Author Topic: PSN = Privacy? Security? Never! (Read 271706 times)

Morari · « **Reply #100 on:** February 23, 2011, 09:03:54 PM »

Quote from: TJ Spyke on February 23, 2011, 08:54:02 PM

No good reason? BS. And a court in the UK also disagrees with you because they ruled Lik Sang were violating Sony's copyrights. Lik Sang tried to make themselves look good, are they gonna admit that they decided to shut down rather than pay Sony the money they legally were required to?

Surely even you can see how ridiculous that excuse is. Sony was sour because Lik-Sang was offering their product in a more timely manner. Instead of working within the confines of a free market, Sony instead decided to badger Lik-Sang with lawsuit after lawsuit. Sony knows that they don't have to win a court case, they just have to make sure that their target goes bankrupt while hiring a team to defend themselves. They did the exact same thing to Bleem.

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #101 on:** February 23, 2011, 09:08:51 PM »

The difference between Bleem! (which I don't get how a judge ruled in favor of Bleem since it was clear that their actions were shady at best) and Lik Sang is that Lik Sang lost. Instead of working within the confines of the law, Lik Sang decided that making money was more important. I was disappointed when Lik Sang decided to shut down rather than just pay Sony and stay in business, but Sony was legally right.

Morari · « **Reply #102 on:** February 23, 2011, 09:15:27 PM »

"Legally right". I like that. Never mind morals or common sense, we had the most expensive lawyers!

In the meantime, Sony compromises their customer's computers with rootkits and removes advertised features from their bought and owned hardware.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #103 on:** February 23, 2011, 09:34:24 PM »

Why do you keep referring to people as "shady?" What did Bleem!'s authors do that was shady? They allowed people to play PlayStation games on their PC, and it was ruled legal to do so (or at least Sony was never able to win against them in court - they were legally right to let people play PlayStation games on their PCs, I believe is how you would describe it), and that's it. I've talked to Randy from Bleem! on the phone...he didn't seem too shady to me. Just seemed like an honest software developer that actually was concerned with how his product was working with his customers. Also, Randy works for Sony now (or at least as of 2005 he did, working in the porting and emulation areas of the company ironically)...so if he's shady...and he works for Sony...

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #104 on:** February 23, 2011, 09:37:31 PM »

Sony hired him because of what he did was technically impressive. The reason it was shady was because they were basically profiting off of other people's work. Would Microsoft be happy if a company created a emulated version of Halo: Reach that worked on PlayStation 3?

lolmonade · « **Reply #105 on:** February 23, 2011, 09:55:52 PM »

Quote from: TJ Spyke on February 23, 2011, 09:37:31 PM

Sony hired him because of what he did was technically impressive. The reason it was shady was because they were basically profiting off of other people's work. Would Microsoft be happy if a company created a emulated version of Halo: Reach that worked on PlayStation 3?

While your example of Halo: Reach working on a Playstation 3 is a valid analogy to what Bleem! did and why Sony was pissed, I don't think there was anything legally shady, and I think it's a bit unfair to say they were profiting off of other people's work. If I recall correctly, you had to have a legitimate copy of the game to be able to use Bleem!, so there couldn't be any claims of piracy in this version of emulation. Sony was just pissed that someone was trying to make a way to play Playstation games without owning the console. And based on the rulings, it seems like the court system didn't see that there was anything illegal about that.

While this is an old system, I kind of see it as being analogous to if Nintendo would sue the people who make those NES/SNES combo consoles. And the only reason I could really see why Sony thought it might have a case is because Bleem! was released in 1999, which was a year before the next generation Playstation came around making the original obsolete. They could make a claim that it was causing another source of cannibalizing their Playstation 1 sales, but I'm not knowledgeable enough of the law in this case to know if that would break any sort of law.

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #106 on:** February 23, 2011, 09:59:33 PM »

This was nothing new. Atari sued Mattel for making an adapter that let you play Atari 2600 games on the Intellivision. The courts ended up ruling it was legal, but that Mattell (or maybe it was Coleco and the ColecoVision) had to pay Atari a fee for every adapter sold. I guess Sony could have tried to get the courts to do that, although obviously Bleem couldn't afford to do that.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #107 on:** February 23, 2011, 10:09:07 PM »

Why couldn't they? They were profiting off of other people's work, just like you said...accept they weren't They were profiting off of their own work. They weren't selling PlayStation games...they were selling a software emulator, you still had to buy the games. Here's something of interest (maybe) - I didn't even buy a PlayStation until after purchasing (yes, purchasing...the way you associate me with the word "shady" bothers me) both Bleem! and Virtual Game Station, along with several PlayStation games. Later, I bought a PS2 (at launch) because I had a bunch of PSX games, initially because of Bleem! and CVGS. So, it pays to not be a dick sometimes.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #108 on:** February 23, 2011, 10:15:41 PM »

In other good news - AsbestOS installer 2.0 has been released, which lets you install unmodified Debian Squeeze that was recently released - I'll be installing this over the weekend hopefully.

lolmonade · « **Reply #109 on:** February 23, 2011, 10:17:48 PM »

Quote from: Brandogg on February 23, 2011, 10:09:07 PM

Why couldn't they? They were profiting off of other people's work, just like you said...accept they weren't They were profiting off of their own work. They weren't selling PlayStation games...they were selling a software emulator, you still had to buy the games. Here's something of interest (maybe) - I didn't even buy a PlayStation until after purchasing (yes, purchasing...the way you associate me with the word "shady" bothers me) both Bleem! and Virtual Game Station, along with several PlayStation games. Later, I bought a PS2 (at launch) because I had a bunch of PSX games, initially because of Bleem! and CVGS. So, it pays to not be a dick sometimes.

I think this is a good point to make. You could probably argue that the introduction of software emulators on PC and Dreamcast actually helped, as it would provide people who had no interest in purchasing a Playstation console to buy a few games, which would result in profits for the game developers.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #110 on:** February 23, 2011, 10:19:56 PM »

That's another thing I forgot to mention - I didn't buy Gran Turismo 2 until after I bought Bleem!Cast for GT2. Sure it was the most expensive way to buy GT2, but it was the best way to play it. I think I only paid like $15 for it or so, actually. Got them both at GameStop, think it was the first thing I ever bought from them.

UncleBob · « **Reply #111 on:** February 23, 2011, 10:26:05 PM »

Quote from: TJ Spyke on February 23, 2011, 09:59:33 PM

This was nothing new. Atari sued Mattel for making an adapter that let you play Atari 2600 games on the Intellivision. The courts ended up ruling it was legal, but that Mattell (or maybe it was Coleco and the ColecoVision) had to pay Atari a fee for every adapter sold. I guess Sony could have tried to get the courts to do that, although obviously Bleem couldn't afford to do that.

Do you have any kind of a source for this complete crap you're spouting here?

Direct from the source:
http://www.intellivisionlives.com/bluesky/hardware/changer_tech.html

Quote

Although Atari threatened to sue, Mattel's lawyers concluded that it would be legal to clone 2600s since they contained all off-the-shelf hardware and no copyrightable software (as an Intellivision or Colecovision does). No lawsuit appeared, and clones started appearing from other companies.

Chozo Ghost · « **Reply #112 on:** February 24, 2011, 04:20:26 AM »

Quote from: TJ Spyke on February 23, 2011, 09:08:51 PM

The difference between Bleem! (which I don't get how a judge ruled in favor of Bleem since it was clear that their actions were shady at best)

Judges don't rule based on what appears "shady"; they rule based on the law. Bleem was 100% legal under fair use.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #113 on:** February 24, 2011, 12:17:12 PM »

Quote

Actually, that argument was settled a long time ago, and the law's view on it has not changed.

An argument doesn't get settled just because the law says so. This will become more relevant as remote off switches become more and more common and consumers get pushed around more and more.

Let's put it this way. If Nintendo remotely disabled my VC purchases I would pirate that **** in a heartbeat and would feel not the slightest bit of guilt. I wouldn't take anything else, just get back what I paid for. No revenge or anything like that, just taking back what was stolen from me.

Nick DiMola · « **Reply #114 on:** February 24, 2011, 01:11:31 PM »

What I find pretty interesting, is that in the case of the iPhone vs. jailbreakers, the Library of Congress ruled that bypassing a phone OS is completely acceptable under Fair Use. Given the precedent in place already, I have to imagine the same exception to the DMCA will apply. In both cases, Hotz simply gained root access to the device and published the key, which would allow others to exercise their Fair Use rights as declared by the DMCA and exempted by the Library of Congress.

It seems like everyone is quick to decry the work of these hackers because it leads to piracy and other potential problems, but the work done by Hotz is no different than his work on the iPhone. Gaining root access doesn't inherently provide the ability to piracy, it merely gives hackers of that variety a starting point.

With Sony involved in two separate cases over the same topic (both as plaintiffs and defendants) it should be interesting to see how everything plays out. Honestly, I think they are going to lose on all fronts. They've been arguing that removing the OtherOS functionality was ok because they didn't have privity with the system owners, and against Hotz, they claim they had privity which prohibits him from violating the EULA (which includes a clause regarding hacking).

Obviously you can't have it both ways, especially when (I believe) the same judge is sitting in on both trials. In my opinion, hacking a console is on shaky ground at worst, and at best, it has already been condoned as an exception to the DMCA by the Library of Congress via the iPhone jailbreaking situation. Anyway, we'll have to wait and see how the judge interprets the law, being that it's his job to do so.

My sources on the topic if anyone is interested, http://internetjustice.blogspot.com/2010/12/iphone-jailbreaking-and-dmca.html and http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110218181557455

NWR_insanolord · « **Reply #115 on:** February 24, 2011, 01:49:28 PM »

Quote from: Nick DiMola on February 24, 2011, 01:11:31 PM

What I find pretty interesting, is that in the case of the iPhone vs. jailbreakers, the Library of Congress ruled that bypassing a phone OS is completely acceptable under Fair Use. Given the precedent in place already, I have to imagine the same exception to the DMCA will apply. In both cases, Hotz simply gained root access to the device and published the key, which would allow others to exercise their Fair Use rights as declared by the DMCA and exempted by the Library of Congress.

It seems like everyone is quick to decry the work of these hackers because it leads to piracy and other potential problems, but the work done by Hotz is no different than his work on the iPhone. Gaining root access doesn't inherently provide the ability to piracy, it merely gives hackers of that variety a starting point.

With Sony involved in two separate cases over the same topic (both as plaintiffs and defendants) it should be interesting to see how everything plays out. Honestly, I think they are going to lose on all fronts. They've been arguing that removing the OtherOS functionality was ok because they didn't have privity with the system owners, and against Hotz, they claim they had privity which prohibits him from violating the EULA (which includes a clause regarding hacking).

Obviously you can't have it both ways, especially when (I believe) the same judge is sitting in on both trials. In my opinion, hacking a console is on shaky ground at worst, and at best, it has already been condoned as an exception to the DMCA by the Library of Congress via the iPhone jailbreaking situation. Anyway, we'll have to wait and see how the judge interprets the law, being that it's his job to do so.

My sources on the topic if anyone is interested, http://internetjustice.blogspot.com/2010/12/iphone-jailbreaking-and-dmca.html and http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110218181557455

A well-reasoned, level-headed post, with sources to back it up. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why NWR has the best forums on the internet. If I could applaud this more than once I would.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #116 on:** February 25, 2011, 04:20:14 PM »

Now this is actually hilarious - Sony is now suing graf_chokolo for 750,000 euros. The amount could actually be more, but it just goes to show you that this is all about Sony trying to cripple the hackers financially and force them into remission. BTW, graf's reaction to this - basically a big "**** you" and he is not stopping, at all. They can't take the information out of his head, and it's already all over the internet anyway, but he is not slowing down, and seems to actually feed on Sony coming after him. Sony just keeps drawing more and more attention to something that was only affecting a very small amount of users, and bringing all of this into the mainstream. I love it. It's going to be especially great when this blows up in their face after they lose all of their lawsuits, this way a lot more people will have knowledge of what they're allowed to do with the hardware that they own.

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #117 on:** February 25, 2011, 04:31:34 PM »

graf is an idiot. When you break the law and then brag about it, juries are not gonna show you any consideration. I will laugh my ass off when this loser is forced to pay Sony all that money when they easily win the lawsuit. He knows what he did was wrong and it just trying to get as much publicity as he can.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #118 on:** February 25, 2011, 04:45:20 PM »

Again, please tell me which law he has broken and exactly how he has done so. I've tried to get you to do this before, but you haven't done it yet. He has not been arrested...perhaps he's not breaking the law?

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #119 on:** February 25, 2011, 04:53:06 PM »

I already answered, but you ignored it. He tried to blackmail Sony, which is against EU laws. And in case you weren't aware, you don't have to be arrested the same day you get caught (or Sony could be deciding to not file charges yet). There are also crimes that don't have jail time. For example, libel is illegal but is not a criminal offense in the US (meaning you can't be arrested for it, but you can be sued by the person you are doing it against).

BlackNMild2k1 · « **Reply #120 on:** February 25, 2011, 05:05:46 PM »

I know I'm the one that originally posed the question but I do have to point out something

black·mail: Demand money from (a person) in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information about that person

As far as I know Graf never demanded any sort of financial gain from Sony, all he did do was threaten to put what he knows on the internet for all to see and use freely as they see fit if they didn't leave him alone. They didn't leave him alone and then he followed through. I only posed the question because I don't know what the laws constitute as blackmail in his country, but going by that definition of blackmail, he hasn't "blackmailed" anyone.

I also believe that you have still ignored UncleBob's request (8 post ago) for a source to the FUD that you were spouting as fact earlier in this thread.

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #121 on:** February 25, 2011, 05:09:53 PM »

Blackmail does not require money. For example, here is one of the definitions from dictionary.com:

to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.:

That is what he did, he tried to force Sony to back off their investigation into him by threatening to release the hacked info.

As for UncleBob, I made a mistake. I was mixing up the adapter situation with the Atari/Activision situation (where Activision became the first third party publisher on the Atari 2600 and Atari sued by saying only they were allowed to release games on their system, the courts rules Activision was allowed to do it too but had to pay a licensing fee to Atari).

Chozo Ghost · « **Reply #122 on:** February 25, 2011, 05:10:43 PM »

Quote from: TJ Spyke on February 25, 2011, 04:31:34 PM

I will laugh my ass off when this loser is forced to pay Sony all that money when they easily win the lawsuit.

I can guarantee they won't win.

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #123 on:** February 25, 2011, 05:15:55 PM »

The law is pretty clearly on their side. So we will see, I will be paying attention to it.

Chozo Ghost · « **Reply #124 on:** February 25, 2011, 05:18:36 PM »

Quote from: TJ Spyke on February 25, 2011, 05:15:55 PM

The law is pretty clearly on their side. So we will see, I will be paying attention to it.

What will your reaction be if Sony loses?

News:

Author Topic: PSN = Privacy? Security? Never! (Read 271706 times)