with it. That's the risk you take when you mod a console. Modded 360s have existed since launch, but most of them can't access LIVE.

And what I'm telling you is that software isn't really licensed, not in any real sense of the word. The software companies /claim/ it is in an attempt to get around basic consumer rights embedded in the notion of copyright. And sure, they can ban you from their online service. That's because it's a service. But they can't, say, brick your hardware. Because it's a product.

And who said anything about pirates? I'm talking about homebrew here. Because homebrew is amazing. Believe it or not, there are legitimate reasons to want to run unsigned code on a PS3, and it's done by more people than you might realize.

Edit: Hell, most of the furor over pirates is just software companies trying to get more control. Pirates aren't really a problem. They're an excuse for software companies to implement draconian control.

Owyn_Merrilin:

AzrealMaximillion:

Crono1973:

LOL, right the EULA says you don't really own it. Good one.

I own every copy of Windows from 95 forward and Microsoft has never told me that my license has expired nor will they ever, despite what BS they put in their EULA. A permanent license = ownership.

If a permanent license meant complete ownership than we would be able to have a homebrew Windows OS that you didn't need to pirate Microsoft Office or Photoshop onto. The license is permanent yes, but you can't say you own a damn thing if you can't modify it in unlimited ways.

You can modify a car you own to have a spoiler and bigger speakers, you can modify a house you own to have an intricate Christmas lighting system, but you can't change a license of a Windows OS and call it legal. That's the way MS has it placed.

It doesn't work that way because you're buying a copy, not a copyright. Tell me, do you have the right to modify books if you buy them, even though they don't have a license agreement? The answer is no, because that's covered as a derivative work under copyright law. EULAs are not needed to do what you're saying they do, because copyright law already covers all that. Software companies use them because copyright law has limitations in place to protect consumers, and software companies don't like not being able to run roughshod over people.

Edit: By "modify books" I mean "write your own version of it and publish it," which is what you're implying with modifying windows. Obviously you can do whatever you want with your own copy (write on it, tear out pages, whatever), just like you can do with the disc your copy of windows comes on.

Software and books aren't comparable. Different sets of copyright laws.

If you modify a copy of a Windows OS in a way that MS has deemed wrong according to their EULA, you'll no longer be receiving support or updates for that copy of Windows. You also won't be able to install newer versions of things like Direct X, MS Office, etc. Happened to a friend of mine who had his PC fixed. The repair man installed an illegitimate Windows OS. He couldn't even install games he physically bought.

 Pages 1 2 3 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