Slashdot Mirror
Sony Lawyers Expand Dragnet, Targeting Anybody Posting PS3 Hack
markass530 writes with this excerpt from Wired:
"Sony is threatening to sue anybody posting or 'distributing' the first full-fledged jailbreak code for the 4-year-old PlayStation 3 gaming console. What's more, the company is demanding that a federal judge order Google to surrender the IP addresses and other identifying information (PDF) of those who have viewed or commented about the jailbreak video on a private YouTube page. The game maker is also demanding that Twitter provide the identities of a host of hackers who first unveiled a limited version of the hack in December."
erk: C0 CE FE 84 C2 27 F7 5B D0 7A 7E B8 46 50 9F 93 B2 38 E7 70 DA CB 9F F4 A3 88 F8 12 48 2B E2 1B
riv: 47 EE 74 54 E4 77 4C C9 B8 96 0C 7B 59 F4 C1 4D
pub: C2 D4 AA F3 19 35 50 19 AF 99 D4 4E 2B 58 CA 29 25 2C 89 12 3D 11 D6 21 8F 40 B1 38 CA B2 9B 71 01 F3 AE B7 2A 97 50 19
R: 80 6E 07 8F A1 52 97 90 CE 1A AE 02 BA DD 6F AA A6 AF 74 17
n: E1 3A 7E BC 3A CC EB 1C B5 6C C8 60 FC AB DB 6A 04 8C 55 E1
K: BA 90 55 91 68 61 B9 77 ED CB ED 92 00 50 92 F6 6C 7A 3D 8D
Da: C5 B2 BF A1 A4 13 DD 16 F2 6D 31 C0 F2 ED 47 20 DC FB 06 70
I still have mine, sounds like we need someone to post code snippets on the back of a T-Shirt, with "only Sony wants Root" on the front, and the proceeds can go to legal defense.
Well, If we are making outlandish requests... I demand that a federal judge order Sony to turn over a detailed list of all financial transactions for the company and its 150,000+ staff. I just want to make sure that they are not doing anything illegal with their property (their money).
Fair's fair.
Sony is going to run into a full Streisand Effect backlash with this new attempt to expunge the net of any trace of the very mention of this hack existing. And what is it about asking for the IP address of those who VIEWED it? Are they planning to go the RIAA route and send blackmail letters to those people, threatening to sue them for millions unless they pay several thousands of dollars?
The only Playstation I ever had got sold 3 years ago, and now I have absolutely no interesting in purchasing ANY whatsoever Sony product.
Don't need to bother with my IP address, if I still had a sony product, I would throw it into the garbage right now.
Did something like this go down when the HD-DVD key was found? Didn't it just cause MORE publicity, or something that's now know as the Streisand Effect? Good luck with that Sony, really.
erk: I left my phone at home
riv: Thames
pub: The Royal Oak
R: Me 'arties
n: o spells no
K: mart
Da: da daa da da da daaaa da daa daa daaaaaa
With Netlix trying to go away from mailing out DVD's I don't see any reason to fire the old bird up now...... what's that you can play games on it, nonsense!
For years I have been planning to get a PS3, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna give a penny to a company that is going to use the money to sue me and my peers... Guess I'll just have to buy used.
Sony fails to understand that once information is available it is impossible to remove it again. Not even the US government or the former KGB have succeeded and now Sony think they can do it?
And in the process they will alienate any customer base they already have, most likely.
Once you start suing your customers for using your own product, the end is not far away, just take a look at the music industry.
Gee Sony, guess I won't buy one of your TVs to replace my aging flat screen. With over the top demands like the you can go fuck yourself.
Sony is also demanding "A bajillion kajillion dollars, all the chocolate in the world, and a pony."
Must be to get everyone into a courtroom, hold up a neuralizer, say "Please look into the light", ... wait, what do you mean there's no such thing as a neuralizer?
Sony is just making themselves less and less endearing I wish they would stop it as I want the NGP and I won't be able to justify buying it if they keep doing stupid things like this.
I think it's even crazier they want IP's from people who only viewed the video though for all I know I could have seen it embeded somewhere or other and never even took it in.
Sony claims the hacks will eat into game sales for the 41 million PS3 units sold.
Dear Sony,
You know what will really cut into sales? Being total douchebags towards your customers. That's what is really going to cut into sales.
thxkbye
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
60GB with full hardware backwards compatibility...
Sony has been reading the SCO playbook....
Rick B.
They have to know what each accused user eats for breakfast too?
Sony used to be innovative , I have sony products : but is this action really excusable ?
The world has moved on, popular culture encourages that people hack everything from their toaster to the PS3.
SONY wake up - you are doing the opposite of what you should be doing.
This will hit the main press and it will look so bad.
Change your ways to embrace the new world - not even Apple makes such a fuss about "the inevitable"
All Steve worries about is keeping his "one more thing" a surprise.
Blame the lawyers (yeah, I don't like lawyers :P)
Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
This means I should be able to do whatever I want with the console,
You can. Sony is trying to prevent people from distributing modified versions of their software, for which you received only a limited license when you purchased the PS3.
I get you, I really do. But your anger is directed at the wrong point. If you want to be able to receive or redistribute Sony's code than you ought to be seeking changes to IP law & practices.
Post it on wikileaks, and make it available to all from there, as they are already in hot water, and will not be shut down at any cost.....this way it will get mirrored by all who support such things, and the openness of information. Screw you SONY!
The claim is, of course, stupid. But they're using the legal channels
Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
...but now I refuse. My 7 year old will be disappointed but someday he'll understand because I'll raise him to know that we vote with our wallets. I'd rather he be a PC gamer anyways.
Loading...
What's more, the company is demanding that a federal judge order Google to surrender the IP addresses and other identifying information (PDF) of those who have viewed or commented about the jailbreak video on a private YouTube page.
The INTERESTING bit here is in finding out how much, and what, Google actually logs and stores.
So does Google actually log visits by IP adress to a private YouTube page?
Why shouldn't they?
They're bought and paid for...
Just like the f**king consoles they're suing people for hacking!
Just the simple fact that they're going berserk like this makes me want to go find the exploit info and post it in as many places as possible...behind 7 proxies.
The PS2 was very easily hacked to play pirated games. And yet the PS2 was the most successful console of its generation. The Gameboy line of handhelds have all been very easily hacked, and yet Nintendo sells tons of games and hardware.
I'm not advocating piracy or saying it has zero effect, but I honestly believe that threatening to sue anyone who even viewed the content (with no proof they hacked their console, or distributed the information) is really going too far. I've long been a Sony supporter. I bought a PS3 instead of a 360 to specifically support Sony. With it I purchased a new Sony surround system and Bravia.
But I can't imagine every supporting them again for any reason. And why would any consumer want to buy a future console from a company that sues their customers? The key won't kill Playstation, but Sony's behavior will.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
>
This is scaring me...
About time! The only limits on Sony are what they think the can get away with. And they are awfully confident in themselves getting away with a lot.
I think it's even crazier they want IP's from people who only viewed the video though for all I know I could have seen it embeded somewhere or other and never even took it in.
However, if they can get law to say you are responsible for what you view, regardless of how... Think of the CP e-mail bomb the CEO would get! Ooops... :)
If I paid $1000 for rent this past month, who owns the house I live in? THE LANDLORD. I still can't do major changes to the house or property, can't burn it down, can't use it as security for a loan... and I have to abide by all the terms I agreed to in the lease, which is a legally-binding contract just like the software license you agreed to. You did read it, didn't you?
Interesting analogy. To make it a bit more correct though, we need to add the following things.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Can someone please put a link to that youtube video ?
Thanks.
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
Also, the landlord happens to own any physical object that enters through the front door. Any idea you have within his complex? By default, it's HIS intellectual property. He can also film inside your home with closed cameras, and use the footage for any purpose without your consent.
I believe that Sony's lawyers failed miserably in reality check ... What will they do, forcing everyone (on the entire planet) to forget that the hack exists? These guys forget that the reality is quite different from the fairy tale where they live...
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Maybe CmdrTaco will only reveal the IPs of those criticizing slashdot
We love CmdrTaco!
Am I the only one who finds it a little creepy that a foreign company can come into the U.S. and just wantonly try to violate the 1st and 4th amendment rights of our citizens (and presumably, many other citizens around the world)? As big a bunch of tools as Google are, I would hope they would at least tell Sony to go to hell on the identities of commenters and viewers of a web video. And, if they do hand these over, I think the FBI should be investigating THEM.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
obviously!
it's like how I only have a licences to the words in the books I buy.
If I want to create a derivative work by doodling in the margins all I have to do to avoid a lawsuit from the author is remove all the copyrighted words from the book first using white spirits and bleach.
And don't get me started on those fucking photocopier manufacturers! supporting book piracy! death's too good for them!
When you took that pen and signed your name to the line at the bottom of the paper on that contract agreeing to the software license it became legally binding.
I mean it's clear as day to anyone!
We have just discussed this round the table on our lunch break in work (Server Engineers), not a single one of us can think of how this can possibly end well for Sony, In fact I have seen this 'Streisanding' across the office as beta geeks from the service desk etc. come and ask us what all this 'Jailbreaking' on the PS3 is all about and why they are so upset about it. This is such a dumb move that anyone with an ounce of technical knowledge would have advised against. This behaviour has repercussions far beyond its intended target and its scary. I just hope they get slapped down and slapped down hard.
I've got some photographs, I'd like to show them to you. Though you don't know the girls You'll recognise the view..
No it isn't.
The law might permit this disgusting behavior, but Sony in no way is obligated to actually do it. It's their choice to be assholes, as well as it's their choice to use restrictive licensing, and thus it's entirely their fault.
If those are all terms you agreed to, then sure. Why not? That's pretty similar to what's in most employment contracts. If you don't like a contract, don't agree to it. Don't buy Sony's products, and encourage others to do the same.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I have all the software and code to hack the PS3. I will also make it available to anyone that asks for it, by emailing me at montezumamd@gmail.com. Seeing as everyone that wants it can get it, Sony will have a hard fucking time suing me, or anyone else. There is also the fact that I am dirty-fucking-poor, and have no money to my name. Also, seeing how I cannot be put in jail for providing what is already publicly available, Sony can do nothing to me.
I was going to try and comment on that YouTube video(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkLSXsCKDkg), but alas, it is private. So, I will just comment here and say that, if that video is pertaining to hacking the PS3, then good job.
COME SUE ME SONY, I GOT NO MONEY, AND IM ON SSI HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAA TAKE THIS AND SHOVE IT erk: C0 CE FE 84 C2 27 F7 5B D0 7A 7E B8 46 50 9F 93 B2 38 E7 70 DA CB 9F F4 A3 88 F8 12 48 2B E2 1B riv: 47 EE 74 54 E4 77 4C C9 B8 96 0C 7B 59 F4 C1 4D pub: C2 D4 AA F3 19 35 50 19 AF 99 D4 4E 2B 58 CA 29 25 2C 89 12 3D 11 D6 21 8F 40 B1 38 CA B2 9B 71 01 F3 AE B7 2A 97 50 19 R: 80 6E 07 8F A1 52 97 90 CE 1A AE 02 BA DD 6F AA A6 AF 74 17 n: E1 3A 7E BC 3A CC EB 1C B5 6C C8 60 FC AB DB 6A 04 8C 55 E1 K: BA 90 55 91 68 61 B9 77 ED CB ED 92 00 50 92 F6 6C 7A 3D 8D Da: C5 B2 BF A1 A4 13 DD 16 F2 6D 31 C0 F2 ED 47 20 DC FB 06 70
Say I download a copy of the latest firmware (which I can do without agreeing to an EULA). I then modify the file to change the agreement that appears so that it says "I agree that I can use this however I want" (which I can also do without agreeing to an EULA). I then begin the installation on my PS3, and up pops "I agree that I can use this however I want." I click "I agree."
What then?
That's the key information for the console, not the program to actually jailbreak it.
Anyone have a link for GeoHot's jailbreak.zip?
What are they going to do, send thugs over? [pumps shotgun]
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
Sure, now Sony will have to evaluate new DRM for new games. Big whoop. By antagonizing like this, all they're doing is digging the hole deeper. Adding back the OtherOS option would have been reason enough for the fail0verflow folks to quit.
You forgot:
6. All of these points are only revealed once you've paid your rent (non refundable), as they are written on a wall inside the apartment.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Does anyone know if the US defence dept are still using a cluster of PS3s as a supercomputer? No I realise they'd never be so daft as to connect the cluster to the interwebs, and so never had the other-OS feature removed, but I'll bet there's somebody on the project who's looked into the option of cracking it...
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Absolutely!
Don't go signing any contracts saying you agree to such things.
Stop and think before you put pen to paper! Once it's down in ink on paper it's serious!
On a related note now that you've read my post please retroactively agree to my conditions that you must send me all your Christmas presents next December.
If you don't agree to this you are required to delete all copies of the data from your computer, from your ISP's buffers, from your own mind, from the fabric of space if you read this with your curtains open thus violating my copyright by creating a copy of the text moving through space at the speed of light and immediately relinquish all original thoughts you've had since reading my post.
Just buy one used, so Sony doesn't get a dime from you for it?
Maybe wait until it's been hacked, then grab a hackable one from a pawnshop for cheap. Install the hack (even if you never plan on using it) if for no other reason than to mock those bastards.
Ah but he didn't RENT the PS3. He BOUGHT it. And as for them being 'kind enough' to 'allow me' to use their software, fuck that. They sold him a console with a copy of their software on it (yes, they SOLD him a copy of the software), and I couldn't care less what they say we can do with it. We can do as much as copyright laws allow, and it doesn't say anything about tinkering with the stuff.
Copyright is fundamentally about right to distribution (COPY-Right), but somehow these thugs have convinced people that just because they stick a little piece of paper with demands and limitations on the cd, they get to tell you how to use your stuff once they've sold it to you (and yes, that copy of the software is SOLD, not rented. the only limits we should respect are those in copyright law itself, not the "license"). If they want to RENT their stuff under specific conditions to retain the right to take away the product if we don't abide by those conditions, they should clearly state so when we pay, and also of course assume all the responsibility it implies to be providing a rental service instead of selling a product. Renting is very different than selling. When it suits them, it's a sale, when it doesn't, they're 'licensing'. You can't have your cake and eat it too
Of course this is a personal opinion based on what I understand of IP laws, but IANAL, so any lawyers are welcome to correct/corroborate/discuss
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
I'm not reading your post. I'm reading Geeknet's retransmission of your post, which does not carry those terms. You agreed to their terms when you posted.
If I were actually bound by your terms, I could sue to have the objectionable items (probably all except deleting from the computer) nullified.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Go **** Yourself SONY...
Loading...
And I don't, but this gets hard when there are only a few options are available and all of them have the same terms.
The "don't buy it" solution works when talking about a commodity and when you know where the product is coming from. If you're buying nails, there are probably hundreds for suppliers. For consoles there's just a few, and all of them have annoying policies. It comes down to choosing the least evil in the best case.
For other things, you can't not buy from a supplier. For example it turns out gas gets mixed somewhere before getting shipped to a station, so you can't not buy from BP.
Unfortunately consoles are a very high tech expensive good, and as such only huge companies can realistically compete in the field. That drastically limits the amount of competition and insulates the companies from consequences. That's why we need to resort to laws that limit the damage.
Exact same thing.
Wikileaks had been out for awhile and no one cared. Suddenly the government got it's knickers in a twist and tried to shut it down. Suddenly everyone started paying attention.
As someone who's been a sony customer for quite some time and i've never held interest in hacking or jailbreaking or whatever consoles, I just ignored this whole key fiasco when it first started. Then over and over again you're getting your getting all butthurt about it, pushing everyone into lawsuits over it. Guess what I'm doing when I get home now? If you said "go home and jailbreak my ps3", you're right!
A big giant "screw you Sony" from a previously loyal customer.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Am I the only one who finds it a little creepy that a foreign company can come into the U.S. and just wantonly try to violate the 1st and 4th amendment rights of our citizens (and presumably, many other citizens around the world)? p>
Its just you.
The rest of understand that freedom of speech doesn't mean consequence free speech. If Sony suffers damages from your speech, they can sue for those damages. Then, you get the opportunity to defend your actions in a court of law.
There is absolutely no unreasonable search and seizure when you post something on youtube.and Sony sees it. In fact, the posting of something on youtube creates probably cause to search the poster's property provided that a judge issues a warrant. Sony has done nothing wrong in acting in its own best interests. They simply asked a judge to create a warrant so that they can legally search for those whom Sony believes has actually harmed them.
I assume you lock your door at night, and even if you leave your door unlocked one night, it doesn't excuse theft. However, if someone were to post a youtube video showing specifically how your brand of door lock can be picked, it could be judicially warranted to extract the information of people who subsequently linked to schematics showing where you store valuables in your home, posted when you left for vacation, or otherwise recorded a method of breaking into your house.
As big a bunch of tools as Google are, I would hope they would at least tell Sony to go to hell on the identities of commenters and viewers of a web video. And, if they do hand these over, I think the FBI should be investigating THEM.
Obviously youtube has already refused to turn over user information, which is why Sony is asking a judge to overrule them. No need for the FBI here.
And what is it about asking for the IP address of those who VIEWED it?
"Gee, this Tor guy is really active!"
You're not the first to point out the difference in signing. There's already a solution, by making electronic agreements equivalent to a signature.
The EULA is available online, as well as included in the box. If you don't like it, you can return the unused PS3 to the store. Like all contracts, it is binding on both parties. The fact that it grants the company the ability to make changes is just another term that you're agreeing to, along with surrendering use of certain features if you don't update. To continue the analogy, you won't get to use the new in-apartment garbage chute if you won't let the maintenance guy in to install it.
Relatedly, I recently had an apartment lease that was 27 pages, including addenda. It had two pages relating to pets, about 7 for lead paint, a few for asbestos, one for "criminal activity", and a bunch of other trivial stuff that I no longer remember.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
And you see no problem with the fact that you would have to sue to get rid of those other terms?
my post was essentially what most EULAs are.
A wishlist of things that the company would love with no reference at all to whether it's even vaguely legal.
And they all essentially say the same thing: "we can do anything at all we want, we have no obligation to you at all, you should be happy we allowed you to give us money ,you can't do anything though we may not enforce our right to stop you from doing stuff if we feel like it" and plastered all over it because they know very well that most of what they write isn't even vaguely legal: something along the lines of "if any part or parts of this agreement are invalidated or illegal all the rest still binds you but not us"
I absolutely agree to abide by any contract I sign but the thing is that I've never in my life signed a contract for software.
All I've ever done is click "OK" to company wishlists after I've already bought my property from them and our business is done.
Sony Francis says "You just made the list, buddy. Also, I don’t like no one touching my stuff. So just keep your meathooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff, I’ll kill you. And I don’t like nobody blogging about me. Any of you **homos** blog me, and I’ll kill you."
Old business model:
1. Sell product ... :(*
2. Hack computers of people who purchased it
3. ?
4. ?
5. Profit!
6. Abused customers push back, force Sony to stop criminal behaviour
New business model:
1. Sell product
2. Sue people who purchased it
3. ?
4. ?
5. Profit!
There is a point where the people under an abusive dictator push back.
well if you ask someone who desperately wants copyright to apply then they'll just tell you it doesn't count.
although which step I'm not sure they can point to.
Copyright deals with making/distributing copies and editing a copyrighted work falls under it about as much as drawing breasts in the margins of books.
They'd probably waffle about how if you edited it out then you knew the agreement was there and by not agreeing to it you agreed to it.
And if they're really crazy they'll argue that displaying the bytecode on the screen is making a copy, or reading the file into memory to edit makes it a copyright issue or reading the bytecode with your eyes makes a copy in your brain thus bringing copyright into it.
What will sony do with the PSP phone? law says you can hack a phone for any app and any network! SO I don't sony can get away with sueing to keep the info on how to hack it off the web.
I think I'll just leave this here...
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&t=k&ll=34.015137,-118.791438&z=17
Which is why the idea of licensing software is ridiculous...
I can buy a piece of hardware (or most types of physical good, eg clothing), dismantle and modify it in any way i choose, i can even sell it on in modified or unmodified form as i see fit. What i can't do is produce clones of the hardware and sell them as if they were original articles (this is known as counterfeiting).
Software should be no different, i should be able to use a piece of software i purchased for any purpose i see fit, providing i don't distribute copies. I should also be free to sell the original copy i bought, providing i don't retain any copies myself, and should be free to publish instructions showing other people how to make useful modifications themselves.
Incidentally, counterfeiting only occurs when the original is sold at a price disproportionate to its production cost. Factories in china can churn out armani suits for the same price as cheap unbranded ones, yet the retail price of the armani suit will be many times higher than an unbranded chinese suit.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Lawyers making work for themselves. Once they have got all those IPs, they will get junior, just qualified legal staff to check laboriously through them. Said staff are paid $50/hour but billed at $250-500/hour. $$$ PROFIT $$$ for the partners in the legal practice.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Seems that random.org is hosting the keys at http://www.random.org/cgi-bin/randbyte?nbytes=16&format=h Hopefully sony will not sue them!!!!!11
Doodling in the margins to produce a derivative work would then have the use of the book be governed by fair use, which typically involves the copyright holder liking the use (and issuing a separate license for that use), or a judge deciding if the use was appropriate.
Photocopiers are legal because they have significant legal use, such that their primary function is not copyright infringement. Relatedly, I recall back in the early 90's when there was a news story about a publisher using paper that wouldn't copy correctly in most copiers. Fun times.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
and still I have never once put my electronic signature to any agreement.
I have one, I can sign emails with it to guarantee that they came from me.
It could even be witnessed by a trusted third party or at least documented.
but all I ever see are those silly little "ok" or "I agree" buttons, no witness, no proof that it's not in fact my neighbour, 5 year old nephew or cat which agreed to it.
I'd be quite happy to accept an electronic contract as valid.
Just have it witnessed, signed either with a public key or sign it with a touchpad and have it actually bind both parties to do something.
I'm curious but does their eula bind Sony to do anything whatsoever? I can't see anything that isn't prefixed with "may" from a quick read. as far as I can see it doesn't bind them at all.
Really? so you're saying that should I draw a picture of a cat on page 57 of the book in front of me the author would be able to sue me and my only defence would be fair use?
And not in the sense of "you can sue for anything" but rather that they'd have an actual case?
I feel the urge to pick at this like an oozing scab.
erk: C0 CE FE 84 C2 27 F7 5B D0 7A 7E B8 46 50 9F 93 B2 38 E7 70 DA CB 9F F4 A3 88 F8 12 48 2B E2 1B riv: 47 EE 74 54 E4 77 4C C9 B8 96 0C 7B 59 F4 C1 4D pub: C2 D4 AA F3 19 35 50 19 AF 99 D4 4E 2B 58 CA 29 25 2C 89 12 3D 11 D6 21 8F 40 B1 38 CA B2 9B 71 01 F3 AE B7 2A 97 50 19 R: 80 6E 07 8F A1 52 97 90 CE 1A AE 02 BA DD 6F AA A6 AF 74 17 n: E1 3A 7E BC 3A CC EB 1C B5 6C C8 60 FC AB DB 6A 04 8C 55 E1 K: BA 90 55 91 68 61 B9 77 ED CB ED 92 00 50 92 F6 6C 7A 3D 8D Da: C5 B2 BF A1 A4 13 DD 16 F2 6D 31 C0 F2 ED 47 20 DC FB 06 70 I have it too; just want to put it out there, just to let sony know. :)
It's much simpler than that. Sony never agreed to the modified contract, so there is no mutual assent, and it's not a valid contract. Then you're stuck without a license to use the software.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
well with the engine it would be patents you'd be infringing so unless you stuck some companies logo on it it wouldn't be counterfeiting.
Same with the clothes, they have every right to churn out the cheap suits as long as they don't stick an armani logo or brand name on them.
He bought the PS3 hardware itself, but not the software inside. At most he may have bought a copy of the functional form of the software, but that's still an open issue.
Regardless, it's still governed by copyright law, which grants the copyright owner the exclusive right to perform/display the work (which, as I understand, is how "using" falls under copyright. Since he wouldn't have the right to use the software, it just makes a lovely paperweight until he agrees to Sony's license contract or removes the software completely.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Well isn't it nice that they already sold me a copy and took my money in exchange then.
They really should have told me they wanted to apply additional restrictions before they accepted my payment and gave me the goods shouldn't they.
ah I see. So they sold a functionless block of silicon (but advertised it as a games console) and then out of the goodness of their hearts included a completely separate free pile of software to go with it which the consumer in no way paid for.
really someone needs to sue them for absolutely blatant false advertising.
erk it!
C to the 0 to the C to the E to the F to the E to the 8 to the 4 to the C to the 2 to the 2 to the 7 to the F to the 7 to the 5 to the B to the D to the 0 to the 7 to the A to the 7 to the E to the B to the 8 to the 4 to the 6 to the 5 to the 0 to the 9 to the F to the 9 to the 3 to the B to the 2 to the 3 to the 8 to the E to the 7 to the 7 to the 0 to the D to the A to the C to the B to the 9 to the F to the F to the 4 to the A to the 3 to the 8 to the 8 to the F to the 8 to the 1 to the 2 to the 4 to the 8 to the 2 to the B to the E to the 2 to the 1 to the B
fuck you sony!
riv selecta!
4 to the 7 to the E to the E to the 7 to the 4 to the 5 to the 4 to the E to the 4 to the 7 to the 7 to the 4 to the C to the C to the 9 to the B to the 8 to the 9 to the 6 to the 0 to the C to the 7 to the B to the 5 to the 9 to the F to the 4 to the C to the 1 to the 4 to the D
fuck you sony!
down the pub!
C to the 2 to the D to the 4 to the A to the A to the F to the 3 to the 1 to the 9 to the 3 to the 5 to the 5 to the 0 to the 1 to the 9 to the A to the F to the 9 to the 9 to the D to the 4 to the 4 to the E to the 2 to the B to the 5 to the 8 to the C to the A to the 2 to the 9 to the 2 to the 5 to the 2 to the C to the 8 to the 9 to the 1 to the 2 to the 3 to the D to the 1 to the 1 to the D to the 6 to the 2 to the 1 to the 8 to the F to the 4 to the 0 to the B to the 1 to the 3 to the 8 to the C to the A to the B to the 2 to the 9 to the B to the 7 to the 1 to the 0 to the 1 to the F to the 3 to the A to the E to the B to the 7 to the 2 to the A to the 9 to the 7 to the 5 to the 0 to the 1 to the 9
copy my lyrics, you'll do hard time!
gettin ready for R!
8 to the 0 to the 6 to the E to the 0 to the 7 to the 8 to the F to the A to the 1 to the 5 to the 2 to the 9 to the 7 to the 9 to the 0 to the C to the E to the 1 to the A to the A to the E to the 0 to the 2 to the B to the A to the D to the D to the 6 to the F to the A to the A to the A to the 6 to the A to the F to the 7 to the 4 to the 1 to the 7
i'm just gettin' revvin'!
get down with the n!
E to the 1 to the 3 to the A to the 7 to the E to the B to the C to the 3 to the A to the C to the C to the E to the B to the 1 to the C to the B to the 5 to the 6 to the C to the C to the 8 to the 6 to the 0 to the F to the C to the A to the B to the D to the B to the 6 to the A to the 0 to the 4 to the 8 to the C to the 5 to the 5 to the E to the 1
not long now, almost done!
party wit' my special K!
B to the A to the 9 to the 0 to the 5 to the 5 to the 9 to the 1 to the 6 to the 8 to the 6 to the 1 to the B to the 9 to the 7 to the 7 to the E to the D to the C to the B to the E to the D to the 9 to the 2 to the 0 to the 0 to the 5 to the 0 to the 9 to the 2 to the F to the 6 to the 6 to the C to the 7 to the A to the 3 to the D to the 8 to the D
once again, fuck you sony!
la dee dee, la dee Da!
C to the 5 to the B to the 2 to the B to the F to the A to the 1 to the A to the 4 to the 1 to the 3 to the D to the D to the 1 to the 6 to the F to the 2 to the 6 to the D to the 3 to the 1 to the C to the 0 to the F to the 2 to the E to the D to the 4 to the 7 to the 2 to the 0 to the D to the C to the F to the B to the 0 to the 6 to the 7 to the 0
hope y'all enjoyed the show,
now it's time to GTFO!
I see no problem whatsoever with suing when terms are found to be unreasonable after the fact. Once again, if you don't like terms, don't agree to them in the first place. Yes, clicking "OK" counts.
Not all licenses say the same thing at all. There are some licenses that are better, some that are worse, and some that are just plain weird. Licenses usually protect the interests and rights of the copyright holder, and it shouldn't be surprising that most companies have similar interests.
Now, IANAL, and this is certainly not legal advice, but if there's some term of a contract that's outright unreasonable, I'd say go ahead and break it. Don't complain when you get sued, but by all means, drag the contract through court and fight it out. Get that unreasonable term invalidated!
The "one part invalidated" clause protects the company against having the whole contract thrown out by a jurisdiction who finds some small part unacceptable. Usually, that protection is provided by legislation anyway, but it's not hard to imagine a jurisdiction's laws containing wording like "Any contract that requires X is invalid".
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Yep. They sold you a nice chunk of hardware. Once again, the terms are online. Go look them up if you're concerned, before you buy something. Is that so hard to think about?
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Reading further: I still see nothing whatsoever in sonys EULA binding sony in any way shape or form.
isn't there some kind of requirement that to be binding at all a contract has to offer something concrete to both parties even if it's trivial but everything I've read so far of it is "we may do this... if we feel like it and we reserve the right to take it away at any time for any reason and we are not obligated in any way" which is exactly nothing.
Just buy one used, so Sony doesn't get a dime from you for it?
Even better, have nothing to do with Sony at all. I for one will not buy another game for the PS3. Sony was already banned in my home except for that.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Or you could just not buy a console. Not to start a decades-old flame war, but PCs are much nicer in this regard: There are freely-licensed software solutions for pretty much everything you need, and you can have complete control of what you run. Sure, you'll miss out on an ultra-exclusive game, but is it really so important that you have that particular game on your own legal terms?
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
oh but they advertised that they were selling a gaming system.
Are you saying that they only sold a useless chunk of silicon and gave the rest away free?
absolutely blatant false advertising right there then.
They claimed to be selling something they were not: namely a system which could play games.
and it doesn't matter if the EULA was on their website of if their chief executive went around with it printed on his T-Shirt.
it wasn't printed on the outside of the box when it was sold and it wasn't agreed to before money and the goods were exchanged.
As long as he didn't sign any leasing contract, he did buy a copy... and as for it being an open issue, that's what I meant when I said it was my opinion, and you can see where I stand on that matter.
I'm not aware that using the copy of the software you bought falls under anything different than watching a DVD that you buy.. over which, say, universal, has absolutely no say outside of specific copyright law restrictions (like not playing it in a public performance, or for commercial purposes, etc)
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
Yes, they can. You can take the book, draw the cat, and display it in a museum as a work of art. They can sue, which would cost them a few thousand dollars, and you can just send the court a note saying "it's a derivative work of art that displays one page of the book."
It should be obvious to a judge that you're using merely the book itself, and not so much the literary work it contains. You're not affecting the market for selling the book, and using/publishing only the minimum amount of the book that you need. That's three of the four tests of fair use (commercial use, nature of work, amount used, and effect on market) passed with flying colors. The judge will probably dismiss the suit between fits of laughter.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
That "ok" button is enough. Make sure your computer is locked when you're not there. If your signature is forged, no matter how easy it is to do so, you have other legal issues to work through.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
In light of the iPhone decision (that allowed "jailbreaking"), I wonder if they really have a leg on which to stand. Or is it that the iPhone decision only pertains to opening it up to additional software choicese (does the PS3 break imply more)?
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Good luck getting them to agree to that. If you're successful, let me know. I want to see it. No, really... I despise Sony's tactics as much as the next guy, so if you can get them to agree to something like that, I want to see pictures. It would make me happy.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
They sold you silicon and a license for software, which when combined as instructed make a games console. In Slashdot tradition, I present a car analogy: You go to a dealer, buy a car, then leave the engine in the parking lot. It's your own fault the car doesn't run.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Sorry to nitpick, and IANAL, but they didn't sold a copy of the software. They sold a license to use said software, and by using that software, he agreed to the license terms. Yes, licenses are even more virtual than a copy, but that's the way it is. Take another example: you can download a copy of Solaris 10 anytime you want for free... and you can use it for free under certain conditions. That's because the license permits it. As soon as you want to use that Solaris 10 copy that you downloaded for free for purposes outside the freeloader license, you need to cough up $$$$ to Oracle... not to get a new copy (you already have a copy!), but to get a new license.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
You don't want to get rid of licensing, then. You'd want a transferable license with no restrictions on use. Getting rid of licensing entirely would mean that either copying would be unrestricted, or restricted so tightly that you can't even use what you've bought.
Licensing, like all copyright law, is intended to protect the interests of the author. In this case, that's Sony. If you don't like it, don't agree to the license, and don't buy Sony's products.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I suggest you never buy something labeled "some assembly required." You're in for a very bad surprise.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
There is no such requirement in any jurisdiction I've looked at. A contract is just a formal agreement between parties. It can be a note on a cocktail napkin signed in a bar, and it's still legal (though drunkenness/competence affects the validity, but that varies by jurisdiction). There are some limits, but they're usually defined vaguely and differ for each jurisdiction. A contract requiring you to pay a friend $10,000 each day for no reason and no return is probably legitimate. A contract requiring you to change your name to Bob and move to Madagascar is probably not legitimate everywhere.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
And I didn't. All I own is PCs running Linux, and a N900, running Linux.
But the point still stands: my not buying of a console doesn't matter much in the end, as there's too little competition. If at some point it becomes impossible to buy a PC without this kind of restrictions, what would you recommend, leaving modern society and living in a hut?
No. What is important to me is the idea of that I absolutely own and control the things I paid for. Just voting with my dollars won't do, because I believe this is owed to me by virtue of having paid for the product, whatever the product that might be. As a result, currently I won't buy, but on a longer term I will support legislation that shifts people in my favour.
"For years I have been planning to get a PS3, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna give a penny to a company that is going to use the money to sue me and my peers... Guess I'll just have to buy used."
Shouldn't you have moved beyond the planning stage by now?
In any case, the complications arising from moving to the more complex used market combined with your historical performance record mean hopefully you'll get one some time in the 2020's - but I wouldn't count on it.
...ironic?
SONY Playstation 3 Console 160 GB Black $50 promotional gift card with purchase, ends 2/14"This DVD is licensed for private home viewing only. It is not licensed for any other use. Any public performance, copying or other use is strictly prohibited. All other rights reserved."
A movie, being clearly an audiovisual work, can only be displayed in any form anywhere by the copyright holder or the entities that the copyright holder has licensed to make such a display. That exclusivity is one of the basic provisions of copyright law.
You can buy any DVD you want, and it has a copy of the movie on it. You can't display the movie, even within your own home, without the proper license.
If software were sold, you'd just be granted the additional right to make an archive copy, resell it to someone else, and a few other trivial things. It's not that big a deal, because you certainly aren't being sold the copyrights to the software.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
There's exageration and then there's just plain lying through your teeth.
You can't have it both ways.
either you buy both the hardware and the software as a *system* or you buy one and the other is a completely seperate thing which you get free and which the company may withold if they feel like it.
I was already done with Sony. They don't even make high quality stuff anymore, it's all disposable junk they charge a premium to put their name on. The last straw was a BluRay movie, a $10 one, refusing to play on my PS3 without a firmware upgrade. WTF?!?!?! It's a PAID FOR MOVIE. Fuck you. Not only that, I think I'm going to start pirating all my media. I don't have to deal with this shit on pirated movies/games.
This is what I was thinking of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(legal)
it can be small, even a peppercorn will do but both parties have to promise something concrete. So your example of 10,000 each day for no reason wouldn't be a legal contract unless you were also required to give your friend something in return. Sonys eula binds them to do exactly nothing for you.
I honestly have no idea what you were trying to protray with that analogy.
Perhaps where you buy the car, it gets delivered to your house and then you open the hood to find a contract stuck to the inside of the bonnet reading "by opening this bonnet you agree to never ever alter this engine in any way and ford maintains ownership of this engine and you agree not to look at it, buy fuel from a non-ford liscenced petrol station or ever get it serviced at a non-ford liscenced mechanic or we will sue you"
I was talking about altering my property myself in my own home for my own enjoyment.
Who said anything about putting anything up on display etc?
Your point just shows how ridiculous software licenses are. Despite what vendors would have you believe, if you have a fully-functioning copy of the software on your own computer, trying to restrict what you do with it is technically and morally ridiculous.
I'd tell a UDP joke, but you may not get it. I'd tell a TCP joke, but I'd have to keep repeating it until you got it.
There is no such requirement in any jurisdiction I've looked at
I'm not sure which jurisdictions you've looked at but you may want to look again. Usually there are five elements of a valid contract:
Consideration is exactly what the gp post was talking about. Of course, never take legal advice on slashdot.
dunno why they think they can stop the hack. not even microsoft whent this crazy when the orignal xbox got softmodded. not that it effects me any i dont own a ps3 nor plan on ever owing one. heck when the ps2 got softmodded sony didnt say a word. what is there hardon with the ps3 there worst system ever relesed.
The nominal consideration would be that you get to use the software.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
These are the basic exclusive rights of the owner of the work. It says nothing about performing (i.e. Playing a record, dvd, whatever) in private. You have all the right to reproduce privately a legally owned copy of a copyrighted work, regardless of what any piece of paper attached to it might say. It's reproduction (copying), (re)distribution, PUBLIC performance, etc that are exclusive to the owner of the original work.
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
Agreed. The computer landscape is a bit different, for now, mostly because of the effort of open-source advocates with the same position as you and I. For what it's worth, I also have no consoles, but I do keep a Windows XP machine around for occasional use. I know exactly how little I can do with it, and I stay within those bounds.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
sony and apple seem to think the fair use rules done apply to them. so we get a legile mess to deal with and in the end they wind up losing. they knoe this will happon but they have to look good for there investors. being when the jailbrake got relesed there investers probly started dumping stock on sony. so sony response we will wast the courts time to looks good to the investers for the short term wile they are short selling there stock to make some quick bucks. being when they do lose the case there stock on the ps3 is gonna sink. lets not forget game devs that aruldy hated working on the system now have a excuse for not relesing anything for the ps3. its all smoke and mirrors.
I might have misunderstood you... Regardless, I think there's a misunderstanding here.
If your doodle could, as a whole, be separated from the literary work contained with it in the book, then there would not be any infringement. You do own the book. Since you do not own the literary work that the book contains, any use of that work would be derivative.
When I read your post initially, I took it to mean that the picture and page 57 would be a work of art together. Since page 57 would likely contain words, those words (and the part of the literary work they represent) would be an inseparable part of the cat picture, and could be reasonable justification for a lawsuit.
If you draw the picture such that it is separable from the words and story (such as in the margins then torn out), there is no copyright infringement.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
PART ONE - PerkS OF LANGUAGE:
Couldn't zero
Can't Eat
Feeling Evil
ate for
Central too
two seven
Found seven
five Bees
Done nothing
seven Agreements
seven Extrapolate
Bound eight
for six
five none
nine Felt
nintey three
Beat two
three ate
Except seven
seven zero
Digital Artifact
Censored Blocks
nien Faults
Fortune for
Alas three
eight ate
For eight
one too
forty ate
to Burst
Eventually two
one Broken
Let's (hypothetically) get rid of licensing, then.
I'm a software developer. I write a program, and sell it (in a legal sense) to one customer. He turns around, copies it at no cost to himself, and distributes it for free. Since I sold him the original, I'm screwed. I can't sell my work anymore. So much for eating next week. Maybe I should just keep producing. I'll make another program, and have the same experience. Now, this one took me three months to make, but at least I made $10 off of it. That ought to help well with the three months of food and shelter. I could go get a different job making something physical, but then why would I bother programming anything significant?
Or, I could keep copyright control of my work, and license it to each customer. Since I maintain exclusive control of each product, i don't have to worry about rampant copying.
The key difference between a creative work and a physical work is the cost of copying. An exact replica of a physical object still costs a significant amount to copy, just for raw materials and manufacturing. A creative work costs effectively nothing to reproduce today, and hasn't since the invention of the printing press. Following basic economics, that leads to rampant devaluation of the works, to the point where nobody can make a living producing them.
Fortunately for me, society has decided for the past few hundred years that creative works are valuable, and deserve protection from assholes.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
With PAX East coming up, it might be a good time for PA to weigh in on Sony's attack on gamers property rights. This was once the sort of stuff they would be all over. Would there be a more powerful statement against Sony then Pax banning any presence of the PS3 or PSP?
Yet PA silently stands by while free speech and property rights are raped by Sony.
They sold you silicon and a license to use the software, just like they said they would. If you choose to reject half of what you bought, it's not their fault.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Someone should start a bonfire of burning PS3's right in the middle of Times Square.
Throw in a bunch of other Sony products while you're at it. Burn pictures of Sony's CEO and stick
pins in a voodo doll that looks like him. Sell their frag'n stock short.
There, I feel better already.
That's assuming you own the work in question. You do not own the movie. You own the DVD that contains the movie, so you can copy and display that. Then there's also the issue of how closed a home has to be to be considered private, but even I'm not going to go there...
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Why exactly would I need a license to use a piece of software?
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
All your firmware are belong to us!
I'm not following you. What I quoted above refers to the exclusive rights of the owner of the work (say, Sony). That means that the rights listed above are the ones granted ONLY to the owner. Any other rights not mentioned there (or in the rest of the bill), are NOT exclusive to the owner of the work, and may be enjoyed by anyone. The right to privately perform (or play) a dvd, cd, etc is one such right, as it's not mentioned above.
The definition of 'privately' is usually a matter of common sense, and if you end up in a situation where it's not clear, then it's up to a jury or a judge to decide.
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
The last few times things like this happened, /. was one of the places where you'd find list of mirrors, and every 3rd comment was someone posting his mirror.
Now, it's all complaining, whining, and crying.
It may finally be time to let this site die.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Yes, you are the only one who:
- Doesn't know that Sony is a Japanese company
- Doesn't understand that the First Amendment applies to government regulation of speech
- Doesn't understand that the Fourth Amendment applies to government search&seizure, and does not make subpoenas illegal
- Doesn't understand that the First and Fourth Amendments don't apply to "other citizens around the world"
- Doesn't realize how idiotic it sounds to want the FBI to investigate a company should they comply with a subpoena issued by a federal judge
Your heart is in the right place. But your brain, well, it could use some work.
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
It's such a shame. Sony used to be the best consumer electronics company. The problems started when Sony added Sony Music, which had the side effect of Sony not launching a MP3 player until years after other companies. Sony Music didn't want Sony Consumer Electronics making a device that might allow music copying. It got worse when Sony added Sony Pictures. They could have made the killer set top box but Sony Pictures didn't want Sony CE making a device that might hurt DVD sales. Now we have Sony suing people who are ostensibly trying to get back functionality that they took away. This sue your customers business model has got to stop.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
Instead of rick-rolling we need to start ps3 hack-rolling and give them some real numbers to try suing. I want to see them sending out millions of lawsuit letters to everyone who thought they were gonna see the new Beiber video.
Doesn't know that Sony is a Japanese company
Uh, that was kind of my point.
Doesn't understand that the First Amendment applies to government regulation of speech
Doesn't understand that the Fourth Amendment applies to government search&seizure, and does not make subpoenas illegal
Who do you think *approves* the subpoena...McDonalds?
Doesn't understand that the First and Fourth Amendments don't apply to "other citizens around the world"
Yes, because no other country has any laws protecting privacy and offering protection against search and seizure.
Doesn't realize how idiotic it sounds to want the FBI to investigate a company should they comply with a subpoena issued by a federal judge
The issue was whether they would comply *without* a court order. And whether or not a court would (or, rather, should) issue such an order.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
No, he bought a copy. The fact that it might be accompanied by a license is another matter, open to discussion as Sarten-X pointed out. But when you go into a store, pick up a dvd, a game or a cd, you're BUYING a copy. It doesn't matter what papers the company puts in the box, it's your copy, and as long as you don't violate copyright law (or any other law, like the DMCA), you can do anything you want with it.
Some of those laws say that you can't perform publicly, redistribute, etc. but nowhere at all it says you can't privately use what you bought, or that they get to dictate how you can or cannot use your own stuff outside of what the law says. And yes, that copy is your own stuff.
Even if EULAs are considered a legal contract, no contract can strip away any of your legal rights. Law is above contracts, just as the Constitution is above Laws.
Licenses can give additional rights to the consumer, but they cannot take away any rights.
"A software license agreement is a contract between the "licensor" and purchaser of the right to use software. The license may define ways under which the copy can be used, in addition to the automatic rights of the buyer including the first sale doctrine and 17 U.S.C. 117 (freedom to use, archive, re-sale, and backup)."
(...)
"Some copyright owners use EULAs in an effort to circumvent limitations the applicable copyright law places on their copyrights (such as the limitations in sections 107-122 of the United States Copyright Act), or to expand the scope of control over the work into areas for which copyright protection is denied by law (such as attempting to charge for, regulate or prevent private performances of a work beyond a certain number of performances or beyond a certain period of time). Such EULAs are, in essence, efforts to gain control, by contract, over matters upon which copyright law precludes control.
In disputes of this nature, cases are often appealed and different circuit courts of appeal sometimes disagree about these clauses. This provides an opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, which it has usually done in a scope-limited and cautious manner, providing little in the way of precedent or settled law.[citation needed]"
I recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement#Enforceability
Especially the part about Enforceability of EULAs in the United States, near the bottom.
I'd love it if Lawrence Lessig saw this thread and gave his opinion. He knows this stuff like the palm of his hand, plus he's good at explaining it :)
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
Licensing is not law, it's a form of contract (to simplify things). Getting rid of licensing wouldn't make copying unrestricted. Copying is restricted by Copyright Law, which allows for private use perfectly well.
Authors have some exclusive rights to what they create. Once they sell a copy of that to someone else, they don't get to dictate how that someone else uses that copy outside of copyright law.
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
Completely wrong. You don't need to license at all to restrict redistribution. Any original work of yours is automatically copyrighted (though registration is encouraged and can save you a headache), and you hold the exclusive right to (re)distribution. Even if there's no license, no one obtaining a copy is allowed to distribute any further copies without your permission. That is your right under copyright law. Licenses have absolutely nothing to do with that.
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
We here at sony have the right to make money. All you hacker, crackers, and slashdotters think you are all so smart. Remember we have to feed our families and put bread on the table. For every hack posted, more of our families are starving. So to all of you hacking, thinking of hacking, dreaming of hacking, watching others hack, or talking about hacking - we will find you and destroy you to keep food on our table. You may have purchased a PS3, but we still own it, every last one. We have the law on our side. We will hunt you down, your children and mothers. We will sue anyone in our way or in our line of sight. You are all guilty of grievous actions. We will make you pay for starving our families. You think you can do what you want, but we are in control. Thees are our game consoles. We are collecting your IP address and are sending subpeonas to slashdot and your service provider as we speak.
With that out of the way, please indicate below if you want to sign up for a %10 discount coupon for our new PS4 and be one of the first to receive this new and best playstation ever. ________________
The PS3 does various validations of the software being loaded.
This hack breaks that validation.
That makes it a circumvention device in that it circumvents the checks/validation.
Oh.. and "device" in this case can be a piece of software too, not just hardware.
Viewed and commented upon a YouTube video?
Really?
For sale: 1 PS3.
No, it doesn't. It creates images which pass the validation.
Let me rephrase:
"I creates images which pass validation without the explicit permission of Sony. This would circumvent the protection."
I personally dont agree that the code should be any kind of illegal, but I do see Sony's side of it and I hope the courts will come down on the side of the consumer and not Sony.
Sony has been acting seriously consumer hostile for at least a couple of decades. I personally stopped buying their products after I bought an "MP3" player that would only play ATRAC, not MP3. Event though they have had some good tech, I consequently don't even look at their products. Most tech savy people i know feel the same way and we nerds have a lot of sway when it comes to influencing other people buying tech.
Sony need a total change of leadership, so they can start focusing on selling customers things they need instead of screwing their customers. Or maybe its best they just go down in flames. For me they are nothing but an annoyance everytime they come up in the news with some new pathetic scheme.
and you still seem to be implying that without any copying or sales of work that copyright kicks in despite copyright being about *copying*
it only says they *may* allow me to use it.
they promise nothing whatsoever.
so there is no nominal consideration, there is nothing promised. As written you could follow every single rule and they could simply not provide any service of any kind.
so there is no contract.
only a company wishlist.
They sell me a system.
later they try to pretend that no they didn't really sell me it *after* they've claimed that they're selling me a whole system and *after* they've already accepted my money.
do you honestly see absolutely nothing dishonest or generally scummy about such attempts to change a bargain after the fact?
Better to be safe than sorry. Google and slashdot should release the complete list of all ips that have every visited their sites.
Truth: If it's not one thing, it's another
How about you take their licence agreement, cross out the parts you don't like, sign and date it, then place it, with a copy of your own EULA stating your preferred terms for use of the console, into an envelope and send it via registered mail to SCEA. Don't forget to include something along the lines of "by opening this envelope, you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA..." :)
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Yes, you own the console, and Sony has been kind enough to grant you a license to use a certain bit of their software on it. Remove all their software (and anything else with a legally-binding contract limiting its use) and you'll be able to do whatever you want with it. That also includes the chip firmware, so you'll have a lovely paperweight that might barely have the functionality to turn on a LED, but it will be all yours.
If I paid $1000 for rent this past month, who owns the house I live in? THE LANDLORD. I still can't do major changes to the house or property, can't burn it down, can't use it as security for a loan... and I have to abide by all the terms I agreed to in the lease, which is a legally-binding contract just like the software license you agreed to. You did read it, didn't you?
I just fired up my 3 most modern consoles: Wii, PS2, and XBox (don't own a 360 or PS3). None of them presented me with any sort of license that I had to agree to before I could use them. That means that the only thing I am bound by is actual copyright law. By using the software "hardwired" into the hardware, I am agreeing to not copy and distribute it without the manufacturer's permission. Nothing more, nothing less. If they have a problem with that, they can go fuck themselves. If they want to try to enforce a non-existent license, they would have to attempt to physically confiscate my property, which would require forceful entry into my home. Fortunately, I have 2 security devices to discourage them: one 7mm and one 9mm.
So, does the PS3 present a license agreement that you have to click through every time you boot it up, or do you just boot right to whatever game you have inserted?
This space unintentionally left blank.
Sony is trying to fight a losing battle with this one and of course obligatory mirrors http://sites.google.com/site/eclement/ps3jailbreak or http://qoaa.blogspot.com/2011/02/ps3-jailbreak.html
>>>Yes, you own the console, and Sony has been kind enough to grant you a license to use a certain bit of their software on it.
I have a license agreement too.
It says Sony has to service my willy at least once a month. If they don't agree to these terms, they may refund my $700 and come to collect the PS3.
End Of Line. ----- I'd also like to see the CEO die. He is getting pretty old, and maybe the new one won't be a dick.
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
access to all the Kings' horses and all the Kings' men...
Nah. Doesn't follow. I have made up the number 1222884, does this grant me exclusive rights over its use?
I have invented the equation x=1/27y, again do I get exclusive rights over its use?
If you think that code is different - then why? What law would grant it this particular status, and in which jurisdictions?
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
That's something the lawyers can argue about all day. Personally I'd argue it isn't circumvention, any more than opening a safe by entering the combination is circumvention of the safe lock. I doubt it'll ever make it to court, though.
"Hackers" are GOOD for business. Pay attention to what they are doing. They are showing you new ways to use your product. If there was no demand, nobody would do it. So consider the 'hackers' as a freebie addition to your R&D department. There are so many good minds out there with original ideas and they will make money for you if you would just loosen up a bit!