RTFA:......
1. There's no way a legitimate customer will get banned.
Maybe I'm cynjical, or maybe its the theory surrounding computer system architecture, computer programming, throbbing in my brain, but NEVER say anthing is outright impossible. Unlikely yes, but never impossible [and to Garry's admission, 3 WERE temporarily affected by a false flagging of this "error" further proving your statement implying it impossible as even less plausible strictly IMO].
You seemed to miss the term "prospect" in the opening sentence - you know, synonym to potential?
Pirates are also not "prospective customers"? You're one to talk about dishonesty - yes there are pirates who don't buy, and people who don't buy and don't pirate, but people who both pirate AND buy do exist - I speak for myself [outside of GMOD - never pirated Steam products, have it legitimately] when I say I do that, and there are examples - even studies that show this true.
"the opinion of pirates on what should and shouldn't be done with DRM should be ignored."... say a person who pirates makes an opinion on DRM based on previous purchasing experiences - the fact that he pirates does not mean his opinion is invalid based on those experiences with purchased pirates. Face it, your premises are faulty, and your conclusion is completely off base.
Or that just because your dichotomy seems plausible doesn't mean it is particularly correct - shit does happen, programming can be hastily installed, not tested properly, something could be implemented incorrectly [lost in translation from planning to implementation] - unlikely, but that is never synonomous with impossible.
No wonder you remained an Anon-Coward, your post is idiotiuc and wrong to boot.
First, you don't click "accept" or sign anything just to use the console - to use PSN maybe, but the two are not mutually inclusive. Second. "What the hell gives these "hackers" the right to ruin MY gaming experience? " Those people are not necessarily - wait, let me revise that - THE PEOPLE WHO HOMEBREW AND WANT TO RUN LINUX DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT RUINING YOUR GAME. The people who see that tool as an avenue to fuck around do. The people who want to run Linux on their PS3, GeoHot, should not catch shit for what others are doing just because you';re too retarded to differentiate between the two parties.
... yeah, because it makes sense, if you want to modify a system to your liking, to modify / use other hardware than that you want to modify? And should yo have to fear prosecution for such a venture of modifying your console and telling others how?
Less open means jack shit - if there is a computer system out there, people will find a way to hack it, mod it, burn it,m crush it, kick it, stomp it, make it do things others never thought it could do, etc.
No, you SPECULATED that you know how, but unless we have any hard number, any guess can be just as valid or invalid. And being a gateway to piracy.... means what? Torrent technology is used for piracy, P2P is too, and FTP, but the protocols are not outlawed because they have substantial non-infringing uses too.
Except copyright was not meant to do that - it was not meant to be a perpetual revenue stream for the creator's life. It was meant to be in the creator's control for a limited time, then it goes back to the public - that limited time of absolute control being what fueled the motive to create.
...and makes those who support hacking consoles look like criminals.
I disagree - to some extent - yes, they do tarnish the image, but I feel the largest amount of tarnishing comes from media ignorance, and ignorance on the part of the non-technical.
How much do you want to bet the idiots defending Sony - being those who go beyond supporting SONY but defending them with ignorance of the facts [law, how hacking works, how the firmware hack works, the law, etc], slander / libel, and in some cases death threats to GeoHot and his supporters - pin GeoHot for this?
So long as people like you insist on pushing that which is untrue.
copyright infringement leads to profit loss, and therefore it is outright theft.
Profit loss == otright theft? Better stop negative reviews, stop people from lacking the desire to buy something once they see it, window shopping since people don't buy as a result of these things, and somehow that is theft because you deserve money , and didn't make it - never mind that not making the money you want is never the same as having money you already had taken away on the very logical principal THAT YOU NEVER HAD IT YET - nor were you gaurneteed to make it.
If you want to argue piracy is theft, at least TRY to make a logical argument as to why your point is why..
Well, considering we learn about stealing from axts of being deprived of something - something is taken from us - and the laws require deprivation to occur for theft to occur in ways that copying digital bits can't in of itself accomplish, it is easy to see his reasoning, IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFA: ... ...
1. There's no way a legitimate customer will get banned.
Maybe I'm cynjical, or maybe its the theory surrounding computer system architecture, computer programming, throbbing in my brain, but NEVER say anthing is outright impossible. Unlikely yes, but never impossible [and to Garry's admission, 3 WERE temporarily affected by a false flagging of this "error" further proving your statement implying it impossible as even less plausible strictly IMO].
Only idiots who don't actually try to take care so far as where they get their cracks from.
You seemed to miss the term "prospect" in the opening sentence - you know, synonym to potential?
... say a person who pirates makes an opinion on DRM based on previous purchasing experiences - the fact that he pirates does not mean his opinion is invalid based on those experiences with purchased pirates. Face it, your premises are faulty, and your conclusion is completely off base.
Pirates are also not "prospective customers"? You're one to talk about dishonesty - yes there are pirates who don't buy, and people who don't buy and don't pirate, but people who both pirate AND buy do exist - I speak for myself [outside of GMOD - never pirated Steam products, have it legitimately] when I say I do that, and there are examples - even studies that show this true.
"the opinion of pirates on what should and shouldn't be done with DRM should be ignored."
Or that just because your dichotomy seems plausible doesn't mean it is particularly correct - shit does happen, programming can be hastily installed, not tested properly, something could be implemented incorrectly [lost in translation from planning to implementation] - unlikely, but that is never synonomous with impossible.
Your dichotomy is inherently fasle, not to mention Comp Sci != IT, stupid.
No wonder you remained an Anon-Coward, your post is idiotiuc and wrong to boot.
First, you don't click "accept" or sign anything just to use the console - to use PSN maybe, but the two are not mutually inclusive. Second. "What the hell gives these "hackers" the right to ruin MY gaming experience? " Those people are not necessarily - wait, let me revise that - THE PEOPLE WHO HOMEBREW AND WANT TO RUN LINUX DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT RUINING YOUR GAME. The people who see that tool as an avenue to fuck around do. The people who want to run Linux on their PS3, GeoHot, should not catch shit for what others are doing just because you';re too retarded to differentiate between the two parties.
... and what stops SONY from using something like Steam's VAC - catch them cheating, let people w/ modified consoles who don't hack keep playing?
Somebody mod troll or flamebait. [BTW, what is the point of figuring it out if nobody else gets to find out, and is following your progress?]
... yeah, because it makes sense, if you want to modify a system to your liking, to modify / use other hardware than that you want to modify? And should yo have to fear prosecution for such a venture of modifying your console and telling others how?
Less open means jack shit - if there is a computer system out there, people will find a way to hack it, mod it, burn it,m crush it, kick it, stomp it, make it do things others never thought it could do, etc.
No, you SPECULATED that you know how, but unless we have any hard number, any guess can be just as valid or invalid. And being a gateway to piracy.... means what? Torrent technology is used for piracy, P2P is too, and FTP, but the protocols are not outlawed because they have substantial non-infringing uses too.
.. I hate when people ask a question, and answer it before person[s] get to, and clame victory so far as their argument goes because they did that. >_
Except copyright was not meant to do that - it was not meant to be a perpetual revenue stream for the creator's life. It was meant to be in the creator's control for a limited time, then it goes back to the public - that limited time of absolute control being what fueled the motive to create.
If he thought that the "cellphone jailbreaking is OK" decision would protect him, that was a little naive.
You say that like it's a fact [that said ruling won't protect him] - how about we wait for the actual trial?
Just read the article - and am reading the comments - my brain just threw up trying to comprehend the idiocy.
He released firmware modification, and how he figured it out - which includes, IIRC a code that is on the PS3's packaging and some basic algebra.
...and makes those who support hacking consoles look like criminals.
I disagree - to some extent - yes, they do tarnish the image, but I feel the largest amount of tarnishing comes from media ignorance, and ignorance on the part of the non-technical.
How much do you want to bet the idiots defending Sony - being those who go beyond supporting SONY but defending them with ignorance of the facts [law, how hacking works, how the firmware hack works, the law, etc], slander / libel, and in some cases death threats to GeoHot and his supporters - pin GeoHot for this?
And yet again your are AC # 2 ^ googolplex to fail at analogies - comparing theft of physical property and duplication of data.
Justify? Maybe they just say WHY they do it and don't give a flying fuck whether it is justification to anybody.
Freeloader yes, thief? Not under the law, and IMO logic agrees that another name is more apt for a new act, unless you can prove theft is appropriate.
copyright infringement leads to profit loss, and therefore it is outright theft.
Profit loss == otright theft? Better stop negative reviews, stop people from lacking the desire to buy something once they see it, window shopping since people don't buy as a result of these things, and somehow that is theft because you deserve money , and didn't make it - never mind that not making the money you want is never the same as having money you already had taken away on the very logical principal THAT YOU NEVER HAD IT YET - nor were you gaurneteed to make it. If you want to argue piracy is theft, at least TRY to make a logical argument as to why your point is why..
Well, considering we learn about stealing from axts of being deprived of something - something is taken from us - and the laws require deprivation to occur for theft to occur in ways that copying digital bits can't in of itself accomplish, it is easy to see his reasoning, IMO.
Nevermind the issue that it doesn't TELL you that it does that? derp.
But, this is Slashdot so anyone trying to protect intellectual property is a fascist.