[PS3 Hacked For Good? Sony Sues] []Locked[]

UPDATE! http://ps3.ign.com/articles/114/1144041p1.html

[So, it would seem Sony's PS3 has been hacked again. THIS time, however, the hackers involved are stating that the crack CANNOT be fixed without new hardware. If this is true, Sony CANNOT fix this with a firmware upgrade. While it's natural to be somewhat suspicious of this, I am starting to believe it, after Sony has officially announced their plans to file lawsuit with these individuals, instead of releasing a patch. Very out of pattern for Sony. One can only think that, considering these events, what the hacker team said may be true afterall. Also, it is said that Sony cannot tell when your PS3 is hacked with this method, even online. So! Hope for some, angst for others. What will come of this?]

[Other articles on this can be found at IGN and Sankaku]

Such uselessness. If you can't afford something you can't afford it. Move on and be adult.

[I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you referring to Sony sueing people, or the people that are trying to hack the PS3?]

People hacking the PS3.

Moses wrote:People hacking the PS3.

You DO know that the actual hackers mostly do it for fun, right? And trying to hack expensives machines is a recipe for bricking, so I don't really think they are "too poor" for the system.

I am just against stealing games. Which is the most common thing that comes outta hacking systems.

Angel wrote:

Moses wrote:People hacking the PS3.

You DO know that the actual hackers mostly do it for fun, right? And trying to hack expensives machines is a recipe for bricking, so I don't really think they are "too poor" for the system.

They would not need to share how they did it, if they are just doing it for fun, but they do. Not to mention at this point hacking expensive consoles has become a business of itself and people sell the chips/programs/whatever is necessary for good money. There is even (quite nasty) competition between the hackers.

Saibot01 wrote:

Angel wrote:

Moses wrote:People hacking the PS3.

You DO know that the actual hackers mostly do it for fun, right? And trying to hack expensives machines is a recipe for bricking, so I don't really think they are "too poor" for the system.

They would not need to share how they did it, if they are just doing it for fun, but they do. Not to mention at this point hacking expensive consoles has become a business of itself and people sell the chips/programs/whatever is necessary for good money. There is even (quite nasty) competition between the hackers.

[Not always. Look at PS2 hacks. Those are free to use. It's not a money scheme. People designed PS2 hacks, not only for use to play pirated games, but so you could play backups of games you already own, and so you could take advantage of the power the PS2 has. With PS2 hacks, you can play raw video files, use a media player, and a bunch of other really neat stuff. It's not always about making money]

While YES YOU CAN use it for that, without spending money. There is also things like swapmagic that you BUY and are very much about making money. And while YES YOU CAN play backups of games you already own, MOST are pirating games. ANd while some maybe out for just "fun" most are out to get something for nothing. Or getting their friends something for nothing.

I have no fucking tolerance for this. If you can't afford it than you can't have it simple as that. This statement isn't solely for the hackers its for those that use the results "unmorality".

[I could argue this stuff all day long. There is a fine line between taking something that isn't yours, and making a copy of something. Let's say I bought a T-shirt off you. It's now mine right? So would you have the right to tell me how I could wear the T-shirt and when I could wear it? No, cause I bought it from you. In this same way, the people that make movies/music/games tell you 'you can buy this off me, but once you do, you cannot do this this and this.' 90 percent or more of pirated copies of games and the like come from real copies that were purchased. And the companies are NOT hurting from piracy. If anything, pirating say, music, spreads the word that much faster about that artist. To top it all off, a lot of people like to download music/movies/games to see if they like it before spending the cash. A TON of people still buy something they really like. It's a matter of not wanting to waste money on something you might not like before hand. I think that's intelligent]

[It's all the definition of 'stealing.' The definition from a dictionary is 'taking something that does not belong to you, or taking without permission.' Now, if you take a shirt that you bought, you have permission to have it because you paid money for it. That transfers ownership. It is no longer the store's shirt, it is YOUR shirt because of the transfer of ownership. So if you ripped it into a bunch of pieces, burned it or whatever the fuck, that's YOUR right. So if someone buy a music cd, they try to say that person 'cant copy it' because they don't have permission from them. Well guess what? They don't need permission from them, cause that cd is THEIRs to do with as they want. If I buy a cd, it's mine now. Rawr ^_^]

[If someone has a Stephen King book, and I read it, am I stealing the book? I'm reading it, aren't I? So If I go around and tell people the story verbally, is that stealing? No? Well, what if I print it out and hand it to people? I wouldn't be selling it, but instead of verbally telling people the story, I would be letting them read it. Is that stealing? If so, that's a pretty fine line, since speaking it aloud and having someone read it seem quite the same thing. I wouldn't be making money off it, after all]

[In closing, I would like to say I do agree that one should not make profit off of piracy. I disagree with the practice of selling copies of entertainment. It makes good pirates look bad. All they're doing is using the internet for what it was designed to do - share information. If the government doesn't like it, they should have shut the internet down a long time ago. ARPA NET anyone? Remember that stuff? The age-old question of "do I give this to you, or don't I give this to you?" Once you give someone something, you cannot control what they do with it, and this pisses Hollywood and the government off. They need to get over themselves. Pirates are not evil! They don't do things just to harm artists. In fact, a lot of artists approve of piracy! They want their music to be heard! I think that says a lot. I'll just leave you all with a statement from David Draimen, lead singer of Disturbed]

"I never asked for their help and I don't want it" -David Draimen, on DRM protection-

Your making a gray area where there is none.

This isn't about copy what you own. I don't care about that. This is about taking that copy and giving it to 100 people that never payed for it. Music, games, movies doesn't matter.

And even if 45 of that 100 people bought the item cause they liked it. 15 people to 20 would keep it and never buy it. Which is stealing, no? This defense of "it doesn't hurt someone" is bullshit and childish.

If you go to a store and take something without paying isn't that stealing? If you came back 3 days later and bought it would that make everything okay with the one selling it? Theft is theft and we both know the difference between a copy for you and a free copy for the world.

Moses wrote:Your making a gray area where there is none.

This isn't about copy what you own. I don't care about that. This is about taking that copy and giving it to 100 people that never payed for it. Music, games, movies doesn't matter.

And even if 45 of that 100 people bought the item cause they liked it. 15 people to 20 would keep it and never buy it. Which is stealing, no? This defense of "it doesn't hurt someone" is bullshit and childish.

If you go to a store and take something without paying isn't that stealing? If you came back 3 days later and bought it would that make everything okay with the one selling it? Theft is theft and we both know the difference between a copy for you and a free copy for the world.

[It's about transfer of ownership. If I make tons of copies and give them away, they aren't stealing from me, because I'm allowing them to have it. Are they stealing from the people that originally sold it to me? No! Because it's not their copy anymore, it's mine and I'm letting people have a copy because I can because it's MY copy. Think if we could clone something. Cloning machines would be banned because of the same reason. The government doesn't want you to be able to share media that you pay for. It's all just about money. And If someone buy something, they are free to make copies and give them out. That's just the way I see this, and that will never change. Ask yourself, why is it illegal to make your own Alcohol? Because the government isn't getting money from it. Alcohol is heavily taxed. Weed is illegal because they can't control it. Entertainment can't be controlled, but it's also too big to try and stop. So they just try to stop you from sharing. It's about them getting their cut. That's all. It's not about the artists. It never has been. Artists get the shaft all the time from everyone]

Your attempting to blur a line that really doesn't exist. You are trying to mix borrowing with giving away. See while the original media source is yours cause you bought. The copys are illegal cause they where made without permission.

Which when you bought the item you agreed to the ToS of said item. If you didn't like the terms of service you could have just not bought it. But just because you have a feeling one way doesn't change the law. Or give you the right to just give copys of it away.

Basicly to transfer ownership you have to give the original away and no longer have it. Thats how media works.

(footnote) I am trying very hard to not get out of hand with this, but its very hard. This will probably be my last post on the subject.

[I understand the out of hand stuff. This is a VERY passionate topic for the both of us, and we sit upon opposite sides. I think it is good to take a break for now and let other people offer their opinions on what we have said, and how they feel of piracy. Anyway, good discussion MOsEs!]

Allowing you to test something before buying it? Which products do allow that? Very few.

Games actually go very far already, you are not only flooded in reviews and trailers (like films and other sorts of entertainment), but you also get demos. Someone should be able to decide from this flood of impressions of the game.


Also, while some people might actually test a game as a pirated copy and then buy it... how many do you think do it? Actually try to make the effort and act of will to buy something that they, in some form, already "possess"? Of course, there are those that pirate a game that they never planned to buy in the first place and some of them might even buy it after seeing they like it, but this will not balance out the losses made from piracy in the first place.

Whenever something new comes that requies different methods to be pirated (DVDs, Steam and so on) the first games to use such technology usually tend to perform suprisingly well. Just because they are quality games? Or maybe because people HAD TO buy them?

The argument that no one is hurt also holds little water. No matter how much one might hate the state, the publishers or someone else. The developers, those that worked many days and nights so you can enjoy their games, are hit hardest when their games fail. A mighty publisher can survive bad sales, not all developers can. This is especially hard for independant developers. Since some Indie Games are not considered "real" games by some, they tend to be even more ruthlessly pirated. Of course, few independant developers can survive their first baby utterly tanking.

And finally, yes. If you print the whole book out yourself and give those away, you are doing something illegal. In fact, it could even fall under plagiarism since you use someobody elses product without him or her allowing you too.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, from a legal perspective, you are NEVER actually buying a game (in a legal sense), because if you were, then what Alex said would be totally correct.

However, you do not. You buy a license of the game, a license that entitles you to certain things (playing the game, among other things), but not spread it willy-nilly.

To stay with Alex's T-shirt analogy: In this case, you are not buying his T-Shirt, you are buying the right to have a T-Shirt that is exactly like his, but may not give away.

One fast question I would just like to know... if you really hate the act of downloading games, do you also hate the downloaders? Aka me?

And I would also like to ask one more thing:
I played the game "Demon's Souls" yesterday at a friend's place, and I really really liked it. I am most definetely going to buy it when I get a PS3. Some months ago I borrowed "BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger" from a friend, played it through to 100% minus Score Attack. I then bought the game for 360 and will buy "Continuum Shift" for PS3. Several years ago, I downloaded "Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater" and played through the whole game, and later bought it because I loved it. I also borrowed "Saint's Row 2" from a friend some weeks ago, played through through the whole game, liked it a little, but it weren't too good so I never bought it and never will. I downloaded Tatsunoko VS Capcom last year, played through the game, unlocked all the secret characters and didn't like it very much. It now just sits in a case somewhere in my closet, never to be played again, and never to be bought. I see these things as the same thing.

If it's okay to "borrow" a game and play it through, and buy it later on, shouldn't it be the same if I download the game, burn it, play it through and buy that one later as well? Just as it's "okay" to borrow a game, play it through, and then not buy it versus downloading the game, burn it and then not buy it. The only difference is that it takes longer to download, as you have to wait for it, and some random store gets money for the DvD-Roms I bought to burn the game. I literally see it as the same thing. Not to mention that games, music or movies wouldn't be as popular as they are if pirates didn't exist.

I guess the question is this:
I'm borrowing a game and later buy it. I am then downloading a game to later buy it. I am borrowing a game and play it through, and don't buy it. I do the same with a downloaded game. Where the heck is the difference? In both cases, only ONE copy is used, and the creators only get paid for ONE copy. So logically, you would also detest the idea of letting someone "borrow" your games. Or am I totally wrong here?

Saibot01 wrote:Allowing you to test something before buying it? Which products do allow that? Very few.



Also, from a legal perspective, you are NEVER actually buying a game (in a legal sense), because if you were, then what Alex said would be totally correct.

However, you do not. You buy a license of the game, a license that entitles you to certain things (playing the game, among other things), but not spread it willy-nilly.

To stay with Alex's T-shirt analogy: In this case, you are not buying his T-Shirt, you are buying the right to have a T-Shirt that is exactly like his, but may not give away.

[I'm so sick of hearing that. Laws are not absolute! If your sister marries your friend, is he really your brother? Or is he your brother-in-law? BIL is just a way of saying legally, he's your brother, but it's just for paper. He's your ruse, a facade that exists only on paper. In that same way, just because it's a law saying that when you buy something, it's not yours, just something you have certain rights to, does that make it true? No! I don't give a fuck what anyone says, if you don't want me to own something, don't sell it to me. If you sell it to me, it's mine. Theirs what IS mine and what ISN'T mine. There's no in between and never has been. Just because they write laws saying it's not yours does not make it so. If I buy a shirt, the store is agreeing that the shirt is in my possession now and forever. That sounds like ownership to me. They don't come back and get it in three years]

[People put too much faith in laws. If a law is passed, they automatically assume it IS truth. What's mine isn't mine anymore, it's just something I have certain 'rights' to? No. Let me pass a law! The law says that all males are homosexual. Would that make it true? Would you believe it? People are so willing to believe nothing is theirs anymore]

[Now, as for your other piece, smaller companies can certainly feel damage from piracy. It's not a bullet-proof world out there. But games in general tend to draw more blood when pirated. However! Pirating a game spreads the word of a great game, regardless. And it gets people to buy them. I would agree that demos are a great part of the gaming world, and this really helps with sales. Also, I do not recall saying that ALL pirates buy what they end up liking. Only some. But it is a general moral view that many of them have. Download an album. Chances are somewhere on the readme it will say 'please support the official release if you like this,' or something similar. Pirates have a moral code. You know what will get your game or music or movies pirated, more than anything? When you start acting cocky, overpricing your shit, and/or putting intrusive DRM crap on your media. There have been non-pirates pushed to the edge by DRM. Did you know that shit can crash your computer? It can corrupt files. It can install stuff to your computer WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE! Which is in itself illegal as hell. But what the hell would anyone care about that? When they released DRM, it turned a lot of people to piracy, and that is why DRM is a dying practice. It hurt everyone involved. One of the biggest culprits of this DRM shit is actually Steam. Though I do not think it is so much their fault, but the developers that give them games. Now if they tell you a Steam game is DRM, it's practically marked with a death card]

[In closing, I am not flaming any posters here. I want this to be clear. This is just a passionate topic for me. I have anger towards the governments, some HORRIBLE copyright laws we have [and I'm not talking about the laws that say we cannot copy stuff] the DMCA and a bunch of other retarded shit that's going on that nobody questions because 'it's the law.' That is all for now] -AT9-

Angel wrote:One fast question I would just like to know... if you really hate the act of downloading games, do you also hate the downloaders? Aka me?

[Not everyone, but a lot of people DO hate pirates. Pirates are called thieves all the time, thanks to commercials and all that. Commercials that get people to believe the movie industry is suffering because of pirates. It's funny, because if you look at what they say, and then look it up online, you find two different stories]

[One time, Sony Studios decided to make a sob story about how they 'were making less movies in 2009' [or was it 2008?] and stated that it was because they simply didn't have the money to do it anymore, because of piracy. People shed tears for Sony. Those fucking bastards! They cried, those bastard pirates have no heart. But if you look up the records for that year, Sony did have a lower number of movies made that year [it was like 20-30 lower than usual] however, the budgets for each movie were significantly higher and the profits from that year were their HIGHEST EVER. They made less movies that year, but made much more money. Hmmmmm...I wonder why they left that part out Angel. What do you think?]

[It's all just a ruse to make people hate Pirates. And they do this well. Not all non-pirates hate pirates. Some just disagree with the practice of what pirates do. But then there are others that fucking hate them and want them to die. They think Pirates are scum of the earth. Anyway Miss Angel, as a final thing, I would advise you, as a friend, to be careful of what you say. Announcing "I download games!" is not a very good idea]

@angel: I hate everything.

Also I never let anyone borrow anything, I don't like people having my stuff.

@nine: Especially walls of text that turn from the subject at hand to how "big brother is out to get me." You can color it any way you want. You can preach any rhetoric you want but taking what doesn't belong to you is stealing. All this talk of its only paper and it is "too easily trusted" is just silly. Its a law. No different than any other law. You don't get to pick and chose the laws. Its not okay for someone to kill someone cause they didn't like the manslaughter laws. Its not okay for someone to walk on the interstate/freeway just cause they don't like the "no pedestrians allowed" law. Same as its not okay to fudge the system with the "its not my copy, its a copy of his copy's copy" bullshit I keep seeing.

You either help the system work, or you lead it to failure. While it may or may not hurt people (I am really not going to have this convo) it does have a massive negative effect. The slowing to stopping of industry. If you keep stealing company A's game on the 360, what is that company likely to do? Stop making games on the 360. A real world example of this was PC games in the middle 2000s (before all the DRM crap) they almost grinded to a halt. No more 4 platform games, cause their was no money in the PC. Since the DRM stuff, a massive bounce back of PC market games. While I am sure you can (and might) claim that company's only came back cause they think they can make more money now. I would rather bet its cause they feel more secure that their product is safer from theft.

As quite a few posts where made since my last post I do this nice and slow and post for post, but before we SERIOUS on, there is always this:



@Angel

While it is not the most elegant way to go about it, buying it later is okay, it is not quite the right thing to do (from a legal perspective), but nobody is hurt in the long run, so I would say it is okay. However, the moment you download a game, play it through, but do not buy it later, you got yourself entertainment without paying the money for it. Refer to my earlier post why this would end badly if even more people did that. Nonetheless, your willingness to buy games that you like does you credit.

Oh, and about "burrowing" a game (as in burrowing it from a friend) in many countries this is actually not allowed by word of the law either . In many countries you will have labels on the games telling you that this game is not meant to be burrowed to somebody else (you will notice that these labels are missing from copies you get from a rental store) . Since neither the industry nor police care much for this rarely hear about it. I do not know how the legal situation is in Sweden though, so I can not comment.

Angel wrote:Not to mention that games, music or movies wouldn't be as popular as they are if pirates didn't exist.

This is conjecture. There are no hard numbers for either the loss the industries suffer because of piracy or profit they make from converted fans.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@AT9

You miss something important. So this argument will come from a bit different angle:

You argued earlier, that if you buy a T-Shirt from someone, then you should own it and be able to do with it what you want. Why can you do? Why can the former owner not just come back and claim it as his again? Perhaps even steal it?

Laws.

Yes, the law protects your right to own the T-Shirt you bought from him. There is no natural or higher order (as far as we can say) that entitles you to own the T-Shirt because you gave him some colourful pieces of paper. So yes, when you say you own it now and can do with it whatever you want, you can do so because the law allows you too.

As for our actual discussion: The same law that grants you the above, also forbids you to pirate a game/movie/song. They are not even clandestine about it. The backside of the covers, the manual, the game itself and (on the PC) the installation process outright tells you what exactly you have bought and what you may or may not do with it. By playing it, you agree to a contract. Nobody forces you to agree to this contract, though, but when you play you do agree.

Of course you can discard this as Untruth, but then it is just as untrue as the perception that giving someone a few pieces of dead wood suddenly grants you a new piece of cloth to wear.

The purpose of laws is to make as harmonous a life possible for the people. In this case it makes sure that people you take entertainment from get properly reimbursed for it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let us leave the world of shallow philosophy, onto your next argument:

The problem with DRM is that it was not there overnight just because companies wanted to assrape their customers. It was meant as an act against piracy. The companies are only trying to protect their products and you can hardly resent someone for trying to protect their hard work from sticky fingers. The first stone, metaphorically speaking, was not thrown by the video game companies. It was not a good way to handle the proble, no doubt about it, but the original fault lies with the pirates, who made the companies use such practices in the first place.

Also, I found this:

WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE!

to be quite humorous. Suddenly, permissions are important to you, although pirates where never given permission (in fact, they quite knowingly ignore them) either. Of course, it is very bad indeed that the companies have been forced to such a level, but as the paragraph above says, only as a reaction.

In fact, Ubisoft once tested a different approach! They sold a game (would need to look up the name) at a lower than usual price without any copyprotection. Guess what happened? They got E-mails telling them what stupid idiots they are for making it so easy to rob them.

In the end, the biggest loser of this are not the pirates, not even the companies, but the honest customers that have to jump through the DRM-hoops.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for your agitation against people mindlessly following laws: What would you propose could be done, so that companies still get their effort repaid in some fashion and people stop to pirate?

Moses wrote: taking what doesn't belong to you is stealing.

[I agree. It's a good thing downloading something from someone is not taking what doesn't belong to you. Because the person is OFFERING for you to have it, and THEY bought it. It's THEIRS, and now it's yours. You can't sell someone a rabbit, and then try to claim the rabbit is not theirs. It doesn't work that way]

[I will read and reply to Saibot's post later, when CH starts word wrapping again >_>] []The text is not wrapping for me, for some reason[]

http://www.destructoid.com/ps3-version-of-modern-warfare-2-overrun-by-hackers-191858.phtml

Welcome to down hill, next stop the bottom.

[Damn thing won't load for me. Anyway, I don't agree with all this game cheat hacking and whatnot. And I am disgusted with the trophy hack that's going on]

Then there are people like me who use hacked systems for other means. Such as programming my own software to make use of the killer hardware that is the ps3. Nothing like a solid game of Minecraft on the PS3 . No its not piracy. Is it breaking the law? That's debatable. But there's nothing like the feeling of throwing together a game and watch it become available on a huge platform such as the PS3. Finally a way for people who don't want to/ can't afford to pay the $15k licensing fees Sony wants per year to make and play and distribute their own software and games. While having the system this open source does lead to piracy and hacks it's up to the end user to do that.

Hacks such as the trophy hacks and the MW2 hacks have nothing to do with the hacking community on the local side. MW2 hacks have been around since MW2 was released (read a while before hacking the ps3 was ever mainstream) It has to do with the security on the server end. For example I can easily spoof my local files of Counter strike or Team fortress its up to the server to figure out what the hell I'm doing and take appropriate action. By beefing up security on the trophy server they could easily check for the hash symbols and then not allow trophies to be updated if the hash doesn't match what it should for the game. AKA not possible to fake.

There are plenty of small security updates that could be made to eliminate piracy on the ps3 without hurting the Homebrew community. But for some reason Sony feels the need to destroy both. Which is why it keeps getting hacked over and over again most hackers don't care about piracy. But they do care about homebrew very few of them would go after the ps3 if it had anti piracy measures but allowed homebrew.

And also... HI EVERYONE! Its been a while!