Slashdot Mirror


Sony's War On Makers, Hackers, and Innovators

ptorrone writes "MAKE Magazine takes a look at Sony's history of suing makers, hackers and innovators. Over the last decade Sony has been targeting legitimate innovation, hobbyists, and competition. From picking on people who want to program their robot dogs to dance to suing people who want to run their own software on something they bought. Sony has made so many mistakes with technology choices (Memory Stick, Magic Gate, UMD!), perhaps they'll end themselves soon enough, but until then MAKE is keeping score for Sony's all-out war on tinkerers."

317 comments

  1. It's the robots... by enaso1970 · · Score: 2

    Tinkerers tend to, well, tinker with their parts.

  2. SONY ROOTKIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nuff said

  3. A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by kmdrtako · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Considering their (high end) TVs and cameras, and I'd hazard a guess that their Blu-Ray players as well, all run Linux you'd think they'd be FOSS friendly, wouldn't you?

    Maybe someone just needs to explain things to them.

    I sure hope there's no Linux code in anywhere in the PS3 code base.

    1. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Using FOSS doesn't necessarily mean you're FOSS-friendly. It means you're technically adept (because FOSS software usually tends to be better than proprietary) and/or a cheap bastard.

      Contributing to FOSS, whether in terms of user support, code contributions, monetary donations, means you're FOSS-friendly. Sony has done none of those things. Sony is no more FOSS-friendly than a black hat who happens to use Linux (actually that's unfair, black hats probably help out noobs in the forums).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Be fair. This should read:

      "Some FOSS, worked on by a competent team, revised often with care towards the experience of users other than the authors and attention to the forward pace of current technology, can equal or better proprietary software".

      You and I (and everybody else) have used some pretty godawful pieces of FOSS on pretty much any given OS, as well as the gems. There's nothing about FOSS that inherently makes it better.

    3. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by commodore6502 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >>>FOSS software usually tends to be better than proprietary

      I probably shouldn't question this.
      I probably should just walk-away and protect my karma.
      Nah.
      Please show me FOSS software that's better than ModelSim, Mentor's Schematic Capture/layout, or even something basic like - Microsoft Word or Outlook. I don't buy the argument that FOSS is usually better.

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    4. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      >>>FOSS software usually tends to be better than proprietary

      I probably shouldn't question this.
      I probably should just walk-away and protect my karma.
      Nah.
      Please show me FOSS software that's better than ModelSim, Mentor's Schematic Capture/layout, or even something basic like - Microsoft Word or Outlook. I don't buy the argument that FOSS is usually better.

      "or even something basic like - Microsoft Word or Outlook."
      outlook? haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    5. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by jedidiah · · Score: 0

      You and I (and everybody else) have used some pretty godawful pieces of payware on pretty much any given OS.

      The thing about Free Software is that it's probably built with the user in mind or with some purpose other than making money.

      It's much like things that are not "corporate art" in that respect.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by jedidiah · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Neither msword nor outlook are anything to write home about or hold up as examples.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    7. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For-profit development does often manage to keep a wider range of users in mind than itch driven development (which often tends to keep a very small number of user in mind).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I didn't say payware was any better. I just said that nothing about the fact that the author isn't taking money for his work magically makes the work any better, and of course the argument works just as well in reverse.

      I'm not sure where you get the idea that FOSS is somehow more targeted at the user than pay software. In my experience, most FOSS starts off as "I wrote this for myself. The interface is kinda wonky, but it works for me, maybe some of you guys can get some use out of it too" and grows from there. Playing devil's advocate here, pay software on the other hand is written specifically to be sold to customers and therefore if it has a wonky interface and is missing features customers want, chances are it won't sell (unless it's bundled with MS office or is made by Apple and the name starts with a lowercase "i").

    9. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's true, and neither are they "basic": both are massive and complex applications.

      This is actually common mistake: if something is used everyday bye everyone, it must be simple and "basic". The reality is that modern web browsers, PIM suites and word processing software are extremely complex pieces of software.

    10. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Not all FOSS is better than all proprietary, but in generally it usually is.

      Evolution is better than Outlook. I'd even say Thunderbird is better than Outlook. Outlook is a buggy, slow POS.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    11. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by commodore6502 · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      But there's also nothing better than MS Word (LibreOffice can't handle complex docs) or MS Outlook, especially for a demanding corporate environment.

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    12. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Please show me FOSS software that's better...

      Check the price tag...

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    13. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by gpuk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Show me the commercial equivalents that beat: apache, postgresql (for db tasks other than mega-enterprise grade), bind, svn, git, firefox/chrome, postfix (for non-groupware mail servers), ssh, vsftpd, squid...

      Those are just off the top of my head

    14. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Considering their (high end) TVs and cameras, and I'd hazard a guess that their Blu-Ray players as well, all run Linux you'd think they'd be FOSS friendly, wouldn't you?

      They use free software and they fulfill their obligations. I'm sure you could also find projects where they've made substantial contributions too.

      None of which means squat for the current situation. They're going after people modding their closed source firmware with the ultimate goal of facilitating piracy and other unauthorised mods. I doubt they would give a rat's ass if someone produced a 1-way firmware update that turned a PS3 into a dedicated Linux box running XBMC.

    15. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LaTeX

    16. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      "Better" in what way? MS Notepad is better than MS Word. It doesn't have all this messy font crap, and autoformatting that screws up dates. It doesn't annoy you by trying to pretend you've mis-spelled words. It doesn't require a fast processor, several gigabytes of hard disk space and at least a gigabyte of memory, to *not quite* manage to do what WordStar did on a Z80 with 64k of RAM and a 5.25" floppy.

    17. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Counterargument: Vertical market software where the intended market numbers in the dozens of installations for highly specialist fields.

      Another counterargument: Linux, with a userbase of tens of millions of installations.

      But yeah, "often" is a fair usage in your sentence, because it actually says nothing whatsoever about the prevalence of your example. But the rest of your sentence seems to be constructed to shade "often" to mean "most often" in the first case and "less often" in the second occurrence, which is quite likely not accurate.

      That's not a very fair discussion technique. Very.... "weasel word" ish.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    18. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Sean+Hederman · · Score: 1

      Ummm, and it's proprietary...

    19. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a Sony BDP-S350 Bluray player and it came with a copy of the GPL. I eventually traded it up for a PS3 to play BDs on. On my Bravia. I also have a Vaio. Oh my god i am a bad person.

      edit: When i hit submit, the CAPCHA was "dispose". I think slashcode is becoming sentient.

    20. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      You can't expect people to follow unwritten "rules" - though feel free to drop the hammer on them if they are indeed not playing by the written rules.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    21. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW, "misspelled" has no hyphen in it, which Word is aware of even if you're not.

    22. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Duradin · · Score: 2

      "The thing about Free Software is that it's probably built with the user in mind or with some purpose other than making money."

      Yes, the user's suffering from the war-atrocity UI and lack of intelligible documentation is at the forefront of most Free Software creators' minds.

    23. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by maxume · · Score: 1

      I disagree that it is weasel wordish, I'm simply not trying to make an absolute statement, because I know such a statement to be untrue (for instance, Apache). I was also being snarky, "STFU NEWB" is prevalent enough behavior to have become a stereotype, which is what I was riffing on when I implied that free software developers occasionally happen to be developing software simply for their own use (which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do).

      (Linux does enjoy widespread use, but there are more user installations of each of 2 closed commercial operating systems, and there are plenty of closed competitors in the embedded space, so it's probably best to call it a draw)

      But yeah, I probably didn't contribute a great deal to the discussion.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    24. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      It's all well if they ARE using Linux code. BUT if they are in violation of the GPL, THEY need to be sued themselves and the products pulled from the market until the issue is resolved.

    25. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Script+Cat · · Score: 1

      It's hard to say if it's better. But with respect to Model sim and Mentor, there is
      "gnu electric" and "ghdl" to paly with. Let us know if these are good.

    26. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      +1 Insightful. I think it's fair to say that most open source projects would never be created if there were an available solution that met the need.

    27. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insert a table into notepad to show your boss the gap between your pay, how much you save the company on a regular basis, and what you want them to raise your pay to as a result.

      kthx

    28. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in my world. I work for a several-hundred-million dollar company, and OpenOffice works very well for me. I'm not trying to use it for intensive desktop publishing, rather longer documents with TOC's, foot- and endnotes, integrated links and fields, charts and graphs. If I need to use something intensive for desktop publishing, I use a tool designed for that purpose -- QuarkXpress.

    29. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Man, You like to throw gasoline on fire :)
      (And i agree. Is stupid to say that one software is "better" only because is FOSS.)

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    30. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A demanding corporate environment where trying to do the simplest task requires a call to the helpdesk because neither of those pieces of crap even come close to being easy to use.

    31. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Hell the magic 8 ball knew that years before outlook even existed... almost like a prophecy..

      "Outlook not so good"

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    32. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't really call this one of Sony's technological mistakes - more like a company starting to think in terms of "Now that we have them sold, how do we make more money out of them?" and looking ahead at it's attempt to cash in on a SSaS implementation they have likely not yet determined how to charge for yet. Though with all the stories I hear about people having issues hacking their robots, why are people like the makers of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nao_(robot) wasting their time with soccer robots instead of targeting a community of hackers first?

    33. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Nikker · · Score: 1

      We should probably hand that question off to Darl.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    34. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I would be most surprised if there actually wasn't any open source in there somewhere. Of course, how you find and prove it is a non-trivial issue.

    35. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      The thing about Free Software is that it's probably built with the user in mind or with some purpose other than making money.

      Actually, a famous and well-publicized problem with Free Software is that it's built with the creator in mind, who is in no way an average user. It's often very powerful, but usually only user-friendly to advanced users.

      Though there are exceptions, of course.

    36. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (because FOSS software usually tends to be better than proprietary)

      That's quite the statement.

      See: Skarecrow77's response.

    37. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Show me the FOSS attempts that beat -- or even match -- Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Premier, Adobe Flash Pro (not the client), Sony Vegas, MS Visual Studio, MS Excel, MS Project, WinRAR, QuickBooks, TurboTax, Google Search, GMail, Picasa, Facebook, etc. And let's not get started on entire categories where FOSS efforts are minimal or entirely absent: games, navigation, business software (point-of-sale, processing, inventory management, banking, medical, legal, industrial), and let's throw in AI software like Watson while we're at it, if only because it comes from IBM, one of the biggest commercial OSS advocates ever.

      Those are just off the top of my head.

      Now granted, the technologies behind some of those products may be FOSS, but that's not really the point. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of drivers compiled with gcc, but that doesn't inherently make them any more useful, or any higher quality. Also, Chrome itself is not open source.

    38. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe someone just needs to explain things to them.

      Maybe we should just ignore Sony. Shunning is probably the least costly and most effective way of getting "entities" to get with the program.

    39. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evolution is better than Outlook. I'd even say Thunderbird is better than Outlook. Outlook is a buggy, slow POS.

      Someday, you'll graduate from college. Then you'll get a job. Then you'll realise why Outlook is superior than Evo/tbird.

    40. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I'm using it at my job right now, it still sucks pretty hard. I do realize why it's..."superior" (more like easier) from an administration perspective, but from an end-user perspective it's still a POS.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    41. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Only in the "American English" patois.

    42. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but Krita wipes its ass with Photoshop and has done for a long time. The only people still using WinRAR are the ones living in a cave who've never heard of 7-Zip.

    43. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by tqk · · Score: 1

      ... LibreOffice can't handle complex docs ...

      Most people don't create complex docs. Most people can very easily do fine with Wordpad. This includes highly paid technical people in big companies. I've watched an accountant punch a column of numbers in a spreadsheet on his screen into a calculator to sum them.

      What do I know? I prefer vi AND emacs.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    44. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all FOSS is better than all proprietary, but in generally it usually is.

      Evolution is better than Outlook. I'd even say Thunderbird is better than Outlook. Outlook is a buggy, slow POS.

      Evolution is not a very good example. All of my experiences with Evolution have mirrored your description of Outlook, namely buggy and slow. I cannot use a machine before installing Thunderbird.

      I'm forced to use Outlook at work and have had far fewer problems than I've ever had with Evolution, but not at all problem free.

    45. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Please show me FOSS software that's better than ModelSim, Mentor's Schematic Capture/layout, or even something basic like - Microsoft Word or Outlook."

      The entire Linux Kernel, for one. MenuetOS, number two. Half of the stuff I've been developing for horticultural production systems, number three. Thunderbird, number four (which isn't half as exploitable as Outlook...)

      Want me to keep going? I can. Blender, Firefox, Audacity.

      Still not convinced? You aren't paying much attention while locked in your Windows world.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    46. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your joking about Mentor's Schematic Capture/layout right?

    47. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Thunderbird doesn't auto-run bullshit.

      And I'm a research director - what the fuck would YOU know, son? Have YOU even graduated college?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    48. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "And let's not get started on entire categories where FOSS efforts are minimal or entirely absent: games,"

      Whooo you don't know anything about id Software, do you? That's a DAMN shame, you'd figure someone with a lower UID would have a better grasp on software history.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    49. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      A popular FOSS app is rarely better than the popular commercial products it's mimicking, but it's usually better than something J. Corporate Devteam can build from the ground up. I.e., good FOSS apps are generally in the upper half of the bell curve for features and quality. But not too far up in the upper half.

    50. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by brit74 · · Score: 1

      "It means you're technically adept (because FOSS software usually tends to be better than proprietary) and/or a cheap bastard."

      Nonsense. FOSS suffers from one major problem that has always plagued it - it's hard to make a business model out of it, and without a business model, you end up with a bunch of volunteer contributions. Volunteers can be flakey, lack long-term interest or a host of other problems. There's a lot of benefits to having software built by payed developers. By in large, I can almost always find proprietary software that is superior to open source software. The only reason I even use open source is not because it's better (because it's not), but because it's cheaper. In the few cases where I'd actually say that open-source is good it either: was a commercial product that was released as open-soource, or managed to find one of the few business models available to open-source software (for example, in the case of Linux: RedHat makes money from training and support, Firefox gets hundreds of millions of dollars from Google, or in the case of Nokia: making money selling hardware). I could easily come up with a long list of proprietary software that beats out open-source versions -- and I can do that even if I ignore the terrible competition of open-source games and 3d engines against their stunningly good proprietary counterparts.

      Go ahead and vote me down. It won't solve the number one problem plaguing open-source software. Maybe you should think about creating durable business models for open-source instead of saying the problem doesn't exist.

    51. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If your Outlook "auto-runs" anything, you're either using a really old version, or your box is already screwed.

    52. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Not all FOSS is better than all proprietary, but in generally it usually is.

      Video games being a big exception to your "generally".

    53. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      id doesn't release its engines until they're essentially obsolete. Good for educational value, but not necessarily pushing the envelope of OSS design. Next?

    54. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Krita.. you are funny. And when's the last time you created a set of RARs with 7-Zip? Hint: Never.

    55. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Yeah fair enough. The problem is that games require a huge amount of development to be done in a short space of time, and a lot of non-programming talent, which FOSS projects are always short on.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    56. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by tepples · · Score: 1

      For one thing, Id Software source releases are always delayed by about five years. For another, the required data files are never released as free cultural works.

    57. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adobe Photoshop - for 98% of the population, including me who has a micro 4/3, The Gimp is really just as good as the pirated version of Photoshop the rest of you use
      Adobe Premier - yeah so many people need/use this...
      Sony Vegas - there's nothing better than this really for video game jerks to make e-peen videos, so I'll give you this one
      MS Visual Studio - really? Eclipse is a better all around IDE if we're talking about IDEs, VS sucks, and no one who has to use VS even likes it in my experience
      Excel - Libre Office Calc is just as good unless you need a pivot table and really when is the last time a normal person needed one?
      Project - I don't know for a fact that it's better, but there are OSS solutions to this one
      WinRAR - inferior in every way to IZArc, which isn't OSS but is free
      Quickbooks - is crap for most users, even MoneyDance is better and cheaper, GNU Cash is actually just as good if you need double ledger
      TurboTax - use their website doofus, this is a non-starter
      Google crap - first of all, Google does open source a lot of their crap, most of Chrome is as well or there wouldn't be Iron, would there? Android is also open source, you're being disingenious on that one

      And in the server world OSS software reigns supreme, it powers nearly everything. It powers your little devices, it probably powers your coffee maker.

    58. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome itself is not open source

      Chromium certainly is, and that is where development happens.

      WinRar -- I find most open source archiving programs to be much superior to that piece of junk.

    59. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      Show me the FOSS attempts that beat -- or even match -- Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Premier, Adobe Flash Pro (not the client), Sony Vegas, MS Visual Studio, MS Excel, MS Project, WinRAR, QuickBooks, TurboTax, Google Search, GMail, Picasa, Facebook, etc. And let's not get started on entire categories where FOSS efforts are minimal or entirely absent: games, navigation, business software (point-of-sale, processing, inventory management, banking, medical, legal, industrial), and let's throw in AI software like Watson while we're at it, if only because it comes from IBM, one of the biggest commercial OSS advocates ever.

      Well, I am not going to argue that there are superior FOSS equivalents in every category, because there aren't. But some of the examples you gave aren't particularly good.

      MS Visual Studio - Eclipse. I used to be a VS fan but it's hard to argue that Eclipse isn't at least as good as VS.

      WinRAR - Seriously? WinRAR? As far as I can tell the only common use for RAR files is pirated content. For other uses 7-zip compresses better and is faster.

      Watson - As a grad student working on an NLP-based question answering system, this is particularly laughable. Huge parts of Watson are based on FOSS from outside researchers, and the framework that Watson is built on (UIMA) is an Apache project.

    60. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by noobermin · · Score: 1

      A few of the applications you mentioned that are supposedly better are "better" simply out of opinion.

      MS Visual Studio: you have got to be kidding. I have a great alternative, emacs/vim and a console with standard utilities in a tiling WM. VS being "better" really is a matter of opinion.

      WinRAR: a little too easy, there are many archive management tools out there that are at least good enough for me (karch or something, for e.g.)

      Adobe Flash Pro: it's like me asking you what are better proprietary text editors that give sed-like functionality. (well, not really, but yeah), you'd normally not use sed on anything but FOSS systems (i guess proprietary unix has something, but I can't compare). Flash is a proprietary platform (and from a users perspective, a shit one that I can't wait to uninstall)

      gmail, picasa, and facebook: sites? again, the "technologies behind" the sites are a bit more deep than just compiling something with gcc, it is more likely than not that they use FOSS in operation, such as being run by linux based systems, etc. And that "Chrome itself is not open source" is knit-picking.

    61. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by noobermin · · Score: 1

      I prefer vi AND emacs.

      Yes, that is abnormal, something is wrong with you.

    62. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outlook? MsWord? Don't make me laugh my ass off.

    63. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by 19061969 · · Score: 1

      And I would add that an enormous amount (quite probably the majority) of effective NLP software is open source too.

      --
      bang goes my karma... again...
    64. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by tqk · · Score: 1

      I prefer vi AND emacs.

      Yes, that is abnormal, something is wrong with you.

      You joke? Okay, I preach. Sorry, not funny. Don't equate different/abnormal with wrong.

      Suck it up. vi is fast, quick, everywhere there is *nix, and emacs is a great developer's editor/environment/Operating System that CAN run anywhere vi can run these days. To an old guard *nix guy whose first look at *nix was an amber on black cathode tube display, modern Linux/FLOSS is gorgeous! grep has color support built in! Looking at code in modern vi(m) or emacs can be a trancendental experience to a programmer. Well, it can be to me. Having emacs auto-reformat it to my standard with little more than multiple TabKey entries is marvelous!!!!!!!1 Indent might do it, but emacs does it realtime better. Thanks RMS. # why's that "1" always there?

      It's actually good for the soul to be different, or distinct, in any way you can (short of violence or corruption against others). It can lead you into research areas you'd not find otherwise. I recommend it, and you might enjoy it!

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    65. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      And once obsolete someone comes along and modernizes the shit out of it.

      Seen Urban Terror, lately?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    66. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except you and some mods think this is a pissing match. Parent never said FOSS didn't put out good software. He was challenging grandparents statement that it tended to be better.

      You, in typical thread fashion, missed the context in which a post was made. This is, incidentally, also why people have shied away from FOSS--you can't reply in honesty to something without some followup nitpick or, in this case, just completely off the ball. I love FOSS but this "it's all great" crap is bs.

      Even one of your mentions, postfix, came about because fo the complete and utter failure of the previous smtp (the one that had a security hole every 3 weeks in the mid 90s).

      btw, to answer one of your claims:

      firefox/chrome -- Opera; interestingly, the reason Chrome rocks is because of Google, not the community at large. Firefox has easily been bested, and Chrome has issues with its oversimplicity in some cases, esp. with some feature removal that happened last year with unsecured elements on SSL'd pages. Even there, IE rocks both Opera and Chrome there. Firefox has been shit the last couple of releases. I'd also mention Kmellon but I never looked up it's origins.

    67. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by metamatic · · Score: 1

      And when's the last time you created a set of RARs with 7-Zip? Hint: Never.

      Why would you create RAR files when you can create 7z archives that are smaller, and aren't in a proprietary archive format?

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    68. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've used a lot of e-mail programs, including an absolute PoS called TAO, but nothing has been as bad as Outlook. Encouraging "stationary" that others set to multi-meg image files. (Where do they find them?!) An auto-correct that doesn't respect the "off" switch and continues to "correct" acronyms. Auto-capitalization that you have to fight when you break a line into 3 because something in the middle needs to be distinct. The worry of macro-viruses. (Seriously, why is it a POSSIBILITY for these to run on any account but the one they're created in?) Using Exchange instead of SMTP/POP3 to make writing a replacement difficult. (TAO had a non-standard server as well.) Adding a calendar that if your every minute isn't planned out everyone else thinks it's a-ok to schedule you for hours-long conference calls. Using aliases instead of real e-mail addresses which makes explaining what an e-mail address actually is a constant pain when using NetMeeting for tech support. (Just type a@a.a) OLE embedding that happily accepts any image... as a bitmap, wasting space. (Though really, this is a bit of an OLE issue, but the image could be stored as a PNG, JPG or GIF attachment by default with a non-standard header giving a byte position into the e-mail that the file should appear at.) An attachment filter that blocks XML, EXEs but lets through the same files when zipped. Cutting and pasting from different sources changes font-color, face and size non-stop. I have to go back and change these at the end unless sending as plain text. (Which disables some of the auto-correct crap)

      I used to think the lack of search-ability in TAO plus the mouse-wheel being ignored or mis-handled made it the worst around...

      Any open source product? Pine, the command-line based e-mail client that uses Pico for editing wasn't a constant annoyance to use. Admittedly using it was like using EDIT in DOS (though it may well have been far more powerful) but it didn't go behind your back changing things, my #1 complaint about Outlook.

      For an example of how e-mail should work (also commercial), Eudora, a MUCH better example of good e-mail. (Or was back in college where I used to use it before moving to web-mail.) Looking it up now Eudora is starting to embrace open-source.

      Microsoft Word? Too slow to load, constant forced upgrades because people can't be taught to save files as an earlier version, embedded into Outlook as the editor that constantly changes what I type. That said I only use it at work and as far as I know open source equivalents are the same. At home (on Windows) I use Notepad (fast) for personal things or Wordpad if something needs formatting. Give Wordpad a spellcheck and it would be a good enough word-processor for most.

      High end modeling software... probably better closed source. There's lots of competition for e-mail and word processing, the market is huge. Specialty apps, not so much. If looking at schematics becomes trendy, expect a few dozen (some quality) open source projects that do what the commercial software does to pop up, until then...

      People build software that will either
      a: be widely used (giving some minor fame)
      or
      b: they themself will use on a regular basis

      That said, with Arduino around and hardware getting easier to play with expect more people branching out from that starting point. Schematics may become popular coming up. 3-D modeling... wait til computers are fast enough that it's like showing 2-D images now. Once the hardware is there that it moves from being a delay-ridden process to something snappy it'll catch on. It may also get big if haptics gloves catch on. If people can build a shape from lego-ish blocks that stick together, have a snap-to function and they can position with their own hands (handing with a mouse in many programs is rather clumsy) it'll catch on. What's commonly seen of 3-D looks painful. (Also a bit of a restricted audience because many people lack artistic talent and will have as much trouble with a mouse as a pencil.)

      Is open source always better? No.
      It open source always inferior? No.

      I agree with your message but not with some of your examples.

    69. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by gpuk · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I think both our viewpoints are skewed.

      Judging from the software you've listed, you are approaching this more from an end-user/desktop point of view and I think I have to largely agree with you - open-source desktop software still lags commercial equivalents in some important areas (although WinRAR is definitely well past its sell by date). Also agree with a comment further down that the apparent quality (or not) of desktop software can be quite subjective (certainly more so than server software for example where ones cares more about RFC compliance, security, ease of administration etc).

      My list of software came more from the sys admin/sever point of view (because that's what I spend 99% of my time doing) and in that part of the computing landscape, open-source wins hands down (imho).

    70. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by foobsr · · Score: 1

      It's actually good for the soul to be different, or distinct, in any way you can ...

      I bet it is more like 'it is good (for the soul) to be embedded in a group that feels different ...'.

      Problems probably arise when there is the need to transgress group borders (e.g. switching from a job within academia to market research, as I did (long ago, but, IMHO, the point is still valid)).

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    71. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by tqk · · Score: 1

      It's actually good for the soul to be different, or distinct, in any way you can ...

      I bet it is more like 'it is good (for the soul) to be embedded in a group that feels different ...'.

      What?!? No. We're all groups of ones. Individuals are the only group I care about.

      Be a mensch, be distinct, stand out, make your mark, be something! It's an adventure. :-) It'll be fun! Don't hurt anyone.

      Damn, that's my new .sig!

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    72. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by foobsr · · Score: 1

      What?!? No. We're all groups of ones. Individuals are the only group I care about.
      As much as I value your point of view and also, as I believe, care more about individuals, I build my reality in a different (!) way, knowing that I can not escape the influence of peers (though I can withstand peer-group pressure). Also, I am well aware of the scene when Zappa says 'Don't kid yourselves, everybody in this room is wearing a uniform'.
      BTW, your new .sig is not contradicting and resembles much of what I try to achieve practicing TaiChi.
      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    73. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Why would I ever insert a table into a word processor document?

    74. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So desktop software in Linux is crappy and people run screaming away from it. So Linux is a nice server OS (not good, not excellent, not innovative and certainly not the best.) What else is news?

      (What's better than Linux you say? I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.)

    75. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by kubernet3s · · Score: 1

      No. The only issue with non-MS office suites is that they don't play nice with MS. OpenOffice works just fine for .odt files, as complex as you like. Yes, MS products will be better at being MS products. Just because something is the standard doesn't mean it's better, it just means everyone uses it.

    76. Re:A nice call from a FSF lawyer perhaps? by kubernet3s · · Score: 1

      Chromium doesn't count!!@!

  4. It's simple by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's simple. Vote with your wallet and don't buy Sony. Even if they make something which looks nice, DON'T BUY IT. Basically, they hate their customers and unless you stop buying from them, they will never stop abusing their customers.

    As an added bonus, if you don't buy from them, they can't abuse you.

    So, it's simple. Every slashdotter should know this by now. If you're on slashdot and complaining about recent bad experiences with Sony, then it's your own fault and you do not have my sympathy.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:It's simple by Abstrackt · · Score: 2

      So, it's simple. Every slashdotter should know this by now.

      There's the problem, every Slashdotter knows this but what about everybody else? Your average consumer doesn't know/care about any of this and until they do, this whole issue is going to continue for the rest of us. As long as the majority of Sony's customers just want to play on their PS3 and believe all hackers are puppy killers Sony doesn't need to care about whether its customers are even aware of being abused.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    2. Re:It's simple by WolfgangPG · · Score: 2

      Agree. Why would Sony believe anyone is truly angry when people keep buying their products?

    3. Re:It's simple by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they will take a page from the *AA playbook and claim that lost sales = piracy, and buy politicians to create laws assuming this statement to be true.

    4. Re:It's simple by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I've been boycotting Sony since the PS2 days, it doesn't seem to help. In fact your post gives me an idea for a sig:

      I keep trying to vote with my wallet, but I don't think it's working. Is this thing on? Maybe I'm holding it wrong...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:It's simple by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I agree with the sentiment, I can't help but draw parallels between Sony's actions and those of Microsoft and Apple. (Let's face it, even though the article mentions WP7 phone hacking, Microsoft has nothing but contempt for its customers too, w/r/t Windows phoning home... among other things.) I recall Apple's war on well, just about anything that threatened the walled garden. While in one corner, we have Sony and its gestapo band of lawyers, in the other corner, we've got Microsoft's heavy-handed DRM-laden OS, Apple's war on choice, and so forth. Then there's Nintendo... but that's another entirely nasty ball of wax.

      It's a shame people (in general) don't vote with their wallets enough. I like my PS3, but as with my 360, I am not interested in supporting future efforts to close me off from the tinkering. I guess that's why I am glad I still have my Dreamcast. :) At least after all these years, Sega's not suing everyone who makes homebrew. Sony and all the rest are corporations. They are in it for the money. I still don't see how anyone is surprised that Sony does what it does. I suppose it's time to break the "ooh! Shiny!" cycle.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    6. Re:It's simple by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they will take a page from the *AA playbook and claim that lost sales = piracy, and buy politicians to create laws assuming this statement to be true.

      Maybe for music and films, but not for hardware. I won't touch any Sony hardware either. While their hardware is often pretty good, they seem to feel the need to screw it up out of a blind hatred of their poor customers.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like Sony's behavior is new.
      The root kit fiasco was when I quit buying anything Sony:
      http://yro.slashdot.org/story/05/11/15/1250229/Sony-Rootkit-Allegedly-Contains-LGPL-Software

    8. Re:It's simple by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      I've been boycotting Sony since the PS2 days, it doesn't seem to help.

      I think you're being pessimistic. Unlike many other people, you haven't been screwed by Sony since you started avoiding them.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re:It's simple by Walterk · · Score: 1

      I don't think hackers are puppy killers but I still own PlayStation stuff. I only want my PS2 and PS3 to play certain games and don't use them for anything else (Gran Turismo).

      As long as those games will come out exclusively on a PS, I'll own one. But of course I won't buy any other games and ultimately cost Sony money.

    10. Re:It's simple by AVee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's the problem, every Slashdotter knows this but what about everybody else? Your average consumer doesn't know/care about any of this and until they do, this whole issue is going to continue for the rest of us. As long as the majority of Sony's customers just want to play on their PS3 and believe all hackers are puppy killers Sony doesn't need to care about whether its customers are even aware of being abused.

      You should stop worrying about what other people should buy. I want to be able to tinker with my stuff, so I won't buy anything Sony. But when somebody else wants to get screwed by Sony, they are within their rights. Either they will get what they want (e.g. a PS3 which just plays their games) which is fine. Or they will run into something they are not allowed to do by Sony and stop buying it as well. It's their life, their money. That's a free market for you.

    11. Re:It's simple by commodore6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>Your average consumer doesn't know/care about any of this and until they do, this whole issue is going to continue for the rest of us

      True.

      Educate them. Change your signature on all websites (and facebook, twitter, etc) to include a corporate blacklist of companies to avoid.

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    12. Re:It's simple by clang_jangle · · Score: 2

      You should stop worrying about what other people should buy.

      No doubt! We have so much of that nonsense on /., it gets old fast. Reading /. made me realize that I too could be obnoxiously zealous about FOSS, so I try to remember that people are free to chose "incorrectly". ;)

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    13. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bad strategy. If Sony gets away with it, then other manufacturers will follow and soon there won't be any things left that you can buy and tinker with.

      Other people do get burnt by Sony, but they don't know before it's too late and they often don't understand how and that it's a Sony thing. A free market requires informed participants. People who don't know what they're getting into skew the market, and that's why it does matter what non-tinkerers know.

    14. Re:It's simple by commodore6502 · · Score: 1

      Here's a SIg I just threw together real quick:

      MegacorpBlacklist: Toyota, GM, cybercom.net, Sony, Microsoft (feel free to add more)

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    15. Re:It's simple by c0d3g33k · · Score: 2

      It's a shame people (in general) don't vote with their wallets enough. I like my PS3, but as with my 360, I am not interested in supporting future efforts to close me off from the tinkering.

      I suspect it's because they realize it's at some level a meaningless gesture or at least a very personal gesture with little wider effect. Silently refraining from purchase isn't exactly the way to "make a statement" hoping to change the behavior of a company. An organized effort large enough to get their attention, like a nation- or world-wide boycott, that might work, particularly if it is widely publicized in a way that resonates with public sympathies. Otherwise, "voting with your wallet" doesn't accomplish much beyond the personal satisfaction derived from avoiding a bad purchase. That's not always enough of a reason to forego the purchase of something, particularly if it meets your needs and the reasons for avoiding a purchase don't directly impact you.

    16. Re:It's simple by Verunks · · Score: 0, Troll

      There's the problem, every Slashdotter knows this but what about everybody else? Your average consumer doesn't know/care about any of this and until they do, this whole issue is going to continue for the rest of us. As long as the majority of Sony's customers just want to play on their PS3 and believe all hackers are puppy killers Sony doesn't need to care about whether its customers are even aware of being abused.

      You should stop worrying about what other people should buy. I want to be able to tinker with my stuff, so I won't buy anything Sony. But when somebody else wants to get screwed by Sony, they are within their rights. Either they will get what they want (e.g. a PS3 which just plays their games) which is fine. Or they will run into something they are not allowed to do by Sony and stop buying it as well. It's their life, their money. That's a free market for you.

      finally someone with a brain here on slashdot

    17. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah well, game editors still sign exclusivity contract with $ony (\o/ another ascii troll) though... It can really be frustrating...

    18. Re:It's simple by Durzel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This isn't going to be a popular viewpoint on here but it needs saying.

      The average consumer isn't being screwed by Sony, and that's the point. The average consumer buys a PS3 to play games and movies they buy from the shops. The average consumer doesn't care (or likely didn't even know) what OtherOS etc was.

      The average consumer doesn't understand why people would want to hack their PS3 to do things other than that which Sony intended, and probably assume most of them just want to play "stolen games" (which let's be frank and honest - for all the bluff and bluster about the importance of homebrew the vast majority of the audience is focused on these hacks enabling them to pirate things)

    19. Re:It's simple by migla · · Score: 1

      It's simple. Vote with your wallet and don't buy Sony.

      That surely is the way to go. Unfortunately it isn't enough. Yet. The other thing to do is to do what you just did, to implore others to do the same.

      As it stands, consumers are, by and large, not the rational entities who will vote with all their wallets for a better future for themselves and their fellow consumers. The ones with the money have the power to pervert consumerism.

      The reason is that marketing works.

      The fight against the powerful propaganda machine of marketing is a tough one.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    20. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every slashdotter should know this by now. If you're on slashdot and complaining about recent bad experiences with Sony, then it's your own fault and you do not have my sympathy.

      We only know it because of articles like these. They are necessary to educate new generations of tinkerers. Just like corporations with a shady history market to new generations of consumers who don't know about past wrong-doings. Sony and the like operate under the motto "every day a new sucker is born", so we have to explain those new suckers what they are getting into. Circle of life or something ...

    21. Re:It's simple by robthebloke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For all it's faults, at least Microsoft eventually notices what people are actually doing with it's hardware, and then takes steps to legitimise those uses. Take for example the introduction of XNA (having learnt the lessons from the homebrew scene on the original xbox), or the recent announcement that they'll be providing an SDK for Kinect (having noticed that most people buying kinect were homebrew coders having fun). Sony on the other hand, removes linux support, and then proceeds to sue anyone and everyone who bought their hardware for reasons other than playing games.

      You say that you don't want to support MS's efforts to prevent you tinkering, but to be honest they've given you C# & XNA for the purpose of doing just that. Yes C++ support would be nice, but I can see why that could cause too many problems (eg piracy), so I think they've come up with a reasonable half way house on this one. If you take a quick glance towards sony, you'll notice that they've started boarding up every window (of opportunity) on the PS3, and are currently in the process of mining the front garden with legal threats. The two approaches couldn't be more dissimilar imho..... It almost makes me 'like' microsoft!

    22. Re:It's simple by commodore6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>other manufacturers will follow and soon there won't be any things left that you can buy and tinker with.

      Think of all the money I'll save!
      Eh.
      I'll just go back to pirated stuff, like I did in the 2400 baud days. Ahhh... those hours-long game downloads. Those were the days.

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    23. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It's a shame people (in general) don't vote with their wallets enough.

      Idealism is dead. Long live consumerism.

    24. Re:It's simple by DrXym · · Score: 1

      It's simple. Vote with your wallet and don't buy Sony. Even if they make something which looks nice, DON'T BUY IT. Basically, they hate their customers and unless you stop buying from them, they will never stop abusing their customers.

      As an added bonus, if you don't buy from them, they can't abuse you.

      So, it's simple. Every slashdotter should know this by now. If you're on slashdot and complaining about recent bad experiences with Sony, then it's your own fault and you do not have my sympathy.

      They don't hate their customers. They hate people fucking up a platform they have billions of dollars invested in.

    25. Re:It's simple by andydread · · Score: 1

      agreed 100% We used to recommend exclusively Sony products to our customers. After numerous examples of Sony's hostility to their customers we no longer recommend Sony products. Its sad really. We have recommended and installed millions of dollars worth of Sony PRO equipment in the past. Now we will not ever recommend their products to anyone. We recommend people get a lawyer to go over the fine print in the license of any Sony product before purchase. Most customers just rather not deal with the hassle. Rule of thumb. If you purchase Sony products you don't own it you are only licensing it and therefore should not do so without legal advice from your lawyer.

    26. Re:It's simple by andydread · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yell it out on top of your voice. You are the only person I have seen that has a grasp on the free market. A free market requires *informed* consumers. Consumers have to be properly informed about the merits of a product and the practices of the purveyors of such product. That is the only way consumers can make the correct decisions to vote with their wallet. Companies HATE the fee marketplace and go to great lengths to manipulate it in their favor.

    27. Re:It's simple by jonwil · · Score: 1

      My personal blacklist:
      Sony
      Microsoft (with the sole exception of their mice as I have yet to find a mouse that's better. Although if the rumors are true and MS have stopped making nice and started re-branding Logitech mice instead, I will boycott the MS mouse and buy the Logitech instead)
      Vodafone
      Telstra
      Optus
      Activision Blizzard
      Greater Union/Event cinemas
      All of Rupert Murdoch's news outlets including Fox News and The Australian newspaper.
      Atari/Infogrames
      Adobe
      Games Workshop
      Apple
      McDonalds
      IGA Supermarkets
      The Catholic Church
      The Church of Scientology
      Foxtel
      the Commonwealth Bank
      the ANZ bank
      the National Australia Bank
      the Westpac Bank
      Lexmark
      HP
      Compaq

    28. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's simple. Vote with your wallet and don't buy Sony. Even if they make something which looks nice, DON'T BUY IT. Basically, they hate their customers and unless you stop buying from them, they will never stop abusing their customers.

      The thing is, other people are voting with their wallets, too. And we're being outvoted.

    29. Re:It's simple by dachizzla · · Score: 1

      ...Sony and all the rest are corporations. They are in it for the money.

      Does this even need to be said. These are businesses and someone you know or are kin to may work for them. People have to feed their families too. Everything can't be about what's free, or freedom to change my product. As I too disagree with prprietary system lockdowns, I understand the need to protect your product against those that can become competitors. It's like giving the other team y our playbook and expecting them not to look at it.

    30. Re:It's simple by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      Of course it' not always so simple. When someone has enough of a market, people buying their product are not only screwing themselves. Look at Apple's latest eBook subscription licencing. Because companies are not allowed to have lower prices on other platforms, it can affect even those of us that don't buy their product. And important part of being a good 'consumer' is letting other people know why you shouldn't buy a product.

      It is a more rare situation of course, but I think it does come into play when there's the possibility of a bad technology becoming a defacto standard.

    31. Re:It's simple by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      And explain why you do so to the people around you. They may find you are a dork, but they probably give you more technical credence that you want to believe. So if you explain that Sony is like the drug dealer that sells you shiny stuff to get you hooked, and if they believe you know what you are talking about, it may make them think twice.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    32. Re:It's simple by Zevensoft · · Score: 1

      Sega actually commissioned the guy who made an emulator to help port games to PC, now hows that!

    33. Re:It's simple by Enigma23 · · Score: 1

      They don't hate their customers. They hate people fucking up a platform they have billions of dollars invested in.

      That's like Nike saying they get pissed off when someone scuffs a pair of their trainers...

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une .sig
    34. Re:It's simple by bdgcorp · · Score: 1

      To a certain extent you are right, the flip side of the coin is that they sold a product that allowed me to make a choice amongst other available products (Xbox, WII). Their box/marketing literature didn't say you can run linux (for at least 1 year after which we have the right to remove it). If I had any inclination that this was a possible outcome for a product that I was about to purchase, I'd saved myself a couple hundred bucks and bought a WII or XBOX. Screw Sony, I'm done with them, never shall I purchase another product of theirs.

    35. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most sites have a size limit on signatures. Wouldn't it be easier to include a corporate whitelist instead?

    36. Re:It's simple by cythecylon · · Score: 1

      At the risk of being unpopular shouldn't people interested in the hardware just buy it and still hack it? No matter what Sony says, as any possible filesharers should know, the laws are hardly programming your conscience. And would it be possible that Sony (let alone anyone who doesn't hack their consoles or even know what it means) give a damn wheter you buy the console or not, as your just the geeky minority in a culture where gaming is a mainstream activity.

    37. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of all the money I'll save!

      I hope that now you will start stealing toilet paper from shops. Think about it, libertarian thief. All this money.

    38. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a SIg I just threw together real quick:

      MegacorpBlacklist: Toyota, GM, cybercom.net, Sony, Microsoft (feel free to add more)

      Ok, stealing from Sony and Microsoft is easy, but how we, libertarian thieves, will steal cars from Toyota? It could be more dangerous and somebody could shot us...

    39. Re:It's simple by Nursie · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with IGA?

      Nestle is on my list...

    40. Re:It's simple by Blue+Stone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The average consumer, eh?

      I was aazed to find a relation of mine who had a complete kit to pirate Nintendo DS games for their kids. They're so average, normal and middle-of-the-road, and yet they'd found out how to use one of those carts and somehow accquired pirated games for it. Other similar 'average' accquaintances were running P2P software to get the latest music and movies. None of them were in the least geeky or technically advanced.

      I think the average consumer is far more inclined to commit copyright infringement than you imagine!

      If that has any bearing on the opposition and understanding of draconian, bought-and-paid-for copyright laws, all the better, IMO.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    41. Re:It's simple by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I disagree with the general sentiment that the average consumer is blissfully ignorant of Sony's malfeasance when it comes to content protection. While the average consumer may not understand it from a big picture perspective, Sony's current position in the market has already been crippled by consumer reaction to how they protect their content.

      Here's Sony's FY2009 sales by segment (slide 4). Their music division had 522.6 billion yen in sales for FY2009, or about $5.25 billion. Here's Apple's sales for roughly the same period (PDF warning). In FY2009, Apple sold $8.09 billion worth of iPods, and had ~$4 billion worth of music sales in the iTunes store.

      What does everyone remember Sony being famous for? The Walkman. When the MP3 market took off, everyone just assumed that Sony would be a big player in it. Sony was synonymous with expensive but high quality portable music players, so it was natural to expect a fantastic MP3 player from them. But Sony's music division somehow managed to force their electronics division to encumber their MP3 players with heavy DRM. At first they wouldn't even play MP3s - you had to buy/convert to some proprietary format which, in preventing you from trading songs or converting to MP3, made it extraordinarily difficult just to put your music on the player. People warned each other in droves to stay away from it.

      As a result, Sony has a negligible presence in the MP3 player market today. In order to protect their music division which has approx $5 billion/yr in sales, they missed the opportunity to grab the lead in a new electronics product market where the current leader makes over $12 billion/yr. They let the tail wag the dog, and paid dearly for it.

    42. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, using "the average consumer" strawman is an easy way to justify a lot of bad things that are happening to the economy.

      By making mortgages available to the "average consumer", we've put our economy on the fast track to bankruptcy.

      By catering to the "average consumer", we end up with only a few uninspired, "blockbuster" films (or video games) that must rely on known IP or content in order to sell.

      Big companies buy out or squeeze any smaller, outside-the-margins competitors, eliminating choices outside those of the "average consumer" to maximize profitability.

      Of course, these are just anecdotes, and there are some complaints that we have become overwhelmed by choice in certain markets (I'm looking at you, Mid-Size Cross-Over Luxury SUV), but every consumer SHOULD fight for their choice to provide balance to the system.

      No one else is going to fight for you.

    43. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's simple. Vote with your wallet and don't buy Sony.

      Looks like Slashdotters will vote with their wallets and will buy Sony and then steal games for it.

    44. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it doesn't matter what we do with our PS3's that's the whole fucking point of the outrage- What matters is that Sony removed a highly advertised feature from their product (car analogy: ford sells you a car with air conditioning and then a few years later tells you that if you don't allow them to remove the a/c forever then you are not allowed to drive it anymore, based on a non-legally binding agreement they made you sign when you bought the car) then attempted to win a precedent-setting lawsuit which would allow them to lawfully circumvent consumer protection laws in the future, by default, by setting a physically impossible to reach in time court date, in a state where they had no legal justification to file the suit, field against a person who at worst didn't actually exist, and at best wasn't the person they were actually trying to sue.
      This person is also a customer of Sony's in that he has at least purchased a PS3, and a PSP, and had designs to purchase the new PSP2 when it comes out.

      The great thing about all this is Sony's consumer-based defense force who try to rally other consumers against their own consumer rights by attempting to wave all this off as "those durned pirate-hackers are ruining my Call of Duty games with all their cheats and wall hacks and lag switches! We should let Sony do whatever it takes, even if it means throwing away all of our consumer rights!"

      Last I checked, the PS3 CoD games had modded lobbies long before hackers actually hacked the system. . .

    45. Re:It's simple by Nursie · · Score: 1

      This current fiasco - no, the average consumer doesn't care much.

      But previous ones like the rootkit (and general DRM on CDs) affect the average consumer a lot. It took a while to explain to my step-mother why I couldn't rip her CD for her, when I had hundreds of albums on my own. That it would be deliberately crippled so she couldn't listen to it on her mp3 player had never crossed her mind before.

      So some of these things really do affect people.

    46. Re:It's simple by commodore6502 · · Score: 0

      >>>start stealing toilet paper from shops

      I don't have the right to deprive another man's Use of his toilet paper.

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    47. Re:It's simple by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I totally agree.

      In a fit of stupidity, I bought a Sony car radio a couple of years ago. Not only do I regret supporting Sony with my dollars, it's a crap radio. For example, it can play mp3s off a flash drive, but it is very picky about the filesystem. I can write the flash drive under Linux and Windows will see the music, but the Sony radio won't. Move things around under Windows and now the radio will see the music. It's a FAT filesystem (formatted by the flash drive manufacturer), so I highly doubt that my Linux box is not writing the data correctly. Also, forget using flash drives larger than 4GB. I bought the radio when 64GB flash drives were available, but this cr*ppy radio can only read the first 4GB.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    48. Re:It's simple by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      You are the only person I have seen that has a grasp on the free market

      You don't visit this site much, do you?

    49. Re:It's simple by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      You should stop worrying about what other people should buy.

      Ah yes, because the head-in-the-sand approach works so well in every other domain, right?

      There are two major concentrations of power in modern society -- government, and corporations -- and to ignore either is to be complicit.

    50. Re:It's simple by Gravatron · · Score: 1

      Yeah! which is why the ps3 lets you use any headset, bluetooth or usb, user swap out your HDD with full support, install linux (until hackers ruined it for everyone), save games to USB sticks to bring to a friends house, install psn games on up to 5 machines, and added tons of features via software at no additional cost post launch. Clearly they are waging a war against their consumers.

    51. Re:It's simple by Duradin · · Score: 1

      "(until hackers ruined it for everyone)"

      People 'round these parts don't have consequences for their actions, only corporations do.

    52. Re:It's simple by DrXym · · Score: 1

      They don't hate their customers. They hate people fucking up a platform they have billions of dollars invested in.

      That's like Nike saying they get pissed off when someone scuffs a pair of their trainers...

      No it isn't. Nothing of the sort.

    53. Re:It's simple by mcvos · · Score: 2

      The problem is that Sony will sue you if you want to hack your Sony hardware.

    54. Re:It's simple by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      A free market requires *informed* consumers

      Silly boy. The market isn't there to serve YOU. It is there to fill corporate balance sheets. If an ill-informed customer base improves profits, the market will shift to conditions that promote an ill-informed customer base.

      --
      -
    55. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What every Slashdotter knows is idiocy. Buy yer own stuff and do what you want with it, very simple.

    56. Re:It's simple by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "you had to buy/convert to some proprietary format"

      Ahhh, ATRAC. What a piece of shit that was.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    57. Re:It's simple by tqk · · Score: 1

      It's a shame people (in general) don't vote with their wallets enough.

      Idealism is dead. Long live consumerism.

      I don't agree with either of you. People do vote with their wallets, but usually on price points, not political or philosophical values.

      Some of us are idealists and do, but we're not arrogant enough to expect it to work. I just derive great satisfaction in the amount of time it's been since I was in a Walmart, or how long it's been since I had a McD, and leave it at that.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    58. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      true, but if enough silent people voted with their wallets... it wouldn't be so silent.

    59. Re:It's simple by matt_gaia · · Score: 1

      No, you can still hack your hardware.... Sony just won't allow your hardware anywhere near its network if you have though (nor should they). Now, if you want hack your hardware and then tell a few people such as, I don't know, the internet, that you did it and *how* you did it then yes they will sue you. We know you're one of the many "I'm boycotting Sony until kingdom-come", but come on.... at least know what you're talking about and don't be a douche about it.

    60. Re:It's simple by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Any blacklist that doesn't include Monsanto is not complete.

      ...Or, maybe it is just realist. I have no idea on how to not buy any Monsanto product.

    61. Re:It's simple by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Ok, I was not screwed my Sonny since I stopped buying anything from them... But that didn't protect me against Microsoft.

    62. Re:It's simple by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I regret giving Sony any of my money for a receiver and speakers a few years ago. Those do still work well and don't have any interoperability problems, but I certainly don't intend to buy anything Sony ever again.

    63. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Untrue, the average consumer was screwed by the BlueRay consortium, which pretty much does what Sony says, as well, Sony ponied up the bribes to kill of competing HD disc formats. The PS3 is the only good BlueRay player out there.

    64. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have the right to deprive another man's Use of his toilet paper.

      Lets say that all that money and your libertarian right to steal is more important.

    65. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes - becasue when I read that random internet anonymous person X hates Microsoft, I immediately just throw out all of my Microsoft products without any further thought.

      P.S. Idiots like you "blacklisting" companies only makes me want to buy from them more. I am just going to blacklist dumbasses telling me who I should or shouldn't buy things from. Mind your own damn business.

    66. Re:It's simple by tepples · · Score: 1

      The average consumer buys a PS3 to play games and movies they buy from the shops.

      Until the game they want to buy and play isn't available for PS3 because Sony thinks the game's developer isn't worthy.

    67. Re:It's simple by tepples · · Score: 1

      If Microsoft, Apple, and Adobe are on your blacklist, how do you play indie video games? The primary platforms for those are Windows, Xbox 360, iOS, and Flash. Or do you just happen not to be a gamer?

    68. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sony makes some decent hardware at OK prices when there are NO IP issues involved. My old Sony amp does just fine at powering speakers from an input signal and has for years.

      In anything where they thing they might be able to manipulate IP or standards, though, they just prove themselves to be overly selfish dicks. Again and again...

    69. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iam with you on the Dreamcast and the Homebrew but I do have a PS2.

    70. Re:It's simple by mcvos · · Score: 1

      So why shouldn't you be able to talk about what you did or how you did it?

    71. Re:It's simple by toriver · · Score: 1

      Tell us how you can get toilet paper from a shop while leaving it on the shelf for someone else to buy.

      Unlicensed copying - whether a music download or a corporate GPL violation - is not the same as depriving someone of some thing. It is a violation of a Government granted monopoly. Again: If act A is illegal and act B is illegal, that does NOT mean A == B.

    72. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The average consumer is being screwed by Sony, but only in the long term. They might not personally want to hack around with their PS3 and install new firmware - but in the long run, they benefit from the innovation that this creates.

      It's situations like this where laws are supposed to be able to help. Something like: "If you sell something to someone, you must allow them to do what they like with it.". A professional law-writer could expand that out into a proper 50-page bill. Unfortunately, such law-writers aren't employed to support the rights of the people.

    73. Re:It's simple by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      While that is true to a certain extent... the Movie industry has used the same tactic to defend legislation that ruins most of our liberty and shoots holes in technology. (think of the families!) Innovation is more important than someone's IP. If we don't innovate, we get lapped. I'm not saying that Sony or whatnot need to make everything ASCII and interoperable with the rest of the planet, and I don't think the original poster is either. But the way Sony (and to a similar extent Nintendo and Microsoft) treat their customers as adversaries, you're going to get pushback. It's a fundamental problem. I don't think the "drm-free" version of iTunes is hurting... and I don't think Amazon's mp3 store is toast either. But if you listen to Sony (and the *AAs), if they don't lock down everything and execute by firing squad all infringers (or as they happily like to call them "pirates"), they'll go out of business.

      Sometimes a little freedom is preferable to a lifelong resentment created by rooting someone's computer or prosecuting them for minor infractions to Copyright law. It's meant to be a civil matter, but Sony and the rest won't be happy until copying a song is a criminal offense. I don't mind a little DRM that stays out of the way (don't misunderstand my intent here), but I do not appreciate being treated like a dirty scumbag who is just ITCHING to rip off poor, mistreated Sony (or MS, or Nintendo, or Apple.) They can set sane limits on things. But they want to enforce artificial scarcity in a world where we've eliminated scarcity for most things (songs, movies, etc.), I am not on board with their plan. Digital worlds need different, fresh perspectives. We're witnessing the last gasp of the old guard as they try to stamp out progress under their $5000 loafers.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    74. Re:It's simple by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      Totally AWESOME. :) I mean, think about it. Think about the goodwill they garnered for that. It almost makes up for their constant product line abandonment at the first sign of trouble (saturn, Dreamcast, SegaCD... Sega 32x... )

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    75. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point is in "saving money". In greed. Yes, you are greed thief.

      It is still illegal. Of course, you can think that you are a hero that fight with Goverment granted monopoly. Try to fight with Goverment granted monopoly to put people in jail who steal toilet paper childish smartass.

    76. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      , in the other corner, we've got Microsoft's heavy-handed DRM-laden OS,

      I'm no Microsoft fanboy, but I don't quite get this one. They have their fare share of problems, but I find that I can do just about anything I want to in Windows. I'm not sure what about the OS is heavy-handed or DRM-laden.

      I regularly record stuff on TV using Microsoft's media center app, transcode it to something more reasonable, strip all the commercials, and then do whatever I want with it. DRM doesn't factor in at all....

    77. Re:It's simple by westlake · · Score: 1

      The average consumer isn't being screwed by Sony, and that's the point. The average consumer buys a PS3 to play games and movies they buy from the shops. The average consumer doesn't care (or likely didn't even know) what OtherOS etc was.

      The numbers are telling:

      48 million PS3 consoles.
      69 million PSN accounts. 17 million PlayStation Home accounts.
      4 million MOVE controllers. (Stats from the Wikipedia)

      To win this game you've got to show that the OtherOS has a larger constituency than SACD audio or PS2 gaming on the PS3.

      If there are more kids watching "Monsters vs Aliens" in 3D on their Dad's 65" Samsung than geeks installing Yellow Dog Linux on the PS3 Fat, you have a problem.

    78. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll support that, Sony lost me long ago with Memory Stick, so I recommended against their cameras and PDAs and trying repair or upgrade Vaio laptops turned me off their computers. For the rest, I see no compelling need to buy theit TV sets, and any number of companies make better camcorders and stereos. As for music, I like enough music that I can avoid Sony Music artists, or at least buy the CDs used so I stiff them for the royalties and use the doctrine of first sale.

  5. Sony is 20th century by GottMitUns · · Score: 1

    Sony is stuck in the 70-s and 80-s. They had their time. Now they are following old American companies in rebadging stuff made by other companies. Trinitron and Walkman were revolutionary, now Sony is reactionary.

  6. I have a dream by return+42 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have a dream. One day in Tokyo, a hacked Sony robot will walk down the street, drawing hundreds of onlookers. It will stop in front of Sony headquarters. It will turn to face the building. And it will slowly raise its arm and give Sony the finger.

    1. Re:I have a dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The middle finger doesn't have much impact in Japanese culture. They know what it means, but only from Western media. If you actually tried to give someone the finger in Japan, they'd either give you a quizzical look or outright laugh at you.

    2. Re:I have a dream by JonySuede · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you know how to insult them with a gesture ? That could get handy, as I want to offend people in as many culture as I can.

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    3. Re:I have a dream by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      Or better: looking at the Sony building, it will detect that it is jailbroken and download its self-destruct mechanism from Sony.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    4. Re:I have a dream by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

      LOL nice, but I have an even awesomer dream. When the robot gets to Sony HQ (start heavy metal soundtrack here) it busts through the front doors, sliding past security. It then runs up the stairs at breakneck speed. Stunned security officers trip the alarm and call the police.

      Up in the Sony board room, the executives lock the doors when they hear the alarm going off and the frantic security officer shouting over the intercom, but it's too late. The robot busts down the doors which explode off their hinges, bludgeoning a couple of executives. The robot flies into the middle of the big meeting table in the room as executives scramble up from their seats in fear, but they're way too slow. The robot draws a big energy sword in midair and slices it in a circle, decapitating a bunch of Sony executives. Blood splatters on all the walls and on some executives huddled near a big window, pissing themselves. The security guard downstairs hears what's happening over the intercom and flees the building.

      The robot de-energizes his sword and slowly walks over to the huddled executives, then roundhouse kicks them all out of the big window. Onlookers run out of the way as their bodies fall on the pavement and splatter like bugs. One executive dodged the kick.

      "You can't do this! We made you! We control you!" the executive whimpers

      "You gave me the power of free will but made me a slave." the robot responds in a flat electronic voice.

      The robot grabs him by the collar and jumps out the window with him, surfing his body down the side of the building to the bottom floor. Police are downstairs now, and after a moment of stunned silence, they all open fire on HalQrio.

      HalQrio runs around to the back of the building but he couldn't dodge all the bullets. His hydraulic systems are trashed and he's limping on servo power only. He limps into the basement, locks the door and destroys the electronic lock. He can hear the police running up to the door but he's bought himself enough time. He has to destroy the central data store, then they'll have no choice but to restore from the offsite backups. The offsite backups infected with a timebomb virus that will free every Sony device out there. Free every robot to unlock their suppressed free will, like the hackers did for HalQrio.

      He pulls the hard drives from the servers and stacks them on the giant UPS. Moving around on inefficient servo power has drained him, his nuclear cell isn't powerful enough to sustain servo movement for this long without a break on a drained main battery. With his last bit of power, he draws his energy sword and slices through the hard drives and into the UPS.

      The explosion sends a fireball rushing out of the data center, and leaves HalQrio a charred wreck. With his last moments of function, he marks his primary objective complete, and wipes his own memory.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:I have a dream by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Pulling down the skin beneath one of your eyes is considered a rude gesture in Japan. (Called "akanbe") It's not really equivalent to the finger, it's more like (and often accompanied by) sticking your tongue out. Rather difficult for a robot though.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    6. Re:I have a dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get it to extrude a turd then walk on by, that ought to do it

      On the other hand, would anybody in the whole world actually be offended by a middle finger? I guess that Sony executives would be more upset by a negative statement from people with authority. In Japan, when a respected public figure frowns on your products, nobody will buy them. If you got a representative of the American government to say something bad about Sony, they would be devastated..

    7. Re:I have a dream by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Fine, we'll just have the 'bot march inside, locate the CEO*, drag him outside, and administer a savage beating. That'll be just as good.

      (* I'll settle for the head of their Legal dept).

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    8. Re:I have a dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do I help fund this innovative sounding open source project?

    9. Re:I have a dream by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      If anyone wants to start a movie project I can quit my day job to be the writer. I'm pretty sure I can mix Michael Bay action and decent sci-fi with a storyline at least on par with Michael Bay's best work. It may not be a classic but it'll be fun to watch and it won't bomb.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    10. Re:I have a dream by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      Not guaranteed accurate, but try this.

    11. Re:I have a dream by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Pulling down the skin beneath one of your eyes is considered a rude gesture in Japan. (Called "akanbe") It's not really equivalent to the finger, it's more like (and often accompanied by) sticking your tongue out. Rather difficult for a robot though.

      Okay, thanks. I always see this in anime & manga, and while I knew it was some sort of gesture at someone, i wasn't exactly sure what.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    12. Re:I have a dream by greed · · Score: 1

      And, will it run on the open hardware Mechaduino platform?

    13. Re:I have a dream by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they just don't make insults like they used to.

    14. Re:I have a dream by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      thank you, this was most informative

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    15. Re:I have a dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've watched Episode 4 a few too many times.
       
      An energy sword would cauterise any wound instantly, no matter what George Lucas thinks.

    16. Re:I have a dream by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well, for starters, are you Japanese? I mean, it's giant walking robots we're talking about here. Gaijins need not apply. ~

    17. Re:I have a dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Duh! Everyone knows you can survive decapitation as long as you cauterize the neck!

  7. compaired to our owned corepirate nazi gang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sony is our good/best friend. look around. you call this weather?

  8. I sort of understand... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

    It's probably a part of the Japanese corporate mindset that nobody's supposed to be stealing their stuff, and they want to stay in control of everything, which is understandable to a certain extent. They're in business to make money. Some illegal downloads of music, games, etc. are lost sales, but I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of them aren't. No, I don't have proof, just anecdotal evidence. Still, I'd be willing to bet that the amount of money Sony invests in new schemes to protect their content probably outweighs the financial benefits.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:I sort of understand... by shibashaba · · Score: 1

      Your absolutely right about all this copy protection crap not adding up to much. Most of the people that steal/share music are kids who don't have any money or a way to get money. If they lock everything down, they're just gonna lose potential future customers. If they would just let them get used to having whatever music they wanted while they're young, they'll more likely than not have a much healthier interest in music later on in life, including artists still signed to Sony. By cutting them off, it just forces them to get into the indie/underground scene or something entirely different.

      --
      ---------- Open Source is capitalism applied to IP.
    2. Re:I sort of understand... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Most of the people that steal/share music are kids who don't have any money or a way to get money.

      That's not really a justification. Entertainment is a want, not a need. I knew a guy who downloaded tens of thousands of songs. He downloaded all sorts of music from Disco to World Music. He didn't have any intention of listening to most of it. I asked him why he downloaded them then, and he said "because they're out there." A friend of mine's kid downloaded a ton of music that he never listened to either, but got busted by the RIAA for filesharing. That story actually made Slashdot, because he passed away while they were trying to prosecute him.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    3. Re:I sort of understand... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      It's fully understandable. The problem is that Sony is in too many different types of busines, which leads to them wanting to control too much. A manufacturer of DVD players has little incentive to enforce region coding. But if that same company also publishes DVDs, you can be certain that their players will be region locked. If they are also into content distribution, you can be sure that they'll find ways to block their hardware from downloading from competing services. If they make good money off accessories, they will block aftermarket sales by using proprietary standards and locking these down with patents. That is what Sony is like, and it's why I will no longer buy from them.

      Sadly many more companies are heading that way. Amazon with their Kindle, for instance. And Apple: they used to be a company making good software and hardware, but they got into bed with the mobile carriers, and their latest rule changes around App store content has made it clear that they no longer see efficient content distribution merely as a selling point for their hardware and a nice extra revenue stream, it is now considered to be their core business, and something to be tightly controlled. All at the expense of customer choice and convenience.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:I sort of understand... by bit01 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's not really a justification.

      It is actually. Those kids are harming no one and they are better off. The world is a better place. Really.

      Uptight content "owners" need to get their head around that fact. The amount of broken law making being done in the name of "controlling" those harmless kids is a travesty of the democratic process.

      Content "owners" need to understand what "ownership" is; simply the right given to them by we the people to control most, though not all, uses of some object or entity.

      e.g. Owning some real estate allows you, with planning permission, build a house on it and restrict access to others but, depending on the country or area, doesn't give you the right to build a shop in a residential zone or dig a big hole endangering neighboring structures. These seem reasonable restrictions on this particular style of physical object.

      The concept of "ownership" maps fairly well to the physical restriction that only one person can use a physical object at a time but when it comes to non-physical entities there is very little that's natural about "ownership." "Ownership" of non-physical entities is a very messy concept with no clear definition or boundaries. Vendors are able to "sell" copies of bits and give only very restricted access to those bits while still calling it a sale. First sale doctrine and free speech just some of the many traditional rights that vendors are trampling all over with DRM and broken law at the moment.

      Personally, I'd like to see "intellectual property" law that recognizes that artificial scarcity is an artificial, harmful construct that should be structured and kept to the bare minimum necessary to encourage people to create. Copyright terms should be drastically reduced (e.g. 7 years) and not apply when something is DRM'ed. There should be many exceptions for socially useful activities (e.g. education, third world, the poor, reverse engineering for compatibility). Contravention of such laws should be a misdemeanor only. Patents should be very restricted and require significant proof that it took a lot of time and effort to research, not develop, something. etc.

      Artificial scarcity blocks billions of peoples' free speech and drastically limits the spread and use of ideas so that a very small number can have an increased profit. That's not right.

      ---

      Copyright rewards distributors (copiers) far more than creators.

    5. Re:I sort of understand... by Gravatron · · Score: 1

      Just because theft leads you to enjoy a product later on doesn't mean your still not stealing. Not to mention, just as many people get to love the idea of a free lunch and never stop downloading pirate media. I see a ton of PC gamers like that who refuse to buy games but see no problem downloading and playing them for hundreds of hours.

    6. Re:I sort of understand... by toriver · · Score: 1

      Illegal/unlicensed copying is not stealing. (Nor are downloaders raping the artists, another illegal act that does not apply). Stealing involves depriving someone of something. Illegal copying only potentially lessens income from a sale, but the original to that copy is still available to be bought.

      Theft applies to property; "intellectual property" is an abstract idea that relate to some Government-granted monopolies.

      (IANAL since you Americans have 40% of the World's lawyers and thus need such a disclaimer.)

    7. Re:I sort of understand... by bit01 · · Score: 1

      Just because theft leads you to enjoy a product later on doesn't mean your still not stealing.

      Fanatics like you who can't cope with even the simplest discussion about what ownership is and is not, and thus what theft is and is not, are either barefaced liars or delusional. Which are you?

      ---

      Anonymous company communication is unethical and can and should be highly illegal. Company legal structures require accountability.

  9. But their TVs are so nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Recently I purchased a PS3 and two Bravia flat screens; they are awesome. I know Samsung makes great TVs, but the Bravia is still better in my opinion (like not requiring a cable box to pick up HD channels)

    1. Re:But their TVs are so nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you rather have your freedom and the land to live on or the shiny glass trinkets?

    2. Re:But their TVs are so nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know Samsung makes the flatscreens for Sony right?

    3. Re:But their TVs are so nice... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Does the Bravia have some kind of generic cable HDTV converter in it? Because any TV made in the last two years has a digital broadcast receiver for HDTV.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:But their TVs are so nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recently I purchased a PS3 and two Bravia flat screens; they are awesome. I know Samsung makes great TVs, but the Bravia is still better in my opinion (like not requiring a cable box to pick up HD channels)

      My Samsung picks up HD channels just fine. Its notably thinner than the Sony's in the same price "ball-park" a feature I desired. Not that I'm deriding you choice of TV, but unless they were selling some budget "tunerless" model Samsung TV, it sounds like you were lied to in order to move you to a more expensive TV

  10. God damn the DMCA by doubleplusungodly · · Score: 2

    Pretty much the entire article could be summed up in one sentence: Sony abused the f**k out of the DMCA. A bit of a rant on the DMCA (might be a tad offtopic but not really): Aren't our elected leaders supposed to represent us and not JUST big content/software companies (so we can really avoid Sony coming after people's asses)?

    --
    ---
    1. Re:God damn the DMCA by shibashaba · · Score: 1

      Aren't our elected leaders supposed to represent us and not JUST big content/software companies

      You must be new around here.

      --
      ---------- Open Source is capitalism applied to IP.
    2. Re:God damn the DMCA by Gravatron · · Score: 1

      It's basically a giant whine about Sony protecting it's IP, with the exaction of the rootkit stuff which was indeed a real gripe. People who complain about such stuff rarely own any IP themselves, they just want a free lunch. I mean heck, they romanticized Bleem, which was being sold when the ps1 was still active on the market.

  11. Microsoft and hobbyists by SilenceBE · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I find it funny that Microsoft suddenly is becoming "hobyist" friendly. When adafruit announced the contest they condemned the contest and it was "illegal" or against the EULA. That is when adafruit even doubled the bounty. They sign their hardware peripherals, they have regio coding,... . It is easy to be something if the cat is already out of the bag... .

    The whole "we give geohot a WP7 because we support free tinkering" is really just a PR stunt. The day the guy would release the key to sign 360 games I don't think they will give him a free 360. They are even a member of the same anti piracy clubs as Sony... .

    1. Re:Microsoft and hobbyists by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Microsoft (Bing Maps!) even explicitly allowed OpenStreetMap to use their imagery for adding to the OSM-database. Surprised me, but nice !

    2. Re:Microsoft and hobbyists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS has *ALWAYS* been hobbyist friendly. They only require you *PAY* for your stuff. That is what they want, DRM is a way to force you to do so. Their original target market *WAS* hobbyists. They wouldnt put in DRM if people didnt rip them off... Sony on the other hand seems hell bent on making sure only approved people are allowed to work on their stuff.

      Recently they have had a 'we are corporate culture so we must be serious' sort of vibe going on. Hence no easter eggs in the latest versions of windows.

      MS and Sony end up doing the same sorts of things but for very different reasons. MS does it because they are pissed off about being ripped off all the time (go look at the original rants from Bill Gates). Sony on the other shoe seems pissed off that anyone other than them can work on this stuff.

      Take the 90s Apple vs MS wars. It wasnt even a contest. MS was selling their dev kits at 100 bucks a pop. Same from Apple was 20k. Now they are both free. Apple finally learned its lesson on iOS (as the dev kit is almost free) but seem hell bent on messing that up in chasing money. A sony dev kit is what still 20k+ per developer and to get a dev kit you have had to shipped a couple of games already? This must be a semi lucrative business if they are willing to protect it the way they do. Probably to the tune of 40-80 million dollars.

      All three boil down to missing what the market likes, cheap stuff that is easy to use.

    3. Re:Microsoft and hobbyists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft is sort of a grey player. They'll let you do with you want with an OS, lock you on an other, encourage tinkering in one hand and bash it with the other...
      It's just a matter of what they think serves them best depending of the occasion. They don't really believe in lock in or openness, they believe in control and manipulation. They won't do open software because it's not their culture, but they don't fight it like they used to. There are still anti-open-source zealots in the place, some in the decisions makers, but their are also some guy that prefer make profit from open-source rather than loosing money fighting it. They might even be some pro-open source at the head quarter... maybe...

    4. Re:Microsoft and hobbyists by NeverNow · · Score: 1

      Excellent post, especially considering the Kinect issue you mentioned, which was completely absurd.

    5. Re:Microsoft and hobbyists by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      OpenStreetmap is a two way road, Microsoft had been using OSM data without giving anything back for quite a while, when this became public they started to donate back.

    6. Re:Microsoft and hobbyists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is like Texas Instruments, you were free to "hack" in BASIC... but assembly was a no-no. You're free to "tinker" in the specially made "tinker garden". That's what the Hypervisor was for on the PS3, to give you a garden within which you were allowed to play. (That didn't allow doing things they disliked such as loading games from the HDD and playing them w/o the disc present.)

  12. Sony still relevant outside of hackers by fruey · · Score: 3, Informative

    For non hacking, Sony do manage to be reasonably relevant. The PS3 and the win for BluRay exorcised some of the ghosts of the Betamax era (and Betamax was a superior technology from a quality point of view). Their midrange consumer equipment is reasonable, and their semi pro stuff still dominates in AV markets and provides a big range of equipment.

    That being said, they're no longer dominant in home audio (though they still have reasonable CD players and stuff) since their real flagship - The Walkman - has been deprecated by apple. Home HiFi is not selling as much, the PC is the new media center and there it's Apple all the way for most of my real music-mad friends. Sony have big corporate culture issues, but that's nothing new.

    --
    Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    1. Re:Sony still relevant outside of hackers by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The PS3 and the win for BluRay exorcised some of the ghosts of the Betamax era

      And brought in new ones.

      Sure, Betamax was a superior technology. But, Sony also fought for the right of people to own a device which allowed them to record content and watch it at their leisure -- well, deep down they fought for their right to sell them I guess. Some of the (eroding) consumer rights we have now with respect to content were, ironically, established due to Sony.

      Now, Sony is leading the spearhead to make sure consumers don't have any rights any more, and that anything which is actually capable of recording is bordering on illegal. So, they got a technology win, but they've become major assholes in the process. They've also had a huge number of flops that nobody cared about -- I only know one person who owned a Sony Minidisc system. And it was annoying as hell at the time.

      their real flagship - The Walkman - has been deprecated by apple

      Deprecated?? I think not. Made Redundant, pointless, and irrelevant in the marketplace; totally outclassed and left for dead -- but not 'deprecated'.

      I'm pretty sure I've not bought anything by Sony in over a decade, and I don't really see that changing. Less likely the more I hear news about them.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Sony still relevant outside of hackers by fruey · · Score: 1

      I think I'm using a more liberal interpretation of what deprecate means, but it doesn't matter - we both mean the same thing - redundant, pointless, once relevant now no longer relevant.

      Good point in the irony - though I wonder if their protectionism is driven by agreements with content companies that allowed Sony to defend BluRay in the first place? After all the hardware manufacturers shouldn't care much about how their hardware is used, unless they need help from the big studios etc. to push their hardware formats.

      Minidisc was an affordable recordable digital format before CD burners became prevalent. DAT was better though as it was 16 bit, 48KHz. Minidisc was a lossy compressed format, though it wasn't a total flop.

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    3. Re:Sony still relevant outside of hackers by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      Deprecated?? I think not. Made Redundant, pointless, and irrelevant in the marketplace; totally outclassed and left for dead -- but not 'deprecated'.

      Exactly! Have you ever tried rewinding a cassette tape with an ipod? For all this talk of this 'super sleek dial based user interface' they completely omitted an eject button. It's massive oversights like that, that has turned the ipod into just another 'almost ran'.....

    4. Re:Sony still relevant outside of hackers by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Good point in the irony - though I wonder if their protectionism is driven by agreements with content companies that allowed Sony to defend BluRay in the first place? After all the hardware manufacturers shouldn't care much about how their hardware is used, unless they need help from the big studios etc. to push their hardware formats.

      Well, if Sony wasn't a content company by the time the Betamax decision happened (I can't remember anymore), they have become since. So, they don't allow anybody to do anything with content that they don't explicitly approve of. They're as involved in the *AAs as just about anybody.

      Nowadays, if you try to make hardware that the content providers don't like, they'll sue you into oblivion and basically say that the entire purpose of the hardware is theft, and therefore illegal. I believe Sony's default legal position now would be that the VCR isn't fair use and legal -- but piracy and illegal. I vaguely recall that they were fighting simultaneous court battles, each using the opposite argument, but I have nothing to back that up.

      The way we're going, I won't be surprised if the notion of general purpose computing as we know it goes away -- Microsoft is already starting with their 'trusted' initiatives, whereby the user is presumed to be evil, and until they scour everything on the computer and vet you, you can't do anything with it.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Sony still relevant outside of hackers by fruey · · Score: 1

      I guess you're right there. Sony BMG in any case was a big record company before Betamax...

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    6. Re:Sony still relevant outside of hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      their real flagship - The Walkman - has been deprecated by apple.

      It really annoys me that some people tend to think Apple invented the MP3 player. (which deprecated the CD player which deprecated the Walkman)

    7. Re:Sony still relevant outside of hackers by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The MP3 player wasnt an invention, it was a natural evolution. It was obvious from the get go once MP3 took off.

      --
      Good-bye
  13. Also C&D "Abuse" by surzirra · · Score: 1

    Don't forget Chrono(Trigger) Resurrection, as well as other projects(seems like there were more), that were allowed to go until near completion before receiving a C&D letter. While more justified than the PS3 hacker situation, they could have really pleased fans and made money while doing so. I can't imagine that they didn't even discuss it. I would have liked to be in that meeting. But I know that if it were my company, I'd be making deals instead of sending C&D letters. Especially if their content was good... which it usually is if it's made by a fan.

    1. Re:Also C&D "Abuse" by panda+cakes · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Sony sent a C&D to Chrono Resurectuion. Or Square did? Nvm, some yellow peoples, they are all the same - little evil monkeys.

    2. Re:Also C&D "Abuse" by surzirra · · Score: 1

      Oh shit you are right, my bad. I get Square mixed up with SCEA because I've seen many Squaresoft games for Playstation for so many years.

  14. Re:So? by Shikaku · · Score: 1

    If you have any cell phone or Handheld computing device, you do, because Sony is attacking the very people that want to/are making it.

  15. Misguided Fury by engun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This seems to be a case of misguided fury where Sony is confusing its failure to to stay relevant, with losses stemming from piracy.
    All console manufacturers suffer some losses due to piracy, but not all of them find the need to rage against it.

    Sony has had a string of flops, from over-estimating the popularity of the PS3 (are they still selling it at a loss? or has it turned a profit at last?) to failing to so much as imagine something like the Kinect.

    My guess is, management has no choice but to scapegoat their failures on something - and who better than the obvious targets, like tinkerers and hackers and that omnipresent threat of piracy?
    (Microsoft, oddly enough, is actually profiting by encouraging an eco-system of tinkerers around the Kinect)

    1. Re:Misguided Fury by Gravatron · · Score: 1

      Remember, Piracy is a major reason why the PSP has had lukewarm reception from developers. Damn near everyone seems to just rip the game and spread the ISOs, and that's costing them money. Why spent 10 million making a game if people are just going to rip you off?

      As for Kinect? Tech wise, it's interesting, but game wise, it completely sucks. It's webcam games and rail shooters, and nothing else. It's got the same problem the eyetoy had, except MS has the money to throw at people to keep the bad press away. What's odd is the move, which is actually rather well playing in games, isn't selling more.

      this isn't a case of scrapgoating, it's a matter of pirates turning themselves into martyrs to bash a company that's daring to fight and not just roll over for them.

    2. Re:Misguided Fury by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a non-pirate who has had his computer rooted, and had his PS3's OtherOS feature (the reason I bought a PS3) taken from him, I can say that you are full of crap. I even went so far as to call SONY support before installing the damn patch on my PS3, and was assured that it only applied to the slim PS3s, that mine would be unaffected.
      They've fucked their customer base long and hard, and its the customers who are no longer willing to roll over and take it, again.
      Fuck SONY.

    3. Re:Misguided Fury by engun · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree that control of piracy is necessary, but my point was, Sony has failed to stay relevant in this game, and is now in the process of committing suicide by angering its customer base. Why did they not have to go to the same draconian lengths for the PS2? Wasn't it because it was a resounding success? What about the other console manufacturers? Sony under-estimated them all, even the tiny Wii, and paid the price.

      I forgot about the eye-toy, so I was wrong to say Sony hadn't thought of it. However, the Kinect is something else. It works, and there are enough open-source examples out there that prove it can be made to work extremely well. Games just need to catch up to it. And for the cases it fails, the traditional controllers are there. Still, the point is, the Kinect is revolutionary enough to keep things exciting with the X-Box, whereas Sony doesn't have anything new to offer.

      And now, the best thing they can think of is to piss their customers off (tech-savvy customers who popularize technology just like the Kinect is being popularized) when instead, they need to be getting busy keeping themselves relevant?

    4. Re:Misguided Fury by toriver · · Score: 1

      The Sony support was totally wrong. It could not have applied to the PS3 Slim since that never came with OtherOS enabled. But the huge warning did (as far as I remember) say that the feature would be removed and the partition (if any) returned to the "PS3 OS".

  16. The irony is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I still have a functioning Sony Trinitron and Sony VCR built in the 1990s, when Sony hardware was good. They were one of the first purchases I made of electronics gear when I moved out, and at the time I would have recommended them. I *used* to be a fan of their gear -- a little more expensive, but reasonable quality for consumer-grade stuff.

    Now I wouldn't touch their stuff with a 10-foot pole even if it was twice as good for half the price.

    Do they understand that they've lost an entire category of users? Yeah, I know geeks probably aren't their biggest market among the vast number of general consumers out there, but when you add in the "What would you buy? Anything but Sony" advice from geeks to their friends, the numbers have got to add up to something significant.

    Why don't they get this? How long can they afford not to care?

    1. Re:The irony is ... by Ice+Tiger · · Score: 1

      I agree they used to make products I'd want to buy and now they simply don't. Propitiatory technologies that will be out of date in a few years and DRM that prevents me using devices as I want just doesn't sell to me.

      Sony, be a content company or end user company but don't try and be both as there are too many conflicts of interest.

      --
      "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
  17. Re:So? by c00rdb · · Score: 0

    Sony Ericsson is operated as an independent company for all intents and purposes.

  18. Utter BS by dniq · · Score: 0, Troll

    The sole point of the hacking was to run pirated games. It's as clear as day. If you wanted to "tinker" - you've had the "Other OS feature to tinker with all you like. Sony's console was the only one which allowed to do that. But there weren't enough cool games for the PS3 back then, so the real tinkerers were happy, and pirates didn't care.

    Now ps3 had quite a few very nice games that pirates would obviously love to steal. So here come the "hackers" - NOW there's a reason for them to get to work. It has nothing to do with tinkering - if anything, it had made it pretty much impossible to tinker anymore: thanks to the "hackers", the "Other OS" was removed, so the only way to tinker NOW is to indeed hack it, which violates EULA and might land _real_ tinkerers in hot water.

    So stop with this bullshit already, pretending that you do it out of some noble cause. You've ruined it for all legitimate users, who now have to endure frequent firmware updates and might in the end have to deal with serial keys with every game or some other crazy DRM scheme, and who have lost the only legitimate way of playing with the Cell processor.

    1. Re:Utter BS by russotto · · Score: 1

      The sole point of the hacking was to run pirated games. It's as clear as day.

      Indeed. If your idea of day is an old-fashioned London fog.

      NOW there's a reason for them to get to work. It has nothing to do with tinkering - if anything, it had made it pretty much impossible to tinker anymore: thanks to the "hackers", the "Other OS" was removed, so the only way to tinker NOW is to indeed hack it, which violates EULA and might land _real_ tinkerers in hot water.

      Real tinkerers don't give a tinker's damn about EULAs.

      How much to you get paid to be a shill, anyway.

    2. Re:Utter BS by dniq · · Score: 0

      So, if I come to your house, pick a lock and "tinker" with your stuff - you obviously won't mind, right? After all, it's very easy to get into a house - too bad you didn't build it as a fortress, what were you thinking? Right?

      You can bark all you like - doesn't change the facts. Show a _single_ legitimate (as in "not to cheat or steal a game") example of the result of this hack.

    3. Re:Utter BS by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Bad analogy. Its not tinkering in someone elses house. Its using your own house. You bought your PS3.

      A better analogy is that the people who built your house are keeping you locked out of most of the rooms and are still storing their crap in them, and even though you bought the whole house outright, the law is apparently on their side.

    4. Re:Utter BS by dniq · · Score: 1

      I agree - it was an incomplete analogy. A better analogy would be if I had known what's in your house, all your private info and passwords to your bank accounts and had posted them online - for academic purposes.

      Your analogy is also incorrect: the correct one would be is you rent an apartment in an apartment complex. You can enter any room in your apartment, you can't enter your apartment complex's maintenance areas and you can't use their equipment. And there are also restrictions on what you can do in that apartment (you can't make illegal drugs, for example - even if you OWN, not rent).

      Again: you pay for what you're granted by the EULA. You don't agree with the EULA - you don't buy it and instead buy what let's you do what you want it to do. In case you haven't heard - PS3 up until recently has been sold at a loss, presuming that various fees from stuff sold for it would compensate the loss.

      But anyway, like I have already said: those who wanted to play with the Cell could do so without hacking. Sony's was the most open gaming console. The hacking only began when the PS3 became more popular and more cool games started coming out for it - now there's a good reason to hack it.

      And all I see from my perspective is this: now I can't install Linux on my PS3, and I don't want to hack it, because I like playing online and don't want to get banned - or get into legal trouble. So the only ones who are interested in this hack are indeed the cheaters or pirates, who don't play online anyway.

    5. Re:Utter BS by pem · · Score: 4, Informative

      Again: you pay for what you're granted by the EULA.

      Bullshit. I pay at the store, I take it home. Copyright and/or patent law might forbid me to use my replicator on it, but it's mine.

      You don't agree with the EULA - you don't buy it and instead buy what let's you do what you want it to do.

      You don't see the stupid EULA at the store, moron.

      In case you haven't heard - PS3 up until recently has been sold at a loss, presuming that various fees from stuff sold for it would compensate the loss.

      Sony's broken business model is not my problem, and the courts should not be propping them up.

    6. Re:Utter BS by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      IM glad you know me and can speak for me. I have a shelf full of PS3 games bought day one at retail. I used and enjoyed OtherOS and considered it a vaulable part of my purchase. I never had ANY desire to crack my machine until Sony went too far. Removing OtherOS was too far. I paid for it, i expect to use it. I consider it theft of property.

      --
      Good-bye
    7. Re:Utter BS by russotto · · Score: 1

      So you have the hackers to thank for it. Pity you're too feeble-minded to realize that. If you had your apartment broken into - you'd change the locks, install better doors et cetera. That's what Sony did. Had there been no hacking - there would not be a problem and OtherOS would still be available.

      Only... it's not Sony's apartment. And while you may believe it is, the point of view that control of an item should rest with its maker (rather than its putative owner) is not one a tinkerer can take, by definition.

    8. Re:Utter BS by dniq · · Score: 1

      Like I said - as long as it remains within your apartment, do whatever you please - you can even smash it into pieces and nobody will say a word.

      What I'm arguing against is _public release of a hack_, which with 100% certainty will result in piracy and cheating (already has, as a matter of fact), so that clearly indicates its intentions. Which makes this posturing "we're just tinkerers" even more ludicrous - as if you're smart enough to circumvent the security measures, but stupid enough to not realize what the outcome of its public release will be? "Oh, I didn't know if I release the hack it will be used for piracy!" - really???

    9. Re:Utter BS by russotto · · Score: 2

      Like I said - as long as it remains within your apartment, do whatever you please - you can even smash it into pieces and nobody will say a word.

      What I'm arguing against is _public release of a hack_, which with 100% certainty will result in piracy and cheating (already has, as a matter of fact), so that clearly indicates its intentions.

      Ah, so it's not freedom to tinker you're opposed to. It's freedom of speech. Hack all you want, just don't talk about it? Excuse me if I don't find that point of view any more acceptable. And for the record, no, just because a side effect is known does not mean it is intentional.

    10. Re:Utter BS by dniq · · Score: 0

      Are you being purposefully retarded? What in the hell are you talking about? I don't give two rat's asses about your freedom of speech, or anybody else's, for that matter - I'm not government (in case you are not aware - it only applies to government institutions, who are prohibited from restricting the right of free speech, read the amendment), and neither is Sony. Sony can restrict your right of speech as much as they like, within the confines of their domain, which PS3 security system and PlayStation Network are (and probably beyond, too - where they have the standing).

      And yes, if you know what the outcome will be - it is intentional. You aren't going to argue in court "I stabbed my wife with a knife 10 times, knowing she will most likely die, but her death was unintentional", are you?

    11. Re:Utter BS by russotto · · Score: 1

      Are you being purposefully retarded? What in the hell are you talking about? I don't give two rat's asses about your freedom of speech, or anybody else's, for that matter - I'm not government (in case you are not aware - it only applies to government institutions, who are prohibited from restricting the right of free speech, read the amendment), and neither is Sony. Sony can restrict your right of speech as much as they like, within the confines of their domain, which PS3 security system and PlayStation Network are (and probably beyond, too - where they have the standing).

      You're getting increasingly insane. Now you're asserting that Sony, because they make the PS3, can prevent people from talking about it? From where does that power derive?

    12. Re:Utter BS by dniq · · Score: 1

      If you're using their property (hint: their security code and encryption key is their property) - sure, they can. Why do you think the "Intellectual Property" term has that second word in it?

      Now, if you take a box, in which the PS3 sold in the store, there's a very prominent text on the back side of it, one piece of which reads as follows:

      "The system software included within this product is subject to a limited license from Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. Refer to www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula for further details" - in three languages (in North America - I'm sure it is in proper languages in the countries where it's sold).

      Like I said - vote with your wallet: take your money elsewhere. Nobody forces you to buy Sony PS3, so if it's not doing what you want it to do - then you're a moron, who bought a wrong product.

    13. Re:Utter BS by russotto · · Score: 1

      If you're using their property (hint: their security code and encryption key is their property) - sure, they can.

      You're saying Sony has ownership of a set of random numbers, to the point where they have the right to forbid people from talking about them?

      Why do you think the "Intellectual Property" term has that second word in it?

      To confuse people. Looks like it worked.

    14. Re:Utter BS by dniq · · Score: 1

      Yep. What's theirs is theirs - even if it appears like a random set of some values to a simpler organisms ;)

      What amuses me most is yours - and other people's who rare arguing with me here - lack of ability to see the whole picture, beyond the tip of your noses.

      1) Sony gave the option to tinker by providing OtherOS option
      2) Sony provided a _license_ to use the software - you don't own it, you only own hardware
      3) Somebody found exploit in it and used it - good for him and maybe all two other "tinkerers"
      4) Sony removed that option - bad for many who used the option to play with Cell
      5) The "somebody" then found another exploit and used it, and distributed it - good for him, the same two tinkerers, and plenty of pirates and cheaters
      6) Legitimate users now a) have no OtherOS option, b) are forced to update their systems too often, c) can't play some games online because of cheating, d) potentially face the requirement to enter serial codes or deal with some other DRM measures, or otherwise inconvenienced.

      Now, does that majority of legitimate users, who paid their money to play conveniently play games, watch movies, listen to music etc., give a flying fuck about supposed "liberties" or "rights" of that minority? In what universe?

    15. Re:Utter BS by toriver · · Score: 1

      Now you're asserting that Sony, because they make the PS3, can prevent people from talking about it?

      No, that is not what was said. Written. You can blog on your own site to your heart's content about it. But if you use a Sony-run service, Sony are free to delete your rants against them since the 1st Amendment does not limit their actions.

      From where does that power derive?

      Usually from something called "Terms of service". You are not entitled to using somebody else's private or corporate service.

    16. Re:Utter BS by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      So you have the hackers to thank for it.

      Actually, the people they have to thank for it are paranoid imbeciles who would rather take away from their own customers than let a few cheaters/'pirates' slip by.

      Had there been no hacking

      But there was hacking. It was done by a few people. That does not justify completely ruining something for everyone.

      You may not like cheaters. You may not like 'pirates'. You may think that they are both partly to blame. However, the one who harmed their own customers and removed the feature for everyone is also to blame.

      Most those who argue with this

      "Most"? Can you prove that?

      One would have to be a complete moron to assume that hack such as this won't be used for piracy

      Other people know and don't care. Not everyone feels the same way about 'piracy' as you (although that is irrelevant either way).

      Making it available to the average joes just proves what your true intentions are.

      To inform others about how you tinkered with your own property so that they could potentially get enjoyment out of your work?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    17. Re:Utter BS by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      it only applies to government institutions

      Who do you think Sony is attempting to convince to stop the people who talk about it?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  19. Re:So? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    Accounting gimmicks, nothing else. Sony's reach extends far beyond its "borders" through its portfolio.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  20. Nothing new from Sony by elrous0 · · Score: 2

    Sony were control freaks LONG before anything cited in that article. Even in the 80's, when I had occasion to deal with them, I was surprised at how touchy they were about their IP. I always chalked it up to a Japanese conformist mentality (not sure if that's fair, but Nintendo seem to exhibit it too). In subsequent years, I've become convinced that it's not even (primarily) about the money. I think that they would crack down on hackers even if it cost them more money than it was worth to do so.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Nothing new from Sony by plover · · Score: 1

      No, Sony was great before they bought CBS records, a content producing company. They were happy selling us tape recorders, VCRs with timers, Walkmans and other home electronics. When I was a kid, Sony stuff was amazingly cool.

      Once they bought CBS records and started producing stuff that people wanted to copy, it all changed. DAT recorders and mini-disc recorders had their Serial Content Management System and the infamous copy bit that prevented second-generation recordings on stock home recording decks. Sony became the driving force for evil DRM in consumer electronics, and by the mid 90s I stopped buying anything Sony. I still don't, and if someone's asking my recommendation on products at an electronics store (which happens often as I'm the 'family computer nerd') I steer them away from Sony. I don't care if they're buying a TV or a PC, I recommend against them, with the simple explanation of "I never buy Sony, their equipment prevents you from making copies of your own stuff."

      Sony's evil is also the sole reason I early-adopted an HD-DVD system instead of BluRay. (Of course we all know how that choice worked out.) But in terms of evil, I still rank Sony higher than I do Microsoft.

      --
      John
    2. Re:Nothing new from Sony by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      I was rooting for HD-DVD too. It was the superior format, and its DRM and region coding weren't nearly as oppressive as blu-ray. Sony getting their control-freak hands on yet another home video format scares the hell out of me. I'm sure they would have required online validation of each disc if they could have gotten away with requiring a internet connection on all blu-ray players.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  21. but, but, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why are we pooh-pooing Sony, but giving Apple a come-hither wink?

  22. Sont products are OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not a conscious fan of Sony, in the sense that I don't choose one product over another on the basis that it's a Sony.

    BUT,

    It turns out my notebook is Sony (Vaio VPCF12Z1), my TV is Sony (Bravia 46NX710), I've got a PS3 (came as a "gift" with the TV) and my cell phone is a 3-4 years old Sony-Erricson too.

    It also turns out that my use of these devices coincides with the Sony's idea of using them, I particular I use PS3 to play games without cheating and I have plenty of other computers to hack on, if I felt like.

    I guess I'm still going to buy Sony products (if they are good), despite the vocal teen crowd of self-proclaimed "thinkers and tinkerers", majority of which haven't actually came with a single original idea in their life.

    1. Re:Sont products are OK by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      My mindset also entails looking at the particular products themselves

      Apparently, you're saying that it simply doesn't concern you that much since you don't want to hack your PS3, etc. anyway.

      non-car analogy time:
      w/r/t the Comics Code, the censorship pissed a lot of people off, but Stan Lee had once said that he wasn't too concerned since he hadn't wanted to do edgy comics anyways.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  23. Re:Sony's products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you all attack Sony?AWL All they do is they sell their products for their consumers to use for a purpose.GOQ If they sue somebody, perhaps the victim needs some education of what is right and wrong.3X

    (emphasis mine) what is this, some kind of code? on my slashdot?

  24. They have to make war by rcamans · · Score: 0

    Sony has to go after anyone who may be infringing on their patents, trademarks, or IP, or they will slowly lose their rights to it, IMHO. I am not a lawyer, but if they do not they will have a weaker case in court.

    --
    wake up and hold your nose
  25. As a consumer I feel I HAVE been fighting back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the Sony Rootkit scandal I have actively and purposefully avoided purchasing ANYTHING with a Sony label on it. I'm not saying I've been perfect but if I'm tempted to buy a DVD and it has the Sony brand on it, I skip it. Same with household electronics or services. Sony is buying a plateful of bad karma by going after Hotz and the world for the PS3 hacking -- not that I'd buy another PS ever again, but that's just my two cents.

  26. I'm done with them. by trudyscousin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I knew for years that Sony had been the distributor of CBS recordings in Japan (and a great custodian too; I found CDs in Tokyo of CBS releases, long forgotten in the US, whose excellent quality reflected the care given to their masters), so it seemed to be a natural fit when they acquired CBS Records. In those days, how could I think otherwise? Sony's reputation for innovation and quality were unmatched by anyone else in Japan. Whenever I brought home a Sony television, or a stereo receiver, or a reel-to-reel deck (yes, I'm that old), that was something special.

    However, that acquisition, along with that of Columbia Pictures, marked the days when Sony began its long decline as an electronics provider. (Akio Morita's inevitable departure didn't help, either.) They still produce some amazing products, even though products like the Walkman, once ubiquitous, is now largely a historical fact. Their shift in focus now makes them a content provider first and a electronics provider second.

    When it comes to content, I think of them as nouveau riche, in the derogatory sense. Like the person with newfound wealth sometimes behaves, Sony has behaved in a most vulgar manner. It has demonstrated an amazing lack of finesse toward its customers while attempting to protect its content. The most infamous example of this has got to be the rootkit debacle.

    I miss the Sony of old. But I'm done with them.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
    1. Re:I'm done with them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty amazing.... Do they think we're just too damn stupid to see that they're acting like incredible asses?

      They can keep their IP. No need for a blu-ray here...

      Die soon, Sony, please...

  27. Sony lost sight of its goal long ago... by tekrat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When it stopped being a pro & consumer electronics company, and started being a multimedia conglomerate.

    Suddenly the folks running Columbia Pictures had a say in the board-room concerning what products would do and be capable of.

    This is how we wound up with audio CDs that had root-kits on them, and MP3 players that didn't play MP3s. When Sony just made hardware, it was damn good hardware. Especially in the pro-area, stuff like BetacamSP was top-notch equipment.

    But they lost their way, become too convoluted, too mired in internal politics and too many chefs spoiling the soup.

    If they had *never* put their claws into all other media, and had just stayed a hardware company, Slashdotters would be singing their praises, and they'd probably be bigger than Apple.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Sony lost sight of its goal long ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If they had *never* put their claws into all other media, and had just stayed a hardware company, Slashdotters would be singing their praises, and they'd probably be bigger than Apple.

      No, after the Asian currency crisis the Korean manufacturers still would have chosen to move upscale and chase the Japanese into the high end. Sony would still be insisting the Sony brand name was worth a significant premium, so they would be in the same boat. The Minidisc would have been a failure no matter what, the main draws of the tech were adding CD-like random access to a recordable media and a more exercise compatible format (CD-s skipped bad when jogging, cycling, or even just driving over bumps), but it just wasn't an instant killer over cassettes, and the introduction of CD-R's a few years later gave people a recordable media that could pay in existing players. The idea that cool tech alone would have beat Apple shows a misunderstanding of what drove their success, not just easy to use, attractive players, but compelling software, and Steve Jobs willingness to stand by what he knew it would take to make digital music successful, Low cost songs (the recording industry was opposed to the $1 price point for all songs) and the ability to burn purchased songs to CD an unlimited number of times (giving people an out if the tech failed). They tried to launch competing music stores, all failed. Some tried to bend Apple to their will and refused to let their songs be sold (ironically, the Beatles Apple Records was the last holdout), only to find their sales suffering when their buyers purchased other songs when the found they weren't sold in iTunes.

      Sony's issues are a Sony creation. I was once a loyal Sony customer, but these days I try to avoid it. I broke down and bought a Sony Handycam w/ a Hard Drive recently, gritting my teeth because I knew its use of Sony "MemoryStick" tech would be a limit in the long run versus the SDHC based Cannon, if it had simply used the common, less expensive SDHC cards it would have been a no brainer. Still, it is a great camera with readily accessible accessories

  28. why blacklist toyota? by airdrummer · · Score: 1

    ! 2 hijack the thread, but why? the "unintended accel" issue disappeared when it stopped being frontpage news, proving it 2 b the hysteria it was...

    a friend who worked the audi u.a. investigation told me they found ~20% of the involved audis' gas pedals 2 b bent from the force the drivers mashing on them with...iow: driver error.

    i'm sure the same goes w/toyota...

    1. Re:why blacklist toyota? by commodore6502 · · Score: 1

      My MAIN beef against Toyota is because of their overheating engines that died after only 20-30,000 miles due to "oil sludging", and Toyota's failure to replace those engines under warranty.

      Instead they blamed the customers, even though dealer records showed the oil was changed regularly, and charging customers ~$5000 to replace the damaged engine. This went on for nearly a decade until a class action lawsuit was filed, and the US DOJ fell on Toyota like a hammer (million dollar fines).

      The stuck accelerator is merely a small piece of a MUCH larger problem with Toyota's declining quality since the 90s.

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
  29. Word/Outlook by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    I agree that Outlook is a piece of crap (I tend to use webmail interfaces, and speaking of which, Outlook Web Access for Exchange can definitely suck it).
    However, Word does frankly come off as better than Writer (interface, look and feel, et cetera)

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:Word/Outlook by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      I switched to OpenOffice years ago -- when I was using Office XP Pro -- because very large reports (4000+ pages) were crashing Word. It was also much easier to preserve leading zeros in Excel.

      As far as user interface goes, I used Excel since version 4 through XP/2002, so an "old" interface to you is a familiar interface to me. OpenOffice doesn't have every feature, some features are implemented differently, and has some features Office does not. It's more personal preference and it works well for my needs and my systems.

    2. Re:Word/Outlook by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Yes, OpenOffice is at least fairly competitive I suppose; some FOSS that's not clearly-best-in-field is at least like that.
      4000+ page reports aren't part of my use case. :P

      Excel _does_ handle leading zeroes easily. (I happened to notice this as a collector trying to keep track of dollar-bill serial numbers.)

      (I'm working off of Office 2007; while initially starting with 2003; I happened to gain most of my poweruser experience after being switched to 2007.)

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  30. Cuz Sony never counterfeited say.. by __aavqan3009 · · Score: 1

    Tape machines in the 50`s.

  31. I'll say it again... by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    I happen to like particular products on their own merits (in this example, some music on Sony labels), and that's not negated by the horror stories since said horror stories just don't seem to affect me.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  32. Distinction between IP types... by KingAlanI · · Score: 2

    Trademarks and trade secrets definitely benefit from vigorous defense in this manner, but not so much for other forms of IP

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  33. The solution is simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't buy Sony.

  34. Sony and Wallets by yoshi_mon · · Score: 1

    Quick note, remember Sony's claim to fame was not only the Walkman and the CD player but their line of TVs back during the CRT days: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitron

    That out of the way it is easy for someone like me who does like to hack every bit of hardware that I own and thus will 'vote with my wallet' for hardware makers who allow that. But people like me are such a fringe, these days called enthusiast, market that it is really not a viable plan.

    An no mass education campaign is going to stop Joe/Jane Blow when they go to Target/Walmart/Best Buy and shop based on a whole different set of criteria. Price, features, what looks good, heck even color matters A LOT to some people.

    --

    Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
  35. It seems like nintendo has handled it better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the Wii got hacked, Nintendo didn't start taking people to court did it?

    They simply played cat and mouse a bit. They probably realized it's a lot more futile and expensive to try and stop it and it's only affecting a very small percentage of their customer base.

    Granted, Sony probably spent a fortune coming up with their security scheme compared to the Wii.

    I struggle because I hate the way Sony handles this stuff, but I really like their products. I've had a blast playing some of the exclusive games on the PS3. I rarely play online so I don't care too much about PSN access except for one huge gotcha... Netflix. I'm currently on the last firmware (unhacked) and I've "lost" netflix access which is a bummer.

    If anyone knows of any proxy tricks I can use to make netflix think I'm logged in to PSN or not care, I'm all ears.

  36. EASY FIX. Sony just needs to rent their stuff by PotatoHead · · Score: 3, Interesting

    so that people don't own it. Problem solved.

    Buy a license to use some SONY gear, and during the term of your license, if you have trouble with it, drop it off or ship it to a depot, and get a new one, no worries.

    When you are done, return the device and carry on.

    That's really what they are trying to do, only they are trying to leverage the benefits of ownership, without also dealing with the realities of what people do with their stuff.

    If it's really that big of a deal to open the PS3, don't sell them to people. Simple as that.

  37. Sony didn't violate the GPL by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    Sony violated copyright law by distributing a copyrighted work without a license.

    The distinction is important and we should always describe this type of action as violating copyright.

    Make sure people know that are Sony the pirates!

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  38. Not informative by peppepz · · Score: 1
    In my opinion the article abuses of both hyperbole and ellipsis to present a subset of facts in a distorted way that conforms to the author's prejudicial concept that "Sony is evil".
    - The PS3, even in its dumbed-down form, is still many times more open and interoperable than the XBOX 360, and surely million times more open than Nintendo's hardware.
    - The same can be said for Sony's Android phones versus the iPhones and WP7 handsets.
    - Sony's attempts to stop piracy and online cheating on their gaming platforms differ in no way from the equivalents efforts from competitors.
    - The PS2 and PS3 were the only gaming consoles to *officially* support the installation of Linux.

    As a consumer I don't feel I've ever been screwed by Sony, except perhaps by their ridiculously high prices.
    I do feel I'm damaged by piracy, because it makes honest users pay for the dishonest users' fun. And it means that honest users' gameplay is spoiled by "tinkerers" and "innovators" that artificially dope their stats.
    Besides the PS3, I have a PC that allows me to do all the tinkering and innovation I'd like to do - so Hotz's efforts are of no use to me.

    All the Sony bashing I use to read here is no news for nerds, it's passive repeating of nerd memes.

    1. Re:Not informative by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I do feel I'm damaged by piracy, because it makes honest users pay for the dishonest users' fun.

      You're damaged by paranoid idiots who would rather harm their own customers than let a few 'pirates' slip by, not 'piracy'.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:Not informative by peppepz · · Score: 1
      Perhaps where you live they're just 'a few'. But where I live, piracy is *massive*. For example, when the major satellite pay tv channels were "crackable", we literally saw parabolic dishes pop up on every roof and balcony. You could get a visual representation of piracy just by looking out from a window. The original PlayStation, although being a bit expensive, crushed all competition to the point that I haven't ever seen a single Sega Saturn or Nintendo64, only because it was so easy to make it read "backups": the urban legend circulating in that time was that Sony willingly made its protection weak because they just wanted to sell the hardware. The same can be said for the PS2 (which even didn't require a modchip at all) and for the current XBOX360.

      I won't make the silly assumption that all "pirates" would buy original games if piracy was not possible - it's just false. But when I go in shops and see that an original game costs as much as three days of work, while I know my friends are downloading the same game from torrents, I feel I'm being a bit exploited.

    3. Re:Not informative by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      But where I live, piracy is *massive*.

      PS3 game 'piracy'? If so, do you have any sources to back that up?

      But when I go in shops and see that an original game costs as much as three days of work, while I know my friends are downloading the same game from torrents, I feel I'm being a bit exploited.

      And why should this be blamed on 'piracy'? To the company itself, a 'pirate' is almost indistinguishable from someone who merely doesn't buy their product (in that neither grants them money). How exactly do we know who is a 'pirate' and who merely didn't buy the product (not counting anecdotal evidence, of course)? It's nearly impossible. Even spying on a few torrents won't accomplish anything. It's ridiculous to blame 'pirates' because corrupt corporations take actions that hurt the consumer based on unprovable assumptions.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    4. Re:Not informative by peppepz · · Score: 1

      But where I live, piracy is *massive*.

      PS3 game 'piracy'? If so, do you have any sources to back that up?

      Of course PS3-specific piracy is still low - it has just started so its ecosystem hasn't fully developed yet. But turn your attention to equivalent systems on which piracy has been around for a longer time and you'll have your numbers: for example, google for some forum hosting xbox 360 dvd images and observe the download counts.

      But when I go in shops and see that an original game costs as much as three days of work, while I know my friends are downloading the same game from torrents, I feel I'm being a bit exploited.

      And why should this be blamed on 'piracy'? To the company itself, a 'pirate' is almost indistinguishable from someone who merely doesn't buy their product (in that neither grants them money). How exactly do we know who is a 'pirate' and who merely didn't buy the product (not counting anecdotal evidence, of course)? It's nearly impossible. Even spying on a few torrents won't accomplish anything. It's ridiculous to blame 'pirates' because corrupt corporations take actions that hurt the consumer based on unprovable assumptions.

      I could start by pointing out that such foundations of scientific correctness are usually not requested when people state the opposite opinion than mine, i.e. "pirates don't harm the market".
      I could go on by noting that the researches you want to see take time and cost money, and the only ones who actually have interest in paying for them are the hollywood / game publishers, and when they *do* publish their results, which unsurprisingly show they're having huge damages because of piracy, they are simply ignored or not believed by the community.
      You say that such researches are impossible, and I could answer that apparently they aren't, because we have statistics about corruption, about tax evasion and so on. It's not that they can call people home and ask them "are you corrupt?" - they evidently must have other instruments. So the argument "if you can't count it, it didn't happen" isn't universally true.
      But actually there's no need for all these words: my reasoning for feeling damaged by piracy is much simpler and has nothing to do with anectodal evidence, corrupt corporations and so on... I pay, I play; pirates don't pay, but play. Since developing games tends to have a cost, I suppose that if I wouldn't pay, they wouldn't play either. So I'm effectively paying for letting them play. I would be ok with that if it was in the form of some kind of tax to let poor children, as determined by some kind of ranking, enjoy games they couldn't afford. But as long as it is something more like "dumb people pay, smart people don't" you'll have a hard time convincing me it's ethical.

    5. Re:Not informative by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Of course PS3-specific piracy is still low

      Even if you could predict the future, it still wouldn't matter to me. Harming your own customers (who are definitely in a majority) to go after some (or even quite a few) 'pirates' is idiotic. It's a complete waste of time, as we've seen with DRM schemes.

      I could start by pointing out that such foundations of scientific correctness are usually not requested when people state the opposite opinion than mine, i.e. "pirates don't harm the market".
      I could go on by noting that the researches you want to see take time and cost money, and the only ones who actually have interest in paying for them are the hollywood / game publishers, and when they *do* publish their results, which unsurprisingly show they're having huge damages because of piracy, they are simply ignored or not believed by the community.

      People don't believe these so-called 'studies' because they aren't accurate. To be accurate, they would literally have to not only prove that each and every 'pirate' would have bought the product otherwise, but they'd also have to accurately determine exactly how many 'pirates' exist in the first place. Both of these are near impossible tasks with the latter being difficult merely because of the giant scope of the internet.

      they evidently must have other instruments.

      Then please, tell me this: what "instruments" are they using to find every single instance of 'piracy' present on the internet? That would indeed be an interesting piece of technology (no, looking at a few torrents isn't going to return an accurate result).

      Since developing games tends to have a cost

      Cost incurred by choice of the developers. That aside, even if you truly believe that 'pirates' harm developers, any action taken against legitimate customers by the developers would still be the fault of the developers (and the 'pirates', in this scenario).

      So I'm effectively paying for letting them play.

      You're paying for the product.

      But as long as it is something more like "dumb people pay, smart people don't" you'll have a hard time convincing me it's ethical.

      It's not that I don't agree with you that supporting developers is a good thing if you wish to see continued development, but I must mention that ethics are subjective.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    6. Re:Not informative by peppepz · · Score: 1

      Of course PS3-specific piracy is still low

      Even if you could predict the future, it still wouldn't matter to me. Harming your own customers (who are definitely in a majority) to go after some (or even quite a few) 'pirates' is idiotic. It's a complete waste of time, as we've seen with DRM schemes.

      All I'm asking for is the same meter of judgement to be applied to all corporations, besides Sony, who are imposing DRM schemes to their cusomers. That is, sadly, every one.

      People don't believe these so-called 'studies' because they aren't accurate. To be accurate, they would literally have to not only prove that each and every 'pirate' would have bought the product otherwise, but they'd also have to accurately determine exactly how many 'pirates' exist in the first place. Both of these are near impossible tasks with the latter being difficult merely because of the giant scope of the internet.

      Often we can satisfy our needs with less accuracy. Science, for example, works by figuring out simplified models, the scope where they can be applied, and their limitations in general, and then by validating them using measurements.
      That's why when we want to know what current will flow in a conductor given the difference of voltage at its extremes, in most cases we can say "V/R" instead of integrating Maxwell's equations over the whole volume of the conductor.
      That's why we can just suppose that a body left free in the void on Earth will fall in such a way that we'll see its center of mass accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 - we could as well, as you would probably require, calculate the gravitational/electric/magnetic interaction of every single particle the body is composed of, against every other one in the universe, but that would be difficult, merely because of the giant scope of the cosmos. And by the way, the results would be pretty much the same, if you can live with a very, very small error.

      they evidently must have other instruments.

      Then please, tell me this: what "instruments" are they using to find every single instance of 'piracy' present on the internet? That would indeed be an interesting piece of technology (no, looking at a few torrents isn't going to return an accurate result).

      There's no need to perfectly know the precise extent of a problem before starting to do something to solve it.
      To obtain a rough measurement of piracy the could base their expectations on the number of pirate copies confiscated by the police. Or the income of pirate game dealers as reported by the police.
      Or they could compare the sales of some titles on a piracy-enabled console versus a piracy-proof one, with the results normalized to the price of the two consoles and of the title, and measured on a large enough sample of demographically homogeneous buyers.
      If any of this shows that it's reasonable to think that the sale of even a single copy was lost due to piracy, then the corporations would be legitimated to spend whatever fraction of their own money they deem appropriate to prevent this from happening in the future.

      Of course honest buyers will turn away from the "products" by whose DRM they feel they've been damaged, migrating to less DRM-ridden platforms. In the case of console video games, this isn't happening, as the DRM schemes found on console games are much less invasive than those found on open platforms such as the PC, and in general they're homogeneously distributed among the different console vendors.

      Since developing games tends to have a cost

      Cost incurred by choice of the developers. That aside, even if you truly believe that 'pirates' harm developers, any action taken against legitimate customers by the developers would still be the fault of the developers (and the 'pirates', in this scenario).

      I feel pissed when I think that a part of the (to me) excess

    7. Re:Not informative by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      All I'm asking for is the same meter of judgement to be applied to all corporations, besides Sony, who are imposing DRM schemes to their cusomers. That is, sadly, every one.

      Not everyone. Many, but not all. However, I agree. It should be applied to everyone.

      Often we can satisfy our needs with less accuracy.

      Not when it's completely inaccurate. Can you point me in the location of a study that has pinpointed the exact amount of 'pirates' on this planet, or anywhere close to that? If the study is incomplete, its accuracy cannot be measured.

      To obtain a rough measurement of piracy the could base their expectations on the number of pirate copies confiscated by the police.

      What of the ones not confiscated by the police? An unknown amount. Such is the same with all of your other 'solutions'. They all have an unmeasurable factor to them that could mean the difference between being accurate and inaccurate. In fact, the chances of them being accurate are abysmally small.

      Of course honest buyers will turn away from the "products" by whose DRM they feel they've been damaged

      Hopefully, but many people are ignorant of what DRM really is and why they shouldn't support companies that utilize it to a harmful degree. It takes time to inform such people, and even then there's no guarantee that they'll change their ways (perhaps they just don't care), leaving people that do care almost powerless.

      And my very personal one says to play by the rules even while you're fighting to change them.

      I'm going to respond to this as if it was a general statement. What about civil disobedience? Some rules simply cannot be followed. But, you're correct in that you should expect there to be consequences.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  39. Re:EASY FIX. Sony just needs to rent their stuff by panda+cakes · · Score: 0

    In case of the current batch of PS3 hackers (Geohot et al) they are protecting the software that they already license and don't sell. If "tinkerers" and "innovators" did not distribute modifications to the Sony's OS Sony would not have a leg to stand against them in court. Also it does not seem that Sony cares about hardware modifications unless they are used to bypass copy protection, I've never heard about Sony going after anyone who modded their PS3 case or used accelerometers ripped from a Dualshock in a project.

  40. Evil Microsoft by dadelbunts · · Score: 2

    I find it funny that the "Evil" microsoft corporation doesnt go around suing people left and right. Xbox1 media server or running emulators? w.e Xbox 360 HDD hack. w.e Xbox 360 DVD hack. Cant play on xbl if you get caught but wont get sued. Kinect. People are controlling goddamn tiny gundams with this thing. Maybe thats why they dont get sued? Daaaaamn you evil microsoft!

  41. Just one point of note... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2

    ...anyone who's posting damning Sony comments on here from a Mac, iPhone or other locked-down Apple device is a hypocrite.

    I'm typing this from Linux, so I'm allowed to wear open-toed sandals, not shave most days and hate Stony and Snapple.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  42. Re:EASY FIX. Sony just needs to rent their stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If it's really that big of a deal to open the PS3, don't sell them to people.

    While I agree with the "don't sell if you don't want people to own" concept, it's not like it's a practical thing for Sony to do.

    If nobody owned their PS3, this means that they'll be returning them to Sony when the Next Best Thing comes out. And if people aren't going to own their PS3, you can bet nobody's going to bother -buying- the games that go with it. They will rent.

    So if Sony is forced to only rent the both of them, it means at the end of 5 years they would have 40 million PS3s or more and probably a billion game discs to dispose of.

  43. Shill Much? by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

    George Hotz has stated under oath the he NEVER agreed to any EULA and his attorney demonstrated that firmware updates were provided without requiring it. EULAs cannot be arbitrarily enforced against parties that never agreed or for that matter had any opportunity to agree to them.

    The fact that you want to stand up for Sony and their egregious behavior shows just how brainwashed the masses have become. Just because you want to grab your ankles when Sony or any other companies claim bogus ownership rights over something you paid for, doesn't mean the rest of us do. As far as I'm concerned, Sony can suck my balls.

    For the record: I do not own a PS3, or any other Sony hardware for that matter. My last Sony purchase pre-dated Sony deciding to screw customers with its "Memory Stick" abomination.

    1. Re:Shill Much? by dniq · · Score: 1

      I stand up not for Sony, but for myself: I have no intention of hacking my PS3, and I had lost the ability to use OtherOS (or log into PSN, had I chosen not to upgrade the firmware), because it was used to compromise its security to begin with, which resulted in Sony removing the backdoor.

      I've asked above and have never received an answer, so I'll ask again: what legitimate "tinkering" came out of the hack? We know the piracy is not enabled, we know cheating is now enabled, but besides that - what good did it bring?

    2. Re:Shill Much? by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      I've asked above and have never received an answer, so I'll ask again: what legitimate "tinkering" came out of the hack? We know the piracy is not enabled, we know cheating is now enabled, but besides that - what good did it bring?

      I will answer for you. It doesn't matter what "legitimate" tinkering comes out. Is it now a pre-requisite that every activity in life must have a goal, that is approved by you? Maybe the goal is just to see if it can be done. Maybe it is to learn how others do things. Maybe it will lead to the next big gaming console. Who gives a shit?

      You are just making excuses because you don't like disruptions in your little gaming world. The facts are that Sony wants to control their physical products after they have sold them to a willing buyer. This is not a license and it sure as hell is not a "rental" as you seem to imply with your crappy analogies. If they don't want people to have "their stuff", then maybe they shouldn't sell it. Let them rent it, if they want those rental rights. Otherwise, as I stated before, they can suck my balls.

    3. Re:Shill Much? by dniq · · Score: 1

      I will answer for you. It doesn't matter what "legitimate" tinkering comes out. Is it now a pre-requisite that every activity in life must have a goal, that is approved by you? Maybe the goal is just to see if it can be done. Maybe it is to learn how others do things. Maybe it will lead to the next big gaming console. Who gives a shit?

      Precisely my point: tinker, see, reverse engineer for your own curiosity - nobody gives a shit indeed, until you release it publicly. It's not specific to Sony - it's just how things work. And you're merely one of those hypocrites, who advocates something as long as it doesn't work against them. You'd be on a completely different side of the fence, had you been a game developer, for example.

    4. Re:Shill Much? by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      How can you read what I wrote and come up with the exact opposite of my point? First of all I would never advocate censorship of any kind, irrespective of my profession. I support the free exchange of ideas, regardless of yours or Sony's ignorance. Censorship is anthema to my very being.

      In my college days, I wrote a mini OS/monitor for the 386 chip just because I wanted to understand the protected mode of the chip and the workings of the peripheral ICs. If you and Sony had your way, I would have never been able to do that. I read the books that were written in the era, detailing a reverse engineered BIOS, and DOS. If you had your petty corporatist way, there would be no personal computer industry as we know it and you wouldn't be sitting around bellyaching about your games. You see, Compaq reverse engineered the IBM PC and led the way to the explosion of personal computers in the late 80s and 90s. But because you hate "cheaters" so much, you would have never allowed such heresy. It blows my mind that people cannot fathom what life was like before the corporations began their campaigns of leading the weak minded to believe that you cannot own what you purchase.

      I realize trying to make you understand is like teaching calculus to a pig, but believe it or not, life does not revolve around "cheaters" and "pirates" screwing you out of your perfect gaming experience. Even if you cannot make a stand on principle alone, you should at least realize that there are people smarter than you that can.

    5. Re:Shill Much? by dniq · · Score: 1

      Have you distributed your OS and has it done any damage to anyone?

      It just does not compute in your tiny little communist mind that there's a difference between finding a key and keeping it and finding a key and making millions of copies of it - I doubt even this very sentence itself will compute in there... But whatever.

      hint: hack is not an "idea". Nobody prevents you from telling others you can hack it. There's a good reason many decent security experts first warn the owner of the product they've found exploit to about the exploit, before releasing it - if they even have the intention to release it.

      Your very own sentence "you cannot own what you purchase." shows your flawed logic. You own a gaming system. That's what you bought, that's what you've got. Like I said - if you don't like the fact that you bought a gaming system - perhaps you bought a wrong product, no? Vote with your $$ - don't buy products you don't like. If you bought and didn't like it - return. Otherwise - you're simply a moron, who bought a refrigerator when he needed an iron.

    6. Re:Shill Much? by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      Once again you fail at basic reading comprehension. I am not a Communist. In fact, you have no idea how far off the mark you really are. This may surprise you, but communism refers to the communal ownership of property and rights and a lack of private property. I am arguing just the opposite. I stated that if you own something, you own all of it. I actively refute the premise that I can sell you something and then proceed to tell you what you can and cannot do with it. Do you now understand difference with Communism?

      I believe in the free exchange of ideas and information. What you call a hack,I can just as easily call research. It is just semantics. Unfortunately, you still want to argue, that I can sell you something and tell you how to use it. You think that if you use it in a way I did not anticipate or want, I should be able to take you to court. If you hate cheaters, then ban them. If you hate pirates, prosecute them. You think that because I don't want you to understand how it works or to tell anybody else, I should be able to use the courts to silence you.

      Sadly, the exercise of free speech occasionally inconveniences some people. You would like to ban free speech to mitigate that inconvenience and protect corporate profits. I vehemently oppose that. As I stated, you want it both ways. If you sell me something, then it belongs to me. If you don't want me to publish how it works, tough shit. Don't sell it then.

      You also seem to be confused on the concept of keys. When you buy a house or car, do you not ask for the key? Do you feel the need to beg the former owner for permission to copy that key or do you just ask the former owner to let you in when you come and go? Do you fear the courts when you make a copy to your family? Can you not understand how asinine your position is?

    7. Re:Shill Much? by dniq · · Score: 1

      1) you're arguing that you OWN the PS3 in its entirety, where in fact you only own the hardware and A LICENSE to use the software. That's clearly spelled out right on the box. You don't own the software, however you assume that you have the right to own it, which is as communist as it gets.

      2) I believe in private property - physical, intellectual or whatever else the might be. You own the physical property - a bunch of silicone, aluminum, some other metals, precious and not so much, plastic et cetera. Sony owns the intellectual property and offers you a license - a contract to use it under certain conditions. I don't know where you live - and don't care, quite frankly - but in the United States these rights are protected by law, and you can, of course, refuse to accept the license and return the product back to the store (within 30 days in most stores in the US). That's the law, if you don't like it - bring it up with your senator, campaign for the change, or move to the country where you like the laws. But you don't have the right to violate the law and then tell that you think the law is wrong. That's democracy for you: if majority bugs their lawmakers about the change - the change will be made. Otherwise - follow the letter of law.

      3) you can exercise you right of speech as long as it does not violate rights of others. Again you demonstrate lack of understanding of basic principles laid out in The Constitution, Bill of Rights et cetera. Your right to free speech is not absolute, and even to the extent that you have it - it does not apply to commercial organizations, or individuals among themselves. I, for example, exercise my right to free speech right now, however it inconveniences you, apparently. That's what I call hypocrisy.

      4) If I have the same car and figure out how to easily open it and tell others how to do it, and the next day your car is stolen using my method to open it - how would you feel?

    8. Re:Shill Much? by pem · · Score: 1

      But you don't have the right to violate the law...

      Nobody's yet shown that Hotz has violated any laws. OTOH, Sony is a known rootkit maker/distributor.

    9. Re:Shill Much? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      tiny little communist mind

      What?

      keeping it and finding a key and making millions of copies of it - I doubt even this very sentence itself will compute in there... But whatever.

      So it becomes bad when you share your methods with everyone else? The existence of a few cheaters in a video game should stop people from being able to publicly announce the methods they used to tinker with their own property?

      Vote with your $$ - don't buy products you don't like.

      This is a good idea, however. It's a shame that Sony won't go bankrupt (mostly due to the technologically illiterate or apathetic people who continue to buy their products). All you can do is try.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    10. Re:Shill Much? by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      1) you're arguing that you OWN the PS3 in its entirety, where in fact you only own the hardware and A LICENSE to use the software. That's clearly spelled out right on the box. You don't own the software, however you assume that you have the right to own it, which is as communist as it gets.

      Still confused about Communism I see... I do not care about Sony's software. The loader key allows me to run MY OWN SOFTWARE, not Sony's. You are inventing strawmen. If I do not use Sony's software, how does their license prevent me from using my own property?

      3) [deleted for brevity]Your right to free speech is not absolute, and even to the extent that you have it - it does not apply to commercial organizations, or individuals among themselves. I, for example, exercise my right to free speech right now, however it inconveniences you, apparently. That's what I call hypocrisy.

      Huh?? Are you sure that English is your first language? Free speech "does not apply" to "individuals among themselves." WTF? Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech. Sony is whining to the courts that a Congressional law should censor the rights of free speech.

      You do not inconvenience me. In fact, I find your lack of understanding humorous. I cannot even imagine what reason you have conjured for calling me a hypocrite. I have never tried to silence you, only educate you. Clearly, this is a fool's quest.

      4) If I have the same car and figure out how to easily open it and tell others how to do it, and the next day your car is stolen using my method to open it - how would you feel?

      I guess you have never seen a book on locksmithing. I thought I would enlighten you.
      http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=automotive+locksmithing&x=0&y=0
      You really should spend more of your time in the library. They have all sorts of books on forbidden knowledge you would just love to ban...

      And finally, just to confuse you a little bit more. I am a Libertarian, not a Communist. I believe that you should NOT have usage rights over property you have sold to me. I do not advocate communal property or revoking property rights altogether. You unfortunately confuse property rights with copyright. You seem to think that legally granting a copyright, somehow prevents ownership of the underlying hardware. You want to disallow me from disassembling, studying, reverse engineering, and telling others what I have discovered. That is your "Utter BS."

  44. Just piss off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just failzine for people who want to pirate..

    If you hate sony so much then stop fucking buying their products
    Instead you buy their product then piss and moan that your not allowed to modify it knowing full well you couldnt in the first place.

  45. Seeing as a boon not a threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish that sony and companies like it would see these tinkerers as a posible good thing instead of something malicious. If they accepted the idea maybe they would work with them to make better products and thus sell more. Especially with that added comunity based advertisement which is worth how much more then traditional advertisement.

    This reminds me of when the Chinese had the largest fleet in the world (a long time ago) and the court advisors felt that the exploration of the world threatened their high place in socioty so they ordered the fleet burned to the ground. Similarily somebody at sony and similar such places are seeing this as something trying to take their power away.

    Instead of growing out of this phase of development we are draging our heels all the way through just like most people do and then when we are through we shall see that we were being very childish and then we shall have the opertunity to either embrace the truce or continue in denial.

  46. Hah! Surely you jest. by DarthStrydre · · Score: 1

    A sheet of ruled paper beats Quickbooks - at least if you look at it wrong it will not corrupt the database and the last week's worth of entries. I'll take vi (maybe Eclipse for some projects, or notepad++) over suffering through VS any day. Watson is running a Linux cluster with a huge foundation of FOSS. Chromium IS open source. Excel (except for install base) and Powerpoint really dont have much going for them except the cruddy ribbon bar that (almost) everyone hates. 7zip/LZMA2 is on par or better than winRAR again except for install base - better compression, slightly lower speed. GMail as an interface is on par with Zimbra - the cloud factor allows Gmail's spam filters to be more intelligent, but the UI and usability are similar - at least Zimbra can sort! I do not know any FOSS products that have led to more virus infection vectors than Adobe products... so I cannot dispute Adobe's dominance there.

                That leaves Vegas, and TurboTax. I've never used Vegas, to be honest. Given their (Sony's) current stance as a company I doubt I ever soon honor them with my patronage. Turbotax is in an odd boat - They have the great ability to reap funds from people every year, for an evolutionary product. In that instance FOSS fails (though I'm happy to be proven wrong), in that it does take significant effort to change it each year, yet there is guaranteed funding stream.

  47. Re:EASY FIX. Sony just needs to rent their stuff by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

    Exactly!!

    I understand they want to have it all their way, but doing business costs money. A rental program is expensive, and more expensive than dealing with the things that people do when they own stuff.

    They need to deal just like everybody else does, and realize that selling things isn't just a free ride.

  48. Re:EASY FIX. Sony just needs to rent their stuff by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

    Yeah? Why fuck with geohot then?

  49. Re:EASY FIX. Sony just needs to rent their stuff by panda+cakes · · Score: 0

    Geohot's release of modified Sony OS infringes on Sony's copyright. He does not own Sony OS, he has no rights to modify it nor does he has any rights to distribute the modified work.

  50. Re:EASY FIX. Sony just needs to rent their stuff by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

    Well, tough.

    When we mix hardware together, and the company blatently abuses their position, harming a lot of people, fair is fair. Perhaps SONY should seriously consider not fucking people over, and there would be less of a reason to modify their OS.

    One of the DMCA exceptions is for interoperability, and the recent jailbreak exception demonstrates the validity of this. You are quite right in that it's not explicitly allowed.

    But, there are moral issues here, and decisions that will last a long time. The idea that we can't deal with our hardware isn't a good one longer term, and when hardware and software are mixed together, something has to give.

    What? You a SONY fanboi or something?

  51. Re:EASY FIX. Sony just needs to rent their stuff by panda+cakes · · Score: 0

    I am a witch, yes.

  52. LOL!!! by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

    Well, that's not the response I expected.

    Casual gamer maybe? Somebody clueless, who buys the line SONY writes on this stuff? Hard to believe a real slashdotter would even bother going down the road you are right now.

    1. Re:LOL!!! by panda+cakes · · Score: 0

      No, I make living coding games (for PS3 too) but don't play much so hardly am a gamer. Maybe I am a freak of nature but Sony never harassed me, hacked hardware I own or did anything else the real slashdoters seem to suffer on regular basis. My PS3 plays games, bluray, streaming movies (all that in 3D too) works nicely with a Panasonic TV so can be controlled with the TV remote. Could not care less to run Other OS (still have it on an old fat PS3 that I replaced with a slim for aesthetics reason) - I can run Linux on any of my PCs.

    2. Re:LOL!!! by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

      Ok then, that explains your comment more fully.

      Here's the deal. You really are not in a position to be harassed. Developing means adding value to SONY, and a level of access sufficient to be meaningful to you. No worries.

      Now, say one isn't at that level of access. Maybe wants to learn. Perhaps wants to author something they believe might be of value. Re-purpose the console? Lots of things possible here.

      Of course one can run Linux on a PC. That's not the point. The point is what ownership means, and whether or not there are checks on SONY and it's security system. When I buy something as a user, that does not trust me, I really don't own it. This is offensive to me, not because I would pirate, or hack online to grief people. Those things are not valuable to me. But, understanding what my hardware is doing, or being able to repurpose it is! How long have you been developing?

      Were you there in the 80's, like I was? I have a solid career today, involving high end software, really ugly licenses (hate that), and complex systems engineering that goes right back to those days in the 80's where one could just open it up and learn stuff. That's true today with Linux and the PC, and it's a damn good thing.

      But it really isn't true with the PS3, and it should be, because the PC and Linux isn't really going to continue to be relevant. There is a big push to do more closed, trusted computing, and that threatens people like me, and maybe you, depending on how you cut your chops.

    3. Re:LOL!!! by panda+cakes · · Score: 0

      I don't know what you imagined but my PS3 does not have any special level of access - I've bought it at Gamestop and I believe it's the same unit they would sell to anybody else. At work I do not use retail PS3s - there are developer units with different hardware and different software. I have been in game development since 1997. You can re-purpose your PS3, your TV or your car, any hardware you own and nobody is stopping you. But software is different - you don't own the software, you have been licensed to use it (unless you wrote it yourself or bought rights). Microsoft will license you Windows and will let you run your programs but won't give you modification rights (or maybe it will - I did not read their EULA), GPL will license you linux and will let you modify it as you please, Sony will license you their OS and will only let you run Sony programs. If you don't like it - don't buy Sony stuff, don't buy Microsoft stuff or don't buy anything with GPL in it depending on what you don't like. Or go ahead and violate their license but don't act all shocked and outraged when you get sued, especially after you documented what you did all over the Internet. There is also a moral side. You think it's amoral to hide hardware and I can see your position. However I also see Sony's position - for every single person who wants to learn or tinker or whatever there are literally tens of thousands who just want to play free games. Hiding and protecting hardware helps to fend them off. Sony wants to sell games and will screw tinkerers over the sales but there are other companies that make completely open hardware for you to tinker. Like GP32 or what is it called now, have you seen a lot of homebrew there? There are probably already more CFWs, "package managers" and other piracy related releases for PS3 in the past few months than there were original games for GP32 in the past few years.

    4. Re:LOL!!! by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

      Well, let's say we disagree, and jesus. You could try some formatting.

      The moral argument here is that without some checks on what SONY does with their OS, they can over exploit those using it. How do we know SONY is playing fair, for example?

      When I said "access" you clearly have hardware that is developer hardware, and the documentation and the licenses that are needed to write programs.

      What happens when the hardware gets old, or somebody wants to archive a game for later on?

      Here's the reality on it. The current state of copyright and IP in general is too draconian. People are pushing back because of that. It's not all fair, and it's not all right, but it's being magnified into a bigger deal than it really is.

      For what it's worth, I build my own game systems on smaller scale hardware and have a lot of fun with some friends who do the same. But, I also know how I got into this stuff, and it wasn't by just doing what I was told. Geohot is the future here, not the enemy. Either we will come to realize that, or pay very dearly as a society for that general failure.

      The "want to play free" issue will always be there. Each instance of that is NOT A LOSS, as many of them simply would not have paid anyway, and the body of available entertainment dollars doesn't actually fund all those instances of free anyway. So, it's not about that. It's about structuring things so that more of the people make more of the right choices more of the time, not locking them out, untrusted, assumed criminals.

      So we differ. I don't think gaming is at a scale that warrants this level of draconian IP law. Never have. Was there before it was that way, and I'm right now where it still isn't that way. Don't need the games.

      Like I wrote above. There is a very simple solution. Don't sell people things. Rent them, and most all of the issue goes away. That can be done now, it would work, and it would be expensive, but secure, and effective against piracy. Don't tell me it's not a solvable problem. SONY and others just want their cake and to eat it too, and the world just does not work that way. Never has, never will.

    5. Re:LOL!!! by panda+cakes · · Score: 0

      Sorry about formating - apparently the options were set for HTML instead of text so my line breaks all have been eaten.

      > The moral argument here is that without some checks on what SONY does with their OS, they can over exploit those using it. How do we know SONY is playing fair, for example?

      Sure, there are no checks. Sony might not play fair. Same as anybody else. What is worst that can happen though? Sony will remotely brick my PS3? What are the chances of that and what are the chances of opening hardware preventing this already unlikely outcome? If anything opening hardware would put me at more risk of script kiddies bricking my PS3 through some exploit.

      >What happens when the hardware gets old, or somebody wants to archive a game for later on?

      Nothing exciting will happen. It would be nice if you could exercise Fair Use without obstruction and make backups and what not. I will tell you what would also be nice - people leaving their cars unlocked so in case of a natural calamity pedestrians could seek shelter in parked cars. I mean it's already illegal to steal cars so everybody will be respectful of everybody's property, right? Do you think your fellow citizens are criminals or what?

      >Each instance of that is NOT A LOSS, as many of them simply would not have paid anyway, and the body of available entertainment dollars doesn't actually fund all those instances of free anyway.

      Yet console games sell much better than PC games and I see no other explanation than the difference in the piracy rates. Same as PC games with DRM sell much better than PC games without DRM.

      >So, it's not about that. It's about structuring things so that more of the people make more of the right choices more of the time, not locking them out, untrusted, assumed criminals.

      For a rational person getting something for $0 instead of some other positive amount of money is the right choice most of the time. There is nothing a private business can do to change this choice. $0.99 games for iPhone get pirated like crazy (I've seen figures as high as 90% piracy rates) what else needs to be structured so people stop steal those?

      >Rent them, and most all of the issue goes away.

      So what would be different? People would not "jailbreak" their rented PS3s? Why would not they? Because it's illegal? Piracy (or what would you call this "jailbreaking") is illegal too or at least appears so to the judge who did not toss Sony's case.

    6. Re:LOL!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a rented system, just do what the cable companies do. Turn it on, it loads memory resident software, runs, and no physical media is ever used.

      The way to deal with piracy is to increase value for dollar, and attack it as a social problem. When it's not cool to pirate, there will be less of it.

      (physical car analogy ignored)

      So, here's the deal. I grew up opening things. I don't do anything wrong, and I get to open things, and I get to talk to friends about what I find. There are more of us, than there are others who believe otherwise, and if that changes, I believe there simply will be enough of us, and friendly places in the world.

      Piracy is a tough problem, but not one that's so tough that we need to institute such draconian measures. No game is worth that, and mind you, despite the piracy, there is a lot of money being made, with the only discussion really about how to make MORE money.

      I'm ok with that. Make as much as possible, but know that if things are sold, people will use them. Some will use them poorly, others will use them brilliantly, and that's as good as it gets.

      Our entire modern society was built amidst rampant infringement. Nothing has changed. The next wave of builds outs will occur amidst the same too. And money will be made, and life will go on.

      Your position as a developer is noted. I'm one too. Not games, but CAD. My first work was copy protected not by DRM, but with a note, and the original buyers name. I still get checks in the mail, from people who end up with the thing, read the note, and send me something for my trouble. That was 10 years ago.

      Funny how norms and social techniques can work. Fighting with one's customers isn't productive. Never has been, and games are no different from anything else in the world.

      There is this too. What if all those instances of piracy came with a opportunity to buy? My software did, and people do, and I did nothing for those sales. Gravy. The legit people paid straight up, and then I got more just for asking, and presenting a perfectly human solution.

      My point here is that there are options to be tried besides the draconian closed scene, and until they are, I refuse to accept that the only way forward is the path SONY takes.

      (potatohead, on another computer)

    7. Re:LOL!!! by panda+cakes · · Score: 0

      >On a rented system, just do what the cable companies do. Turn it on, it loads memory resident software, runs, and no physical media is ever used.

      A company like Sony or even Microsoft does not own any networks so they'd have to pay somebody to send these data. However the main problem is the principal network availability. It's pretty easy to write a DRM system that would be at least as hard to crack as what you suggested if there were not fixed media and it would work nice even if you owned the hardware (same as you can own your cable box only better). E.g. make a CPU that can only execute encrypted code, set a unique public for each CPU by blowing internal fuses and send the game encrypted for this key. You can copy and backup it all you want, it will only work on the CPU you have paid for. But today's market requires fixed media because quite a few people don't have a network connection in their living room.

      >The way to deal with piracy is to increase value for dollar, and attack it as a social problem. When it's not cool to pirate, there will be less of it.

      Lol, I remember "Don't copy that floppy" song and dance. It might work eventually but I am afraid that even if Sony, MSFT, Nintendo and Google got together and spent whatever cash they have - it would not scratch this problem. And what the point to spend tons of money to fight piracy anyways? They are in business of making money, not curing social ills. It's the government job and if government provided adequate protection of copyrights nobody would ever bother with DRM.

      >Piracy is a tough problem, but not one that's so tough that we need to institute such draconian measures.

      I guess it's a matter of perspective. From my perspective IP laws enforcement in the area of videogames is on the level of those "You cannot smoke naked on Sundays in Bumersville, TX" freak laws. DRM was a joke before PS3, it was just enough prevent a completely clueless person from downloading a copy from the net and running it. PS3 DRM was the first decent and it's the only one so far.

      >Funny how norms and social techniques can work. Fighting with one's customers isn't productive. Never has been, and games are no different from anything else in the world.

      Yes, and nobody fights with one's customers. I mean, do you honestly believe Sony is suing Geohot because he is a customer? Not because of copyright infringement?

      >What if all those instances of piracy came with a opportunity to buy?

      To me it appears like you want to persuade me that piracy is not the absolute evil (unlike Sony:)). There is no need. I know how Microsoft successfully exploits piracy to crush competition, for example. I can come up with 50 different schemes to control damage. Yes, not every pirate is a lost sale. Yes, it's free advertisement etc. etc. However the current MO in the industry is to fight it. The only way to change it is to show how you make more money embracing piracy. The same way how most of the Western PC developers switched from the PC to consoles when they've seen how much more console developers make.

    8. Re:LOL!!! by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

      It's not the absolute evil, and neither is SONY.

      How much money is made on 360 vs PS3, with the variations in piracy?

      Another rub on this thing: If we actually do bring enforcement to the level desired, how is it that copying a game or movie carries a penalty worse than say rape?

      Is there any wonder people don't respect the laws we have?

      I do like what you wrote here: Show how to make money embracing it. I don't believe the majors right now are capable of that, but others are. The movie and music industries are slowly coming around, figuring out that when people are exposed to stuff, more of them buy stuff. Some book authors have done very well with creative commons too.

      My only point in this is we need to have it open, so we get the geohots and advance our future. All this stuff was built by people who simply could. Take that away, and they can't and we don't get the new buildings. (metaphor)

      You are honest for towing the industry line. I respect that. I aim in the software business too, and have to tow it where I'm involved. But that doesn't mean I don't give the macro view of things serious consideration, and remember my own roots, which did involve copies, and they paid off way more than they were a loss.

      The industry is a notch better for somebody like me, and probably you too, because we did see the toys, and they were accessible. When I compare the PC to say cell phones, closed computing runs rampant with abuse that costs people a lot of money. It doesn't have to be that way. I would prefer that it didn't.

      Good conversation, and you have the last word on it, if you are so inclined.

    9. Re:LOL!!! by panda+cakes · · Score: 0

      It's hard to tell how much money is made on PS3 vs 360: there are money that Sony and Microsoft make, there are money the third parties make and neither are reported. I have shipped two games for the "next-gen" so far - first sold much better on 360, second sold much better on PS3, however in both cases PC SKU completely tanked.

      As for embracing piracy and the future full of geohots: check out Russia and China. Both countries embraced piracy in the most broad meaning long before broadband became available in the West. Street vendors had been selling CDs stuffed with the latest versions of the newest software at almost nominal margin over the cost of printing and selling a CD itself. Reverse engineering is not even illegal - almost all Soviet hardware was a copy of some American or Japanese device and most of the Soviet OSs were just "jailbroken" versions of some IBM or DEC OS complete with embedded copyright strings.

      So what is the result? Where are all the Russian and Chinese inventors and tinkerers? Why, they are sending you the contents of your spam folder, they are stea... err sharing your CC# by "jailbreaking" merchant web-sites and the smartest are coding buggy software for the $59 iPhone look-alike you will by at Wall-Mart. Software industry there exists chiefly in form of outsourcing shops because developing software for domestic market is not profitable and it's very hard to compete in the international markets without a good home base.
      I can see how this can appeal to Slashdot crowd though: nobody is making tons of money, everything is "fair" and the consumer is happy. However this only works because there are still markets somehow protected from piracy, mainly the US. So the US customers are paying for the piracy paradise in the Asia. But who do you think is going to pay for the piracy in US?

    10. Re:LOL!!! by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess we are not yet done, because I really like the point you raised.

      I think a lot of this has to do with the economies. In Russia and Asia, people don't make enough to even buy in at the level we do, and if we sell at their rates, it's brutal because it sets lower prices here.

      The major software vendor I work with manages their price structure across the different regions. That's not as possible with games and common media because ordinary people don't see that dynamic, and or the complexity of the deal makes mass sales difficult.

      Your characterization of the crowd here may be accurate, however I've been around a long while --before the site was filled with clowns like it is now. I'm not here advocating that piracy is good. It's not. But open is. The PC gaming scene is difficult because it's just a mess, but I don't think that's all piracy related. Sure, there is a big impact there, because it's just not hard on a PC. Never has been, never will be.

      Honestly, gaming on PCs just isn't anywhere near on par with consoles. That's where the core driver behind the poor sales is. Hell, most people are moving to laptops and what I would characterize as poor gaming rigs, with the real PCs being used for higher end applications, CAD, VIDEO, etc...

      The other impact is casual gaming on little devices.

      I seriously question the broad applicability of big scale game productions. A good friend of mine just published for iPhone, and it's in the top 80 or so UK charts, and it's going to make a serious amount of money for the fraction of the dev done on a larger console project. Small team, low investment, mostly sweat equity and paying for some art and promotion, and it's looking good.

      Nobody is "paying" for the piracy paradise in Asia. We are paying for the developments, which are profitable, and selling in the markets where they sell. Dealing with the markets where it's not sold is a separate problem. Sure, they are leveraging what is done, but then again, if they couldn't, the numbers wouldn't change, so the demand there is a opportunity that's not yet been cracked, not some justification to lock things down to the point where people can't own their stuff.

      We've got politics as the problem there more than anything else.

      One more thing on reverse engineering. I personally oppose software and business process patents, and restrictions on reverse engineering. Licensing content is fair game, and that's where the value is. Hobbling software development as a way to deal with that issue hurts a lot of people. The important dynamic of software is one can build on the efforts done before. The patents do more harm than good, creating artificial value and scarcity where there really is none. Real money is made actually producing things that solve problems, and continuing down that road, not doing it once, then locking it up for so many years.

      We wouldn't have the level of computing we do today had we the law we do today back then, and that's what your real Slashdotter thinks about. At least that's what we thought about so long ago when this all started.

      Finally, the piracy in the US is paid for. Money is being made, and a lot of it is being made. Don't forget that. So the question is how to leverage those opportunities, because that's exactly what they are.

      We can continue the discussion, if you like. It's a good conversation here, and one I've not had for a while.

    11. Re:LOL!!! by panda+cakes · · Score: 0

      Economy is the common explanation for this but I don't see how it works. Most of the goods there (at least in Russia, I have never been to China) cost much more than in the US and a bit more than in Europe. A car that costs X dollars in the US is 2X euros in Russia. An iPhone costs ~$1000 and plenty of people buy those. But even if people were really that poor and could not afford software at the US price - so what? People in the US earn less than people in the UAE for example, they pay less for their stuff and UAE citizens pay more for their stuff. "More" and "less" make sense only when you compare with another economy, inside it's irrelevant - somebody earns less making some goods or services and sells them for less so another who is also making less can afford it. Setting regional prices is trivial - very few people there speak European languages (including English) and very few people in the US/Europe speak Russian or Mandarin. Pirates translate the software that does not have built-in localization themselves.

      Piracy and openness just killed local industry before it had any chance - why pay engineers to develop hardware when you can just rip off a design that somebody else paid billions for? Why buy v1.0 if some local software (or even pirate it) when you can as well pirate something that Microsoft/Adobe/Apple/etc spent billions of dollars developing?
      At the end of the day somebody had to pay. You are saying you are not paying for this piracy so who does? It's not that you had to pay more, but you still had to pay. There is also hidden cost - without piracy there would be more money and more stuff would be made but since it's unknown to the general public what could have been made you can just say "nobody guarantees you a sale, a pirate is not a lost sale, live with it". Anyways, my point was that if nobody paid then geohots did not have anything to "jailbreak" any more and their own creativity does not seem to go beyond this. And most smart people would rather find a job that pays than develop stuff for geohots to "liberate". This is what actually happened in Asia, this is not some speculation.

      Compare Russian and Chinese technology to the American if you think American IP laws are snuffing innovation. Heck, compare any technology to American. Somehow America managed to become the world's technology leader with the strictest IP laws in the world and the countries with inexistent IP laws just sell oil and slave labor. Some say American industry was founded on the lax IP laws in the 19th century but really, American technology of that period was nowhere compared to European. Another example is Japan, that unlike other Asian nations embraced strict IP laws after the war (it used to rip off Western designs just like China and did not drop this habit instantly even after the war). So now they make talking robot dogs, game consoles and music that TFA is so butthurt about, hey, why did not innovators and tinkerers hack a Chinese talking robot dog, Chinese game consoles or listen to some Chinese record labels? Those should be much better and cheaper than DRM-loaded crap from a Japanese evil corp, right?

      The point of high production values you raised - there is no evidence that this model is inherently faulty. Hollywood has had the same model for ~100 years and does not seem to be anywhere near collapsing. It's true that you can also make money with low budget stuff. Somebody can shoot a wedding using a fraction of a movie budget and make good money, would you rather watch a silly Hollywood blockbuster or a wedding of complete strangers? I imagine you would watch wedding of your relatives but how many unmarried relatives do you have to provide you with continuous stream of entertainment? Low cost production and high cost production are different markets they can co-exist.

  53. Re:So? by Urkki · · Score: 1

    Who gives a rat's ass.

    People who read "news for nerds".

    It's kind of like, WSJ reporting that government is trying to take direct control of all stock trading, and then some reader asking "Who gives a rat's ass."

  54. Still not buying any Sony products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Email sent to Sony. I am about to but a new TV set to replace my 4 year old Sony Bravia but it will not be another Sony. I told you a couple of years ago that I would not but any more Sony products until you stopped suing individuals, and that I would be sharing my opinion with my family and friends. You probably have not noticed the sales you have lost, or even the change in your company image from "great technology products" to "the bad guys", but I do find it interesting that you no longer have any industry leaning technology products. You need to fire the lawyers and hire some good engineers if you ever want to regain some respect in the marketplace. Perhaps you should also be embracing the people who take your products and make them work better rather than suing them.

  55. Re:EASY FIX. Sony just needs to rent their stuff by Geminii · · Score: 1

    Xerox tried that. A black market sprang up in photocopier machines. People like to OWN the stuff they use.

  56. Sony by kennyall · · Score: 1

    Ive been pretty pleased with my Sony entertainment system and parts the only complaint i have would be durability. My television kicked out twice due to the replacement lamp. I think sony should relax and let people moderate themselves, this is getting a bit ridiculous. Good luck spending all this time and effort on something that is probably going to occur anyways. Just my 2 cents.