Possibly - but the VERY REAL DANGER is that the majority of use will be exactly that - copyright infringement.
Or so you think. Can you prove it? And, if you are able to prove it, then would you care to explain why everyone should suffer merely because some people resort to copyright infringement?
A pedophile may be able to justify his/her own actions to himself/herself.
Do you mean a child molester? A pedophile is not the same thing as a child molester.
but there can be said to be one core tenet in the universe - do not harm another being knowingly
Really? I don't recall the universe telling me this. I may personally be against hurting others, but I do not delude myself with beliefs that my set of morals are somehow more correct than someone else's. It is my opinion that people who knowingly hurt others should be punished (or be helped), but I'm not going to claim that it's a fact.
potentially great harm
Please. Assuming that copyright infringement does cause harm in the first place, it has existed for a long, long time. Simply put, there is still likely a large amount of people who would buy games regardless of whether or not they had to (either due to their lack of knowledge in the field of technology, their personal beliefs, or their ignorance of the existence of the hacks). At the moment, this is unlikely to put a dent in their sales. If it does, it's likely going to be impossible to keep track of anyway (there's no magical way to find out how many copyright infringers there are).
What, exactly, are Sony taking away from people? The OtherOS feature?
Yes, that.
The central point here is that if Hotz had not used the OtherOS feature to work out a hack and then made that public for bragging rights in the first place, Sony would NEVER have taken away the OtherOS feature from the PS3 Fats. However you spin the facts, you can't escape this one.
Had I been Sony, I wouldn't have removed it all the same. They are hurting everyone who used the feature in their pursuit of money (not surprising). This is what I do not agree with.
Not really. I was mainly talking about the people who often spout nonsense such as "the property/software is only licensed to you, but it isn't actually yours to modify!"
The problem happens when you make such information PUBLIC to such an extent so that EVERY pirate in the WORLD can start "production".
Doesn't this have legitimate uses outside of copyright infringement?
Are you really saying that making such a hack widely open to SUCH AN EXTENT is really in the right?
I try to refrain from mentioning 'right' and 'wrong' in my posts without uttering the words "in my opinion" before doing so.
Every human being innately knows right from wrong - it's preferences that cloud the judgment.
'Right' and 'wrong' do not actually exist. They are preferences. Some people don't like murder. Some people do. Society just decided what laws it wanted to enact, but its views on morality are not factual.
But not THIS time.
I don't see anything wrong with it. Screaming "piracy" doesn't seem much different than screaming "terrorism" when you want to take something away from everyone. Or am I missing something here (does it have legitimate uses)?
I bet if you put instructions on how to build a nuke on a website, you would be visited by some nice people in suits. Information can be distributed with malicious intent and even gross negligence.
For one thing, I didn't say anything about it being a good or bad thing. I just said that your analogy wasn't a good one for this particular situation since all they're giving is information.
Sony does not want to play ball with you, so you have 3 options, don't play ball with them, abide by their rules, or steal their copy their ball.
No theft is necessary.
If you do not have money to buy something, you should not steal it.
I just don't understand how there are so many people visiting this technology-oriented website who seemingly don't understand what copying is.
If you're going to take a stand against copyright infringement, that's one thing. But, please, call it by its actual name: copyright infringement. It was given a separate name for a reason. I was merely trying to state that they are, in fact, two different things.
Unethical
Please don't mention ethics. They are so terribly subjective that you're just wasting your time. Chances are the person you're arguing with will have a different set of ethics than you, so using ethics as an argument (or even just mentioning them) is useless.
Also, with this lawsuit, you'll note that Sony isn't suing for damages, they're just trying to have the information removed from being publicly accessible.
Really? Well, that's a very, very hopeless endeavor, then.
A proper analogy would be buying a gun, leaving it in a public area.
I thought a proper analogy would be telling others how to do something. They aren't (as far as I'm aware) distributing hacked PS3s, but telling others how to hack them or use their hacks.
So for every one of you that says I want to run legal home brews, there are 100s of people who want the ability to play hacked games.
Yes, so ban anything that could potentially be abused because the ones in power don't want that to happen. Which is, essentially, everything.
I'm one of those weirdos who think people should be paid for the art they produce.
So am I (provided they have the money in the first place), but pretending that the file sharer stole money that the artist never had in the first place is absurd.
Finally, you all have the ability to never buy another Sony product ever again, and that is the most powerful weapon you have, because a corporation cannot survive without people purchasing their goods.
If I put myself in Sony's place, I'd have kept OtherOS. Just because a few people abuse something doesn't mean it should be removed for everyone.
it certainly CANNOT justify opening up the machine to such massive potential abuse.
I know, I know. Tinkering with your own property is bad because "copyright infringement" or "DMCA!" If you do so much as utter those words, you now have the high 'moral' (subjective, so I honestly can't believe people use this argument) grounds!
actually geohot is the reason why sony removed otheros
Even if that is the case, Sony shouldn't have removed the feature for everyone just because of the actions of one or more individuals under the guise of fighting copyright infringement (or whatever terrible excuse they used).
and discouraging other would-be hackers, which is their real goal
This seems to be a common misconception. They believe that other people will be afraid to walk down the same path as those who were previously made an example of, but in the cases of copyright infringement and hacking, this never seems to be the case.
Do you mean the terrorists, or the evil, corrupt government that tortures innocents and is controlled by the rich? When you say "bad guys," I have trouble differentiating between the two.
He is an enemy of the USA, no question, and deserves at the very least life in prison.
Well, the US does seem to think it owns the world...
Well, I certainly wouldn't know how common it is because it's nearly impossible to get accurate measurements for this. Perhaps it is, but I definitely wouldn't keep mediocre or useless data on my hard drive.
When an animal kills another for food (even more so if it is for living space), implicit in this action is an assessment (correct or not) that the killer is more important than the prey (because the killer should live and the prey should not).
I just said it was an opinion.
This strikes me as a useful trait
I can kill something without such false delusions.
No, it didn't. Actions got us where we are today, not pretending that we are factually the most important species in the universe. The value we hold in our lives is merely our own opinion.
Yeah, and I'm saying I don't understand your point of view. Rather than explaining how language was used at the time, you say that we should censor words in the book (under the guise of a rewrite) just so idiots who don't do any sort of research can understand it. I really don't understand what is so terrible about just explaining it, especially when it has been done multiple times already.
No, you also said that you have difficulty in not taking some peoples' opinions seriously because they equate those opinions with facts. I don't have that problem.
Really? There is no reason that anyone should like throwing/hitting random objects around on fields. That is all a sport entails. No one can like sports because I don't, and if someone claims they do, they're instantly wrong.
You don't see any problem with that whatsoever? You don't see any problem with stating things that are clearly just opinions as facts?
But why does that future time matter to us in the least?
I've put in bold the keyword. This entire time I've been talking about mere opinions. Do not mistake opinion for fact.
Well, that means it's not pointless in our space-time.
Opinions aren't facts. I can find value in things that are ultimately worthless and a waste of time.
Frankly, I don't get what this even has to do with your original statement:
That one shouldn't judge one species as being factually more important than another species because of things such as intelligence, which, for all we know, are ultimately worthless to anyone except ourselves. Keywords: factually and ultimately.
We still have the possibility that no "ultimately pointless" future exists.
But, there's certainly no evidence supporting that claim, and plenty of reason to believe otherwise.
This could be summed up as "an opinion doesn't instantly equate to a fact."
How am I supposed to respond to something that offered no response? You just insulted me without adding anything to your original argument after I stated that you can, in fact, explain the original meaning of a word, and that I've seen it done before.
I'll accept your judgment on that matter even though I think otherwise on that matter.
That's what an opinion is, correct?
I'll let you stew in this paradox of your own making.
Apparently you've misunderstood me somewhere. I never said that it was pointless to me. I said that I was of the opinion that everything is ultimately pointless and that humans don't have some sort of inherent worth (the value of their existence is their own opinion).
Slashdot Mirror
Possibly - but the VERY REAL DANGER is that the majority of use will be exactly that - copyright infringement.
Or so you think. Can you prove it? And, if you are able to prove it, then would you care to explain why everyone should suffer merely because some people resort to copyright infringement?
A pedophile may be able to justify his/her own actions to himself/herself.
Do you mean a child molester? A pedophile is not the same thing as a child molester.
but there can be said to be one core tenet in the universe - do not harm another being knowingly
Really? I don't recall the universe telling me this. I may personally be against hurting others, but I do not delude myself with beliefs that my set of morals are somehow more correct than someone else's. It is my opinion that people who knowingly hurt others should be punished (or be helped), but I'm not going to claim that it's a fact.
potentially great harm
Please. Assuming that copyright infringement does cause harm in the first place, it has existed for a long, long time. Simply put, there is still likely a large amount of people who would buy games regardless of whether or not they had to (either due to their lack of knowledge in the field of technology, their personal beliefs, or their ignorance of the existence of the hacks). At the moment, this is unlikely to put a dent in their sales. If it does, it's likely going to be impossible to keep track of anyway (there's no magical way to find out how many copyright infringers there are).
What, exactly, are Sony taking away from people? The OtherOS feature?
Yes, that.
The central point here is that if Hotz had not used the OtherOS feature to work out a hack and then made that public for bragging rights in the first place, Sony would NEVER have taken away the OtherOS feature from the PS3 Fats. However you spin the facts, you can't escape this one.
Had I been Sony, I wouldn't have removed it all the same. They are hurting everyone who used the feature in their pursuit of money (not surprising). This is what I do not agree with.
You are clutching at strawman arguments here
Not really. I was mainly talking about the people who often spout nonsense such as "the property/software is only licensed to you, but it isn't actually yours to modify!"
The problem happens when you make such information PUBLIC to such an extent so that EVERY pirate in the WORLD can start "production".
Doesn't this have legitimate uses outside of copyright infringement?
Are you really saying that making such a hack widely open to SUCH AN EXTENT is really in the right?
I try to refrain from mentioning 'right' and 'wrong' in my posts without uttering the words "in my opinion" before doing so.
Every human being innately knows right from wrong - it's preferences that cloud the judgment.
'Right' and 'wrong' do not actually exist. They are preferences. Some people don't like murder. Some people do. Society just decided what laws it wanted to enact, but its views on morality are not factual.
But not THIS time.
I don't see anything wrong with it. Screaming "piracy" doesn't seem much different than screaming "terrorism" when you want to take something away from everyone. Or am I missing something here (does it have legitimate uses)?
I bet if you put instructions on how to build a nuke on a website, you would be visited by some nice people in suits. Information can be distributed with malicious intent and even gross negligence.
For one thing, I didn't say anything about it being a good or bad thing. I just said that your analogy wasn't a good one for this particular situation since all they're giving is information.
Sony does not want to play ball with you, so you have 3 options, don't play ball with them, abide by their rules, or steal their copy their ball.
No theft is necessary.
If you do not have money to buy something, you should not steal it.
I just don't understand how there are so many people visiting this technology-oriented website who seemingly don't understand what copying is.
If you're going to take a stand against copyright infringement, that's one thing. But, please, call it by its actual name: copyright infringement. It was given a separate name for a reason. I was merely trying to state that they are, in fact, two different things.
Unethical
Please don't mention ethics. They are so terribly subjective that you're just wasting your time. Chances are the person you're arguing with will have a different set of ethics than you, so using ethics as an argument (or even just mentioning them) is useless.
Also, with this lawsuit, you'll note that Sony isn't suing for damages, they're just trying to have the information removed from being publicly accessible.
Really? Well, that's a very, very hopeless endeavor, then.
A proper analogy would be buying a gun, leaving it in a public area.
I thought a proper analogy would be telling others how to do something. They aren't (as far as I'm aware) distributing hacked PS3s, but telling others how to hack them or use their hacks.
So for every one of you that says I want to run legal home brews, there are 100s of people who want the ability to play hacked games.
Yes, so ban anything that could potentially be abused because the ones in power don't want that to happen. Which is, essentially, everything.
I'm one of those weirdos who think people should be paid for the art they produce.
So am I (provided they have the money in the first place), but pretending that the file sharer stole money that the artist never had in the first place is absurd.
Finally, you all have the ability to never buy another Sony product ever again, and that is the most powerful weapon you have, because a corporation cannot survive without people purchasing their goods.
This is the only part that I agree with you on.
If I put myself in Sony's place, I'd have kept OtherOS. Just because a few people abuse something doesn't mean it should be removed for everyone.
it certainly CANNOT justify opening up the machine to such massive potential abuse.
I know, I know. Tinkering with your own property is bad because "copyright infringement" or "DMCA!" If you do so much as utter those words, you now have the high 'moral' (subjective, so I honestly can't believe people use this argument) grounds!
So basically actual customers lose a slew of features unless they want to break the law. Good going, DMCA!
actually geohot is the reason why sony removed otheros
Even if that is the case, Sony shouldn't have removed the feature for everyone just because of the actions of one or more individuals under the guise of fighting copyright infringement (or whatever terrible excuse they used).
and discouraging other would-be hackers, which is their real goal
This seems to be a common misconception. They believe that other people will be afraid to walk down the same path as those who were previously made an example of, but in the cases of copyright infringement and hacking, this never seems to be the case.
Of course. You certainly shouldn't even be locked up if there's not an adequate amount of evidence against you.
bad guys
Do you mean the terrorists, or the evil, corrupt government that tortures innocents and is controlled by the rich? When you say "bad guys," I have trouble differentiating between the two.
He is an enemy of the USA, no question, and deserves at the very least life in prison.
Well, the US does seem to think it owns the world...
but I'm pretty sure they'd be unable to do so as Assange himself has not violated U.S. laws.
Don't be silly! The government doesn't play by their own rules. Everyone knows this.
Well, I certainly wouldn't know how common it is because it's nearly impossible to get accurate measurements for this. Perhaps it is, but I definitely wouldn't keep mediocre or useless data on my hard drive.
The fact that your friend acts that way doesn't mean that everyone else does.
Not to mention overpopulation. Seriously, we don't need anymore children right now.
You described an opinion, I described a physiological feedback mechanism that gives rise to that kind of opinion (supremacy).
That was the entire point of my first post. To demonstrate that such thoughts/opinions/feelings are not facts.
Who said any kind of thinking, even delusional, is involved, apart from post-rationalisation or just plain lying?
Those who are intelligent can control their own actions. I would hope there would be thinking, at least.
When an animal kills another for food (even more so if it is for living space), implicit in this action is an assessment (correct or not) that the killer is more important than the prey (because the killer should live and the prey should not).
I just said it was an opinion.
This strikes me as a useful trait
I can kill something without such false delusions.
No, it didn't. Actions got us where we are today, not pretending that we are factually the most important species in the universe. The value we hold in our lives is merely our own opinion.
Yeah, and I'm saying I don't understand your point of view. Rather than explaining how language was used at the time, you say that we should censor words in the book (under the guise of a rewrite) just so idiots who don't do any sort of research can understand it. I really don't understand what is so terrible about just explaining it, especially when it has been done multiple times already.
Me? None. I feel it's a truly foolish endeavor.
Instead I see someone claiming they can have things that both have and don't have value from the same viewpoint.
Then either I spoke incorrectly (probably this) or you misunderstood. That's not the message that I wanted to convey.
You could have cut the crap and just said in the first place, "That's an opinion not a fact."
I'm sure I could have. I was also having trouble understanding what you were trying to state, but I apologize.
No, you also said that you have difficulty in not taking some peoples' opinions seriously because they equate those opinions with facts. I don't have that problem.
Really? There is no reason that anyone should like throwing/hitting random objects around on fields. That is all a sport entails. No one can like sports because I don't, and if someone claims they do, they're instantly wrong.
You don't see any problem with that whatsoever? You don't see any problem with stating things that are clearly just opinions as facts?
But why does that future time matter to us in the least?
I've put in bold the keyword. This entire time I've been talking about mere opinions. Do not mistake opinion for fact.
Well, that means it's not pointless in our space-time.
Opinions aren't facts. I can find value in things that are ultimately worthless and a waste of time.
Frankly, I don't get what this even has to do with your original statement:
That one shouldn't judge one species as being factually more important than another species because of things such as intelligence, which, for all we know, are ultimately worthless to anyone except ourselves. Keywords: factually and ultimately.
We still have the possibility that no "ultimately pointless" future exists.
But, there's certainly no evidence supporting that claim, and plenty of reason to believe otherwise.
This could be summed up as "an opinion doesn't instantly equate to a fact."
How am I supposed to respond to something that offered no response? You just insulted me without adding anything to your original argument after I stated that you can, in fact, explain the original meaning of a word, and that I've seen it done before.
I'll accept your judgment on that matter even though I think otherwise on that matter.
That's what an opinion is, correct?
I'll let you stew in this paradox of your own making.
Apparently you've misunderstood me somewhere. I never said that it was pointless to me. I said that I was of the opinion that everything is ultimately pointless and that humans don't have some sort of inherent worth (the value of their existence is their own opinion).
Well, nice ad hominem attack, to say the least. Yes, you've been explaining your point, but obviously I disagree with it. What a useless comment.