Sony's Neverending War Against The Freedom To Tinker And Innovate
from the learn-to-let-go dept
We recently compared Sony's lawsuit against GeoHot for adding functionality (that Sony had removed) to PS3s, to Sony's attack on Aibo hackers a decade ago. With somewhat perfect timing, Philip Torrone has now put together a full list of Sony's ongoing "war" against "makers, hackers and innovators." You can read all the details at the link, but here's the list that he's working from:- Sony DMCA delayed disclosure of Sony BMG rootkit vulnerability
- Sony threatens Aibo hobbyists for creating software that enables Sony�s Aibo robot dog to dance
- Sony sues Connectix and Bleem to block software that allows gamers to play their PlayStation games on PCs
- Sony attacks PlayStation �Mod Chips� and enforces a system of �region coding�
- Sony sued Gamemasters, distributor of the Game Enhancer peripheral device, which allowed owners of a U.S. PlayStation console to play games purchased in Japan and other countries
- Sony removes OtherOS option, removes Linux support
- Sony is suing makers, hackers, and tinkers for jailbreaking of the PS3 to play homebrew games
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: freedom to tinker, hackers, innovation, makers
Companies: sony
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sony is suing makers, hackers, and tinkers for jailbreaking of the PS3 to play homebrew games
Can you show me a case where Sony has sued any single tinkerer who did work in their own home, without public discussion or public disclosure? Nope, has never happened. The only people they sue are people who break systems and provide that hack for others to use.
If you want to take your PS3 and turn it into a speak and spell, Sony won't care - until you put the methods and software hacks required online or otherwise distribute those hacks.
The rest is all pretty normal legal action, to protect their copyrights, and in turn to protect the business models that allow them to do it.
Nobody is stopping innovation, you are free to make your own game console tomorrow. Knock yourself out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
Please clarify your position:
Are you against freedom of speech or owners' rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
Nope, not at all. However, unlike some people, I understand that those rights are often intermixed with the rights of others, and that many people make basic presumptions about things that are wrong, in order to try to understand them better.
Owners rights are a great example. You buy the hardware, but you only get a license to the software. You replicate and resell the firmware or OS from the Sony box, as you don't own it - you have a license for it. You can sell it on if you sell the box to someone else, but only if you retain no license and no copies yourself.
You could, if you liked, completely rip out the firmware and OS and make your own (without any Sony code) and do what you want with the hardware. That is your ownership right. But you would have to do it without cracking or hacking Sony's code.
Free speech really doesn't enter into this one, except that free speech isn't unlimited, and the communication of methods to break the law (and encouraging others to break the law) isn't considered protected speech, and are actionable.
Your free speech (and other rights) is a bubble around you, limited by everyone else's bubble of rights. Your rights are not endless, nor are anyone else's. Absolute freedom is but a pipe dream, unless you are the last human on earth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Legally owned
It's almost the same as saying tinkering with my phone isn't allowed because it's an AT&T phone. It's not their business for that, just to have a product and service it. I take full responsibility for my own hacks, but that doesn't mean I'm costing them money by showing the world that hey, I want my value from my PS3/AIBO/minidisc than what Sony offers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
Please go to Libya and join Gaddafi as I believe you would get a long well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
I really don't get you on this one. You seem to be supporting people who take from others without permission. On that basis, can you please send me your computer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
This defeats the purpose of science. Basically you are suggesting that anyone is free to invent anything, as long as they build it from scratch. This basically means that:
- Every painter would have to invent a canvas, a paint brush and colors (for example).
- Every musician would have to invent new instruments
- A mathematician would have to rediscover Algebra, Calculus and every other branch of mathematics just to do his job.
- A computer scientist would have to reinvent computers to make a Python script.
Nobody does that (well, there are geeks, like me, who do it for the sake of learning). The creators/scientists just take far more than 99% of what was already done before, and add a grain of sand. But that grain of sand might be the difference between you living in the (cultural/scientific) Dark Ages or you posting angry messages in a random forum (for fun/great justice).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
*And culture! Don't forget culture!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
And Sony has the right to remove functionality you thought you bought? Oh yes, of course they do, it's in their EULA, even if it does suck and piss people off.
In the old days, hardware was hardware. It didn't change, it didn't get bug fixes ture, but it didn't devolve. Today you have something wonderful which can be updated daily if need be, but that can also be used against people if the man so chooses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
Sorry you're wrong there. You can do what you like provided you don't make unauthorised copies of Sony's code. What you are doing is overwriting parts of it. You can do that - just like you can cut up a book you legally own and paste it together in sections with your own text inserted in between. You can also issue intsructions to the rest of the world to let them do the same thing. Sony are just using legal bullying here - against people who (they figure) don't have the resources to defend themselves. They don't have any real legal legs to stand on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
They are literally suing their customers. It's breathtaking, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
Sorry, try again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
Wait, it was my understanding that you get a deep well for agreeing to move to Libya to hang with Gaddafi. A long, deep well to hide all your Baby Jessicas in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
Laws are polite fictions which are only followed when convenient.
Good luck enforcing legislation which takes away from people the qualities which make them sapient beings.
Anyway, control over a population is an illusion--no matter how it seems, you never had control over anybody, they just let you think you did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
No matter what, it is only a situation that would apply to the people who would choose to try to break up the package. I am not sure if that is all that problematic. First sales rights are retained (you can resell your PS3), so I am not sure where the problems are. If you don't want the product, perhaps you shouldn't buy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
No - you are confused here. You own the hardware - just like you own a CD with copyright music on it. Copyright prevents you from making copies - it doesn't prevent you from modifying the original instance that you own. All hardware has "inseparable software" - that is the deign of the hardware which you are not allowed to copy - but nothing prevents you from modifying your piece of kit unless you use the modification to make an illegal copy of the software. However you can make modifications for any other purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
No matter what, it is only a situation that would apply to the people who would choose to try to break up the package. I am not sure if that is all that problematic. First sales rights are retained (you can resell your PS3), so I am not sure where the problems are. If you don't want the product, perhaps you shouldn't buy it.
How would you feel if one day the dealer that you bought your computer from, came to your home and re-flashed the BIOS in your system such that the sound was permanently disabled? Would that be fair?
If not, why do you support Sony doing exactly the same kind of thing to the PS3?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
Even Sony admit you own the hardware
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110218181557455
There is an express warranty on hardware. NOT Licence! [And that whole motion from SCEA is an amazing read that totally contradicts their filings in Hotz.. oops]
The DCMA does not count towards the hardware at all, and is ONLY for software (intangibles) on EPROMS or ROMS not the actual ROMS themselves.
And remember the DCMA ONLY holds jurisdictiuonal relevance within the USofA Not elsewhere in the world where the PS3 is classified as good(s) and ONLY the PSN online system is classified as a service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
Your thinking is flawed. You say its ok that I do it, its my right, but how is it my right and not other's right too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
I bought my PS3 with cash, paid over the counter. At no time did I sit down with a Sony representative and sign a licence agreement to use the installed software. I know, first time I boot up, I press X to agree, but that goes against the very nature of free sale, in that if I don't agree to these licence terms POST SALE, my PS3 turns into a very expensive paperweight.
I'm interested in one day turning my PS3 into a Home Theatre PC. It would save me money, in that I wouldn't have to build one myself. All the required hardware is there, I just have to replace the hard drive (Blu-ray drive, HDMI port, Dolby/DTS Audio, hard drive to store media). However, according to Sony, I'm not allowed to do that. OtherOS wouldn't have been enough, as I wouldn't have had access to all the processors or the GPU.
Also, please answer me this.
I bought my PS3, and it was advertised as being able to support Linux. I thought "Great, I can practice using Linux, and still play games/blu-rays". Then Sony freaked out and said they were getting rid of OtherOS. They held my console hostage. They said I could keep OtherOS, but lose the ability to play any games/blu-rays manufactured in the future and lose access to the Playstation Network, or I could lose OtherOS and keep the abovementioned features. They reached out post sale and treated me like a criminal, despite the fact I had paid Sony, either directly or indirectly, cash for the console and games/blu-rays. What part of this do you defend?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
In summary:
If you don't press X to agree, you definitely own it (the software, your ownership of the hardware is not in dispute).
If you do press X, you might be transferring your ownership to Sony, depending on the validity of the EULA which in turn could depend on where you live; there are many places where the EULA is known to be invalid. It may also depend on the price of your lawyer and the corruption level of your court.
If you somehow manage to use the software without pressing X, bypassing the EULA, you still own it. Best scenario in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
Really? What about this?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/manual-molest-children-legal-cops/story?id=11561609
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
The only thing left for Sony to argue is copyright infringement. Cracking security by itself is not infringement nor a DMCA violation. So tell me, where is the violation? Oh, and don't forget about possible fair use defenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ambigiousness is bad, m'kay?
> hacking Sony's code.
See Pro-lock v. Copywrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(Note: I am an American and am thoroughly disgusted with my government)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Second the idea that you are renting/leasing is wrong. It is FUD, disseminated for the convenience of the companies involved. If you don't believe me try asking any of these companies to come and retrieve their old "rented" products when you have finished with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let me reiterate - Sony lost every lawsuit it brought against Bleem and they kept filing until Bleem went bankrupt.
Also, let's not forget the shenanigans Sony pulled at the Bleem booth at E3 1999. Sony tried to pull one over on the show management by claiming there was an injunction against Bleem and tried to get the show to pull the Bleem booth. There was no injunction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bleem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean has Sony sued anybody it didn't know about? Wow, such a good point you have there, not. Because Sony tries to lock people's devices up, collaboration is a key to people being able to hack their own devices, so, yes, Sony is stopping innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you really expect every single individual to have to replicate doing the same hardware tinkering, software programming/testing/debugging themselves with no help from the others who are doing the exact same things? I
Collaboration is an absolutely necessary part to working on complex systems and code that is millions of lines long. Building off what others have done is the core principle of all innovation.
Nobody is stopping innovation, you are free to make your own game console tomorrow. Knock yourself out.
A complete and transparent lie.
You seem to be under the impression that Sony designed, built, programmed the code for, and manufactured their game consoles without standing on the shoulders of all the thousands of innovations in the electronics industry of the past 100 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So doing a particular activity is okay, and legal, as long as you don't tell anyone that you did that particular activity. Free speech never looked so good!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In today's connected society, find me a hacker who DOES NOT COMMUNICATE with ANYONE. What kind of idiot hacker would tinker in his garage and not tell his buddies about it (at the VERY least).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Networking is so effective that everybody does it, that is why we have conventions everywhere, so trying to stop the spread of information is trying to hold something back in this case innovation and creativity.
Also it is eroding the right to own something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"..to protect their copyrights" completely misses the point of the argument. People are purchasing things and being told what they can, and can not do with them - and when they share what they could do, they are litigated against. At what point does copyright come into this equation? Both geohot and fail0verflow have maintained and made efforts themselves to mitigate piracy - all they wanted was to run their own code which did not infringe on others (including Sony's) copyright. Sony had given them the ability to do so with OtherOS which is why, for years the PS3 was "unhacked" - until Sony removed this outlet.
Try this: Hardware maker makes a carpentry tool. Carpentry enthusiasts realise that they want to modify it to use their own accessories/extensions and figure out how to do so. Said enthusiasts then give away, completely gratis the methods and means for doing so. Tool manufacturer sues for copyright infringement. This is how many in the maker, hacker communities see the geohot et al v Sony case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This isn't FUD. Everything he stated is a fact. It has had direct consequences for consumers ... if if not for you in particular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's the problem. Corporations are anti-sharing, whereas people learn to share as toddlers. People make advancements, corporations shut them down to protect their revenue.
In a capitalist society, people who contribute and make valuable products should succeed. In this broken system, innovations are held back so bloated worthless entities can make a buck.
If we can innovate, we can damn well share it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Take a look at the efforts to block cheating on open systems (i.e., PC)...punkbuster, valve, and Blizzard's in house stuff.
This is a big investment we're talking. Not a side project.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i don't think that being kept off of online play is at issue among the jailbreak community. i could be wrong, but most hombebrew types don't expect to be invited to the PSN/XBL party.
the executer chip in my original xbox had a kill switch so you could shut the mod off in order to play xbox live.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
next!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
well, not for microsoft it isn't: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-12/tech/cnet.xbox.live.ban_1_banned-modern-warfare-informationweek?_ s=PM:TECH
live/PSN are services, and in the case of live, it's a paid service to boot, so banning folks from the service for mods/cheats is fine by me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now a days, I hear everyone bitch and moan about how they got banned after they modded their 360s. I seem to be in a small minority when I ask them what the hell they expected. You mod your box, if Microsoft can ban you, they will. But, a lot of people expect to be able to play on XBL and still mod. I'm all for Microsoft (and Sony in this case) banning them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, look what a huge problem modding has been for computers, where people are free to tamper with both the hardware and software. You probably don't remember all the doomed MMORPGs that were swiftly killed off by the evil modders, like World of Warcaft and Second Life. They should have known better than to try releasing online games for a platform that isn't tightly locked down with tons of DRM. They went bankrupt so quickly I'd be surprised if anyone at all remembers them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
US Air Force connects 1760 PlayStation 3's to build supercomputer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The real problem is that Sony doesn't want to let it get far enough to do cool things with it. They're trying to stop it here and now. Oddly while people can only put Linux on it and pirate games. Sony needs to back off so we can get the good stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
crack crypto:
http://hackaday.com/2008/12/30/25c3-hackers-completely-break-ssl-using-200-ps3s/
molecul ar biochemistry:
http://www.gpugrid.net
(used to be ps3grid.net, but now the site doesn't mention the PS3 at all)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have to wonder. This week you are all over the MPAA, all over Sony, all over ICE, and all over Righthaven. What I see is someone getting "worried" because the legal actions that each of these groups are taking are changing the landscape, and also putting pressure on the government of the US and others to take action to protect the rights of content creators.
I think you have seen where the future goes, and you don't like it. The future isn't that free everything fairyland you have been promising here. The tone is changing, the mood is shifting, and tolerance is dropping.
It's fun to watch you lash out at the people who are eroding your world view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And he has the audacity to say it's "to protect the rights of content creators". Disgusting.
But it's clear why he does it. Dictatorship-level enforcement means more work for the IP lawyers. What a lowlife.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Given that, when you see companies and creators attacking their fans, throwing temper-tantrums or reducing the value of their product with DRM and removed features, one thing is abundantly clear: they are digging their own graves. Much more frightening is when the government is complicit in this, because it erodes respect for the rule of law and teaches entire generations that those in power are clueless about the realities of technology.
And so a blog like Techdirt highlights these things, because it is the right of every consumer to criticize commercial entities, and because it is the duty of any informed citizen to criticize the government when it violates people's guaranteed rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Troll food nom nom nom
"legal actions that each of these groups are taking are changing the landscape" - Brilliant propaganda. Unfortunately that "landscape" as you choose to call it are basic principles of what is fair and right. I know common sense is scarce in your fantasy land.
"putting pressure on the government of the US and others to take action to protect the rights of content creators. " - While trampling on the rights of everyone else.
"I think you have seen where the future goes, and you don't like it." - You like the path this country is on? Really?
"The future isn't that free everything fairyland you have been promising here." - F'in off your rocker. They have meds to take care of that ya know. Not anywhere did I see Mike advocate a "free everything fairyland" Smarter business sense, and innovative business models, which would normally be praised, but since that involves doing away with the current gatekeepers, Mike and this community gets ridiculed. Nice.
"The tone is changing, the mood is shifting, and tolerance is dropping." Just perfect conditions for tyranny.
"It's fun to watch you lash out at the people who are eroding your world view." - Yeah ok buddy. You really are a legend in you own mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Steam is a good example of this. Their DRM, whilst there, is almost minimal for all Valve games, and the content-maker can add their own to it.
At the other end of the scale are Sony and Ubisoft. I sold my PS3 shortly after the OtherOS removal, because I didn't like that one. And Ubisoft's DRM for both Assassin's Creed II and the Prince of Persia games for the PC made me vow never to buy anything from them again. When you have to crack a game, just to play it when you bought it legitimately, pisses a consumer off, and GUARANTEES that there will be a consequence of lost sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
BUT new releases still get the always on DRM... I don't know why, but that's just more work for them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
While I'll admit that Steam may not be as bad as some other forms of DRM, I'd hesitate to label Steam as "good". First of all, all games that are linked to Steam inherit Steam's system requirements, which can change retroactively. When Valve eventually decides to increase Steam's minimum requirements to Windows 7, anyone still using XP is going get a rude awakening when all their games stop working.
You can't install Steam games on any system that doesn't have a net connection. Furthermore, if you forget to authorize offline mode, you can't play single-player games if your connection goes down, or you go traveling with your laptop.
Some of the third-party games that they sell through Steam have been altered such that store-bought expansions and fan-made patches & mods sometimes don't work. Some games have also been modified slightly for copyright reasons.
Also, there's the myth that if Steam ever goes down, Valve will release a patch to de-activate the DRM, ensuring that players can still access their games. Is Valve willing to put this promise in writing? If not, it doesn't mean a thing. The main reason Steam would go down is if Valve goes out of business, which looks unlikely now, but no company is bullet-proof. If that were to happen, I doubt that they'd have the resources left to make and distribute a DRM removal patch. They also may not be able to so do legally. Sure, they can do it for their own games, but what about all the games from other companies that they've distributed? Do they have blanket permission to remove the DRM from all of those in the event that Steam goes down? What if Valve is bought by another company? Again, unlikely right now, but not impossible. If that were to happen, it wouldn't be Valve's decision.
Also, even if Valve did release a patch to remove the DRM, where would people buying physical copies of games like Half-Life 2 and Portal, get all the patches and updates from? Is a company that is going out of business going to spend time and money to get patches to all their games uploaded to various sites on the net?
History has proven that "selling" content which relies on remote DRM servers is never a good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Banning modders from THEIR network is not a problem to me, the problem is their not seeing the obvious. If people find their product fun to mod, they'll sell more product. Which, I thought, was their objective. It would appear they not only want to sell product, but, to remain in complete control of said product after it leaves their hands and they've been paid. The only way to maintain that kind of draconian control is to lock their product in their warehouses and never sell them. Again, is that the objective? And this is a good business model?
I also ceased buying from Sony after the rootkit fiasco. Specifically after having to remove it from a client's computer. The client was an elderly couple who's only "crime" was listening to a Sony CD on their computer. The shop I was working for had to charge the elderly retired folks a fee this Sony virus. If there were true justice in that situation, all the bills for removing this garbage would have been footed by Sony. Every last one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These changes are for the good of the few, and their wallet, NOT for the good of the many.
I know where I want the future to go. It involves people like Sony, the RIAA and MPAA seeing sense and concentrating on their core business and making fans, rather than shareholders, happier. This future also includes anonymous cowards holed up in jails, with their rear ends being used for target practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
just, ya know, food for thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you have seen where the future goes, and you don't like it. The future isn't that free everything fairyland you have been promising here. The tone is changing, the mood is shifting, and tolerance is dropping.
It's fun to watch you lash out at the people who are eroding your world view.
Good to see you're still alive, Colonel...
What's the weather like in Tripoli?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes I like that, people are eroding the world of monopolies LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I moved from Australia to the USA a year ago, and brought my Australian bought PS3 with me. It worked fine and I was using it to watch Netflix here in the USA using the Netflix DVD.
When Netflix moved to the non-DVD app on the PS3 last year the update brought with it a new region check which would not allow me to install the Netflix app on my Australian PS3.
So, here I am, sitting in the USA trying to pay for a US service on a legitimately bought PS3 to watch legitimately paid for movies, and I can't.
Sony just make it too hard, and again they took away something that was working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seeing as how you bought the PS3 in Australia you are still covered by the Trade Practices Act specifically section 52. Under this all you need to do is contact Sony Australia and ask them to remedy the situation. Remember Region Coding too is unlawful under Australian laws (and products sold) for DVD's and equiv [though not for BlueRay sadly]
They either Fix (repair) the problem, Exchange it for a model that will allow it [remembering you might oneday move back to the land of the free consumer ;) ], or fully refund your original purchase price. YOUR CHOICE!
Just because you now reside within the USA, you have not given up your statutory consumer warranty rights of merchantable quality on a product purchased within Australia. if Sony tell you to bugger off, which is highly likely, contact the appropriate Fair Trading Department in your original State, or contact the ACCC.
You are will probably have problems with some Games as well soon too, especially if you are playing online.
Good luck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Work with me on this one...
Here's the plan:
They wanna control their stuff *all the time*. Since they don't seem to realize that putting stuff for sale on the open market inevitably results in their loss of control, they need to set up an exclusive closed market where member/buyers willingly and contractually cede control of their purchases back to Sony, in exchange for bragging rights and an attractive certificate, suitable for framing.
Sony products would be removed from the general marketplace, and available *only* through this exclusive distribution channel.
Call it Club Sony, and charge the punters 50 bucks for the privilege of membership. The mothercorp will be saving money on legal bills, as well as generating another much needed revenue stream.
Shareholders will respond favourably to this bold, new monetization vector, and fanbois will rejoice at having finally trumped Apple in the all-important "Aren't We Special" demographic. Most importantly, Sony will quickly receive a patent for this breakthrough business model, resulting in a stunning Q4 earnings boost of $2.4B as a result of strategic licensing partnerships with major manufacturers covering a broad spectrum of consumer goods.
Unfortunately, mere weeks before this fundamental redefinition of the manufacturer/consumer paradigm reaches it's tipping point, a hitherto unnoticed meteor the size of Rhode Island will interrupt a perfectly lovely Sunday morning by smashing into the Earth a few miles east of Liverpool, eradicating all the remaining 5 traces of intelligent life on the planet, and pretty much everything else.
4 billion years later, a middle level marketing guy will push back his chair, scratch his left antenna and think to himself "Wait a minute... that's an idea..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i really should write it down at some point.
oh, and then there's the idiocy of the Good developers who don't do stupid shit being tied to platforms which are owned by morons who do it anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fiddlesticks.
Sony always has hated, and always will hate, capitalism. It has simply found capitalism a useful tool to leverage its power. The betamax case was merely their effort to shift gatekeeper status and give the keys to Sony instead of the people who held them at the time (being able to wrap their efforts in the guise of "consumer protection" was simple cloak and dagger stuff).
All anyone has to do is see what they've done AFTER they attained some measure of gatekeeper status to see how they really feel about consumers.
What Sony - and they aren't alone in this - wants (and I've argued this point for close to 20 years now) is a return to Feudalism, except instead of controlling the land you live on, they want control of your possessions. In the end, if they have their way, you won't actually "own" anything, you'll just being "leasing" it from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just say no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In summary, they wanted you to purchase an inferior machine that required 4+ hours of downloading OS updates and a game before you could even play it for the first time, plus you would have to re-buy all of your games and peripherals.
Not very friendly to their customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fools
The question here is what should be legal and what shouldnt.
Ill repeat my other anectdote, what if Chevy sued you for adding nitrous to your car? Doesnt make much sense does it?
For those of you who are on Sony's side, give us some reasons, rather than shooting down Mike.
And no, I wouldnt like the way the future looks either if it is full of this crap. If I want to do ANYTHING ON EARTH to my PS3, and tell all of my friends about it, it should be legal. Why make it illegal?
If they want to stop copied games, they can go after the people who uploaded them in the first place.
In the mean time, this is all the more reason for me to hard-mod my PS3, and never give them any money for a game ever again.
I still buy nintendo games, I dont see them suing the pants off of people. Nintendo is smart, adding devices such as snowboards and steering wheels and balance boards makes it impossible for me to pirate the games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Come on Mike, Set the Shill Free! *lights candle*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the time Sony started this mess
I have bought
3 x MP3 players
2 x Desktop computers
2 x Laptops
3 x TV
4 x cellphones
and will be purchasing a new laptop this weekend
NOT ONE ITEM LISTED WAS sony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Much of the "not Sony" stuff you bought may in fact be designed by Sony, using Sony designed chips or circuits, or using Sony developed technology.
Good luck trying to figure out which is and which isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shoot yourself Sony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shoot yourself Sony
Of course, even if they used a more standard format (like CF or SD), I would still remove them from consideration because of things like the Sony Rootkit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make it happen, SONY is dieing, lets help put them out cold!
BOYCOTT SONY TO DEATH!
BOYCOTT SONY TO DEATH!
BOYCOTT SONY TO DEATH!
BOYCOTT SONY TO DEATH!
BOYCOTT SONY TO DEATH!
BOYCOTT SONY TO DEATH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I always encourage others to do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i want sony to win because...
It's THEIR equipment your honor, so they're responsible for its upkeep and safety.....................
[ link to this | view in chronology ]