What are the ethics of PS3's potential security crack?* [Archive]

Rangers

23-Jan-2010, 06:12

Not sure what you mean. There is no special order to it. The PS3 still not having a mod chip out hasn't helped it any. All those other consoles continued to see rising success even after being rampantly pirated. Being cracked has shown it doesn't affect negatively a console's success.

I think rampant piracy may hurt the 360 software sales in Europe. If you look at the claimed numbers, 360 has sold close to as much hardware as PS3 in Europe. But outside the UK, it's software doesn't seem to do nearly as well on the charts placing. I've suspected piracy, though I have no real proof. Although whenever 360 software sales lag the sold userbase I also suspect RRODing hardware (moreso the older hardware). If x% of sold hardware is currently broken, you must assume that x is much greater on 360 than Ps3 and some people will never get it fixed.

OTOH, I'd suspect if piracy was such a huge factor, you'd also see 360 hardware sales greatly outpacing PS3's in Europe, and you dont really see that either.

So what I'd expect to see if PS3 piracy happened: Higher hardware sales, lower software sales, mostly in EU as piracy seems less in USA.

Also on 360, I'm not a hacker and dont know about it, but from what I gather it's a never ending game keeping your 360 updated and safe from the MS popo, and you pretty much cant go online anymore at all. This seems to me like piracy is pretty well controlled then. PS3 perhaps can hope for a similar fate, if indeed it ends up "hacked".

Carl B

23-Jan-2010, 06:30

Stuff like this pisses me off. Why don't these obviously talented jackasses grow up and do something that is actually useful?

Well, I do respect the effort - a tourney of champions, so to speak! Just because I'm rooting for the hardware this time doesn't mean that I can't respect the challengers.

Anyway, whatever the case, these guys normally do 'grow up' to do something useful. Think of all those shows where the genius criminal gets a chance by the FBI to do good. ;)

But in these cases, it's normally consulting work offered by large corporations to address security and propose solutions.

-tkf-

23-Jan-2010, 07:38

Lets see if it works..
And if it doesn, the lets see if the software sales goes down?
Because right now it doesn´t seem like a very well protected Console results in beyond normal software sales in anyway. I would go so far as to say that the PS3 proves that piracy isn´t killing software sales on consoles.

zed

23-Jan-2010, 08:29

Stuff like this pisses me off. Why don't these obviously talented jackasses grow up and do something that is actually useful?
same thing with virus creators etc (*). Honestly I just dont understand the reasoning behind it, I suppose theres some sort of minor intellectual challenge.

(*)Though I suppose its a good ad for getting a job at Norton etc

Silent_Buddha

23-Jan-2010, 09:01

same thing with virus creators etc (*). Honestly I just dont understand the reasoning behind it, I suppose theres some sort of minor intellectual challenge.

(*)Though I suppose its a good ad for getting a job at Norton etc

Heh, do you mean the old generation of virus writers that just tried to break things, and slightly newer generation that form botnets, or the new generation that are all in it for money and are often backed by various criminal rings? :p

If it's the current generation of virus writer's it seems it's mostly about the money. Doesn't make me hate the bastards any less though.

Regards,
SB

Shifty Geezer

23-Jan-2010, 09:52

I share the view with all of you on piracy. It's too bad they can't isolate these two. Homebrew/piracy.But there was homebrew on PS3, and it appears no-one was interested. Okay, the RSX was locked out, but you can write GPU code on any old system. I don't see the need for system workarounds like PSP to enable those who want to explore code on the system to actually do so.

In this case I think homebrew is just an excuse. The pursuit was the challenge of cracking the PS3. Whether for piracy or not, I don't know. If the guy can profit off it, I'm sure he will. I suppose the piracy potential here is people could boot their PS3 through its secure phase, and then write whatever they want to RAM...boot a game rip.

senas8

23-Jan-2010, 10:38

Linux on PS3 runs in hipervisor - disk access is very slow, video is confined to framebuffer only and is very slow as well. The system memory is extreamly limited. Slow disk IO (26MB/s!) starting and even using programs can be a real pain. :/

patsu

23-Jan-2010, 11:21

And you sign up to B3D today to tell us that by hacking into PS3, you can finally use PS3 Linux efficiently regardless of the consequences ?
I am trying to understand your motivation.

Shifty Geezer

23-Jan-2010, 11:24

Yes, but has anyone written anything that warrants more performance? If PS3 is broken open and the hombrew community gets free reign, what will actually appear that would never happen with the current limited system?

As I see it, the only reason to bother with PS3 development is for Cell, as that's unique to the platform. That isn't gimped, and no-one's interested. If you want to write games or apps, there are a zillion other, easier-to-work-with platforms!

Grall

23-Jan-2010, 13:32

assen

23-Jan-2010, 14:19

Personally I feel that if I paid for a device, I should be able to use it any way I see fit, not only the way the original manufacturer wants me to. Lockout mechanisms a la consoles, Iphone etc should be declared illegal and banned by law IMO.

Feel free to boycott such lockout mechanisms, and also vote for those who oppose them - I guess the new EU-wide pirate party would love to promote "freedom" by banning this or that. In the meantime, I will enjoy the possibility of buying (and selling!) games via different business models - Gilette, downloadables, DLC - made possible only by secure hardware.

You certainly are free to do anything with a device, I'm against suing reverse-engineers etc. - but I think the hardware manufacturers, in turn, are completely in their right to try to stop you.

Edit: Even the basic model of "make game, sell copies" seems to be possible only on secure hardware.

patsu

23-Jan-2010, 18:31

Personally I feel that if I paid for a device, I should be able to use it any way I see fit, not only the way the original manufacturer wants me to. Lockout mechanisms a la consoles, Iphone etc should be declared illegal and banned by law IMO.

It's the same for me too, but not if the device is sold at a loss and the developers, especially the small guys, are put in a compromised position. The incident my cause Sony to reconsider some of its bolder plans too, and any attempt to counter exploits may cause inconvenience to legitimate users (e.g., PSN/XBL banning the wrong people).

Not saying he's there yet, but these are my principles.

flynn

23-Jan-2010, 19:13

Stuff like this pisses me off. Why don't these obviously talented jackasses grow up and do something that is actually useful?

+1. I don't understand these people. I'd rather he created something instead, which requires actual talent, not a degree in E.E. and unlimited time.

The funny thing is, this time running Linux is not a valid excuse. If it took him 5 weeks, why didn't he do this in 2007?

patsu

23-Jan-2010, 19:22

Well, people can be misdirected or lured. I know friends who were offered at least US$1 million cash for one-off jobs. I am okay with that, but I dislike people who hide behind "principles" when the real objective is the money, or other selfish reasons. Sometimes I am flabberghasted when extremely smart people were used/tricked for the wrong reasons.

Other times, it's just what they want to do with their time/lives.

Grall

23-Jan-2010, 19:59

Feel free to boycott such lockout mechanisms, and also vote for those who oppose them
Boycotting is not a viable alternative when ALL the current platforms employ such measures. I'm not ready to quit my favorite poison.

The pirate party's a bunch of maroons from what I've seen, I'd rather vote for an amalgamate of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Charlton Heston than for those clowns...

In the meantime, I will enjoy the possibility of buying (and selling!) games via different business models - Gilette, downloadables, DLC - made possible only by secure hardware.
Secure hardware does not exclude open hardware. Commercial software can absolutely continue using their security measures while at the same time accommodating free development as well. It's just short-sighted greed from manufacturers that make consoles completely locked-down to everyone but licensed developers.

but I think the hardware manufacturers, in turn, are completely in their right to try to stop you.
Why?

I own the device. I'm not RENTING it from them. Therefore I should be the one who decides what I can do with it.

Edit: Even the basic model of "make game, sell copies" seems to be possible only on secure hardware.
Yes, we all know the original PS was such a commercial failure... ;)

patsu

23-Jan-2010, 20:45

Secure hardware does not exclude open hardware. Commercial software can absolutely continue using their security measures while at the same time accommodating free development as well. It's just short-sighted greed from manufacturers that make consoles completely locked-down to everyone but licensed developers.

In this case, the exploit starts from the OtherOS open system mechanism. So while it is true that secure hardware does not exclude open hardware, it is extremely difficult to do. It usually means that performance will suffer since extra checks need to be performed during run-time.

As for short-sighted greed, show me the finances of Sony and Microsoft that says they are raking in tons of money now compared to the resources they have already sunken in (and will continue to invest this fall again). Nintendo adopted a different business model and is more resilient to hacks like this, but it also means we don't get to play with advanced hardware invested by Sony and MS ahead of time.

Why?

I own the device. I'm not RENTING it from them. Therefore I should be the one who decides what I can do with it.

Not going to tell others how they should use their devices. But their actions can affect the developers and other users negatively.

Yes, we all know the original PS was such a commercial failure... ;)

Doesn't mean it will always follow the same rule. It's not like the law of physics. It's people. Things can happen in undesirable ways.

I can see potentially positive outcome from the incident, but by no means they are guaranteed to happen as "scripted". The economy and landscape are different from decades ago. I have been to Asia rather frequently. I know how bad things can go.

In any case, this is certainly an interesting development. Curious to see how Sony will react, especially on the online side and general user experience. They largely neglected the PSP in the early days, and Homebrew offered more usable and more compelling solution than the standard software. Hopefully they learn from that lesson. Don't make us _show_ them how to do usable software. :)

Grall

24-Jan-2010, 01:32

Sony will "always" have some protection (quite a lot, actually) regardless of how bad their hardware security gets compromised from the fact their games go on BR discs, and that most people have no means to duplicate them. BR burners are still much pricier than DVD burners, and most users see no need for a PC BR drive either, hence the units are quite rare still. And I foresee things staying basically the same; there's no pressing need for people to buy BR units and it will continue to be difficult to duplicate PS3 game discs.

Then add the fact most BR burners can only burn single layer discs, and if the PS3 game is spread across both layers it becomes even more difficult to pirate it, even if it was possible to get the PS3 to run it...

And of course, a PS3 game that is several dozen gigabytes in size is going to be difficult to download over the internet and somehow install on the PS3's harddrive, if a hack was devised to somehow enable harddrive installs of cracked games... Also, even the largest 2.5" HDDs available right now can only hold relatively speaking a handful of games.

So I have a difficult time seeing how Sony's future existence is doomed because of this news, or how a system open to non-commercial uses could be harmful to Sony and their current devs. It sounds a bit too much like FUD, IMO.

MrFloopy

24-Jan-2010, 03:22

sebbbi

24-Jan-2010, 07:23

I share the view with all of you on piracy. It's too bad they can't isolate these two. Homebrew/piracy.
They can easily isolate these two. Microsoft has done it with the free XNA/C# development kit. You can use the full hardware (all 6 hardware threads, GPU, live network) using the free XNA kit (with some minor restrictions). Microsoft has even gone so far in homebrew support that you can even publish your homebrew games and sell them (Indie games - http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/community/default.htm). I don't see how they could support homebrew better than this.

Like said before in this thread Sony also supports homebrew (you can officially install Linux to your PS3). Too bad you can't access the GPU, but the powerfull Cell CPU is fully accessible. This is enough for most homebrew applications and simple games.

So you can't really say that Sony and Microsoft didn't try to support homebrew. Both supported homebrew officially without any mod chips or software mods needed. Still both consoles got eventually hacked to play pirated games. I doubt that this hack allows them to run unsigned code on PS3. But now you can modify the data, just like with Xbox. I still wouldn't say either of these platforms are fully hacked, as you can't run your own code. Being able to fool the system that copied discs are legal or to modify your profile/savegame data is not something I consider full access to the hardware. And is not something that helps homebrew development at all.

Apoc

24-Jan-2010, 09:58

flynn

24-Jan-2010, 10:16

Sony will "always" have some protection (quite a lot, actually) regardless of how bad their hardware security gets compromised from the fact their games go on BR discs, and that most people have no means to duplicate them.

Oh but they don't have to. All you need is factory in Asia making these counterfeit copies that will show up in flea markets. Or if the ISOs can be loaded off a USB drive you don't even need that.

And of course, a PS3 game that is several dozen gigabytes in size is going to be difficult to download over the internet and somehow install on the PS3's harddrive, if a hack was devised to somehow enable harddrive installs of cracked games... Also, even the largest 2.5" HDDs available right now can only hold relatively speaking a handful of games.

Jim downloads game A, Tom downloads game B, they copy it. Heck, at that point you might even be able to rent the game and make the ISO yourself.

So I have a difficult time seeing how Sony's future existence is doomed because of this news, or how a system open to non-commercial uses could be harmful to Sony and their current devs. It sounds a bit too much like FUD, IMO.

It's not, but the "we cracked it for homebrew" argument is mostly BS. Thr xbox360 allows anybody to develop for it via the XNA program. That never prevented the firmware hacking. On the PS3 you had Linux. Let's face it: most people are selfish and greedy and given the choice of not paying for something they will certainly not. I know several people with modded xboxes that were banned right before MW2 came out. I laughed at them :wink:

See one of the problems I have is that next time I go online Peter with his modded console might be using a wallhack in MW2 and there ends the fun in online gaming. It's PC online cheaters all over again.

I admit I wouldn't mind having full access to the RSX to play with the hardware but if that means people will be able to run pirated games I'd rather not.

It seems some people buy a hammer and complain because it's not a good screwdriver. If you want a completely open system get a PC or a Mac, not a console.

I hope this guy gets defeated by the Cell's security, he's not doing anybody a favor.

Shifty Geezer

24-Jan-2010, 10:22

As part of your agreement with sony or microsoft to use the software that comes with your console you have stated that you will not reverse engineer, copy or modify said software.

Now if you can find a way to mod you console without breaking that agreement then all power to you, but claims that you have the right to do so is simply not true.What if you didn't buy the console but it was given to you? You haven't agreed to any terms in such a case, so there's no fair way you can be held by. And that's assuming they are even legal, which as Apoc says is questionable. Finally, what recourse do the console companies have? If you fail to use your console according to terms you have agreed to, then the penalty would be to remove/brick your console, thereby voiding the company/client arrangement. I guess that could be considered fair although there'll be plenty of people who disagree. But in itself it doesn't stop reverse engineering. Sony could now approach GeoHotz and demand he surrenders the PS3, but the crack is made. Now if he were to build his own PS3 from the reverse-engineering, then he'd get his ass handed him, which is principally what those laws about; but he isn't doing that.

I don't think there is any law which prevents cracking of CE devices. If there is, someone will have to point me to it. You buy the goods and are free to do what you want with it. However, there are laws against piracy etc. If GeoHotz sells a modchip, in some countries at least, he may get served. But if his research is turned into a modchip by someone else, he isn't accountable, any more than I would be having made a kitchen knife used by some stranger in a grizzly murder.

tongue_of_colicab

24-Jan-2010, 10:33

Shifty Geezer

24-Jan-2010, 12:52

Who cares if people run pirated games or not?The people who make/publish the games.

Silent_Buddha

26-Jan-2010, 01:32

Who cares if people run pirated games or not?

As Shifty said, the people who spend countless hard hours (especially during crunchtime) making the games people want to play.

Pirating the game is the same as going up to them and spitting in their face...or worse.

They are basically saying, "Woo, I endorse slavery. Make these games for me for free you filthy slave. Yes, I deserve to make money for my work, but you lowly game developer don't."

Regards,
SB

NathansFortune

26-Jan-2010, 02:42

Who cares if people run pirated games or not? psx, ps2, wii, x360, ds for example had/have tons of piracy and all of them are succesfull systems. I don't think piracy has much to do with sales. Besides that its the same as with music. People only have so much money, or only are willing to pay a certain amount. They might end up getting it a other way but that doesn't mean they would have bought it if they couldn't get it for free. Games are expensive and somebody might want to play 3 games a month which would be 180 euro's. Well a lot of people don't have 180 euro's a month to spend on games so you might only buy 1 and download the other 2. Doesn't make it right to do but given the status of the systems above I don't think piracy kills a system either.

If you don't have the money to spend on gaming, there's a simple solution. Don't game. Piracy is never the answer.

Thing is, Sony still lose money on the PS3, so you are getting loss-leading hardware on the premise that you buy 2-3 games and another controller. If people stop buying those 2-3 games (it does happen, look at PSP, soft hack, tech-savvy userbase) the ecosystem of the console becomes lop-sided and Sony can no longer be aggressive with pricing.

George

26-Jan-2010, 15:58

Reply to a post in the Tech thread

The PC isn´t secure at all and that is the reason we see more and more console exclusive titles and PC releases coming many months after the console release. Due to piracy the PC is becoming a less attractive platform.
All games are not online games I hardly play online myself, so yes a hacked console still affect fellow players even if Sony can ban modded consoles which we still don´t know if they will be able to if pirated games come to the PS3, it took MS many years to put a stop to it and maybe there is a new 360 mod out by now, i don´t know.

This argument is age old and I completely disagree. Have you ever considered that the PC situation is just evolution of the industry? Its not exactly easy being a PC gamer and consoles have simply superceded it for the time being. I suppose should consoles fall the same argument would be used that piracy killed them. Everyone moves to the next system for gaming and expect that the previous system should have as many gamers as it had at its prime. To me its a cycle, fewer exclusive PC gamers-----> developers focusing on consoles----> fewer interested PC gamers and on and on. Also consider the kinds of games PC is suited to without a controller. RTS games, RPGs and shooters. RTS games have fallen in popularity, wow has the rpg gamers and rpgs are on the consoles in force. Shooters are the main attraction on PC should that really be what the users there desire. I just wish ppl will try to see more than just "piracy is the cause." An industry will not survive with that kind of simple thinking.

I am not quite sure I understand the first part of the bold text. How does it affect fellow gamers if it cannot go online?

Prefered for being the first next gen console and similar to the PC environment yes, not because of the piracy.

Definitely not because of piracy and definitely wasn't dropped for that role because of piracy either. it seems the assumption is the ps3 will be worse off for being hacked yet the hacked consoles are leading it. Logically the argument makes no sense. Even if you don't see a benefit, you can't quite provide evidence for an disadvantage either.

He was obviously refering to the people asking for XBMC functionality, they should of course buy a box with that feature set if that is what they want.

That box would be giving money to the gaming industry? No. Would they be able buy a game for that box? Point is, buying a ps3 for whatever purpose isn't something you should be trying to argue against. So if someone says they want to do more with that system I don't think your stance on protecting the industry is served by telling them to find a different system to accomplish it.

Really?

Possibly

So why should gamers and game companies be subsidising the hardware used by researchers?

Not my point. He was saying that its all about piracy and cheating. There are many benefits people choose to ignore because they are paranoid about something that has been happening forever. Piracy is easiest to blame for failures.

I could give him credit for being a smart guy but nothing more. If I was one of those downloading 360 ISO torrents I would hail him as a new Messiah, but I am not.

I don´t see this bringing the industry forward. What I would like to happen is that Sony brings the manufacturing cost of the console down so much that they start making money from every SKU. Then they perhaps could bring back the OtherOS option and let people use their PS3 to whatever they want, still not playing pirated games.

I was referring to those doubting his work when they really have no practical idea or the mind of a hacker.

Sony will drop manufacturing costs when they sell more consoles, they sell more consoles faster when the hardware is hacked. I am going to ignore piracy comments because its pretty much a witch hunt situation.

tongue_of_colicab

26-Jan-2010, 16:24

If you don't have the money to spend on gaming, there's a simple solution. Don't game. Piracy is never the answer.

Thing is, Sony still lose money on the PS3, so you are getting loss-leading hardware on the premise that you buy 2-3 games and another controller. If people stop buying those 2-3 games (it does happen, look at PSP, soft hack, tech-savvy userbase) the ecosystem of the console becomes lop-sided and Sony can no longer be aggressive with pricing.

That is like saying if you don't have the money to buy food, don't steel, just starve. Ofcourse there is a big difference between dying and having fun but it boils down to the same thing. Fact is its easy to tell people how evil piracy is (and hypocritical as I'm sure 99,9% of the people on this forum has or had pirated content at some point in their lives) when you have a well paying job like the majority of the people on this forum has I think but when you are for example a student or a kid you can't afford to buy every game you want. Does that mean you are evil and spitting in the face of people who developed the game? I don't think so. That doesn't mean everybody should just download like it is a good thing but in most cases there is no damage done either I think because if you can't afford the game, you won't buy it.

obonicus

26-Jan-2010, 16:36

That is like saying if you don't have the money to buy food, don't steel, just starve. Ofcourse there is a big difference between dying and having fun but it boils down to the same thing.

#1) Being hungry doesn't entitle you to steal. It's still a crime, albeit with an extenuating circumstance.

#2) They don't boil down to the same thing at all. 'Because I really wanted it' isn't an extenuating circumstance.

Fact is its easy to tell people how evil piracy is (and hypocritical as I'm sure 99,9% of the people on this forum has or had pirated content at some point in their lives) when you have a well paying job like the majority of the people on this forum has I think but when you are for example a student or a kid you can't afford to buy every game you want.So you don't game. Gaming's not a necessity, it's a luxury. You have no right or claim to any content that you don't own. Just because you can get it for free doesn't make it legal or right.

Does that mean you are evil and spitting in the face of people who developed the game? I don't think so. That doesn't mean everybody should just download like it is a good thing but in most cases there is no damage done either I think because if you can't afford the game, you won't buy it.You don't get to judge whether it does damage or doesn't. A large part of the damage claimed by publishers due to piracy doesn't translate into actual loss of income, but they're still the injured party. Hell, a lot of publisher/developer talk involving piracy is less about lost sales (which of course can't be gauged accurately) but rather by the perception of lost sales and the sting of people consuming your product without paying (and guess right, it's within their right not to want you to play their game if you haven't paid for it). The latter is enough reason for a lot of publishers and developers to move away from making games for certain systems.

SG79

26-Jan-2010, 17:26

So you don't game. Gaming's not a necessity, it's a luxury. You have no right or claim to any content that you don't own. Just because you can get it for free doesn't make it legal or right.

Thank you. I get the same old arguments from people who do it, and when you throw this in their face, they start sounding like broken records. Likewise for movie piracy. The simple point that any lost revenue ultimately affects smaller jobs and not the big suits is completely lost on them.

If anyone thinks that gaming or any form of entertainment is a necessity, they certainly need a hard dose of reality.

I'm underemployed and back to school after a painful year, so I'm naturally cutting back because of time constraints and an ethical stance.

George

26-Jan-2010, 17:27

In a way I consider comment about if you can't buy it don't game as selfish. Who loses but the person who misses out on a form of entertainment they enjoy? I can't, in good conscience, tell someone not to pirate if I know the hardship they would have to go through to get the game.

obonicus

26-Jan-2010, 17:36

What you're missing is that the alternative to buying a game isn't pirating it. The alternative is not playing it. There's no hardship involved in not playing a videogame.

Florin

26-Jan-2010, 17:50

Pirating the game is the same as going up to them and spitting in their face...or worse.

I haven't heard of many incidents of that happening to developers, but piracy is rampant. I'm guessing your opinion that the two are comparable is not a common one.

Sonic

26-Jan-2010, 17:56

George, where do these people live? If they live in a Western country then is there really a reason for them to pirate games other than because they don't want to spend money on that form of entertainment? I really am trying to understand your reasoning. Yes, many games are expensive. That is because they cost a lot to make this generation and most still end up being barely breaking even or being a net loss for the dev/pub. One does think that those who pirate, especially in Western countries, do it because they want to not pay for the software but still want to enjoy it. If they are in dire financial hardship should they really be biding their time playing pirated games when that time is better spent trying to get out of their financial hardship?

You say it is selfish to say "if you can't buy it don't game". I say it is selfish of those who want to pirate the game and not pay for it. They want all the entertainment but don't want to trade their time (from work that turns into currency to buy products) but will gladly trade the time of all the people who worked on the game. If it's a case of not being able to afford it then yeah that sucks to be them but I would tend to think those people have much bigger problems than not being able to afford a damn game. It's not the same as stealing food because of hunger because food is a necessity. Games aren't. There's a reason when I give to charity it is to better people's lives with donations of food, clothing, assistance with rent, and my favorite kind is of course paying for individuals to go to college so they can get in a better situation. The reason I don't donate old arcade games or consoles is because that's only a temporary escape from the real problems.

Now I'm not anti-piracy myself. I just want those who do it to own up to it and not make excuses. I'm much more against piracy of games than I am of movies; much more against piracy of movies than music. That's a different debate though.

Sonic

26-Jan-2010, 18:02

George

26-Jan-2010, 18:38

What you're missing is that the alternative to buying a game isn't pirating it. The alternative is not playing it. There's no hardship involved in not playing a videogame.

You can't will options into non-existence. Pirating is an alternative.

@sonic

What excuses? There are reasons and what people choose to do given those reasons. You and others may find it odd or wrong but that is how it is for them. I still can't see the harm in having someone enjoy what you make if they can't afford it but thats just me.

Pirates buy games. Don't forget that... Its not quite black and white

obonicus

26-Jan-2010, 18:51

You can't will options into non-existence. Pirating is an alternative.

Not a valid one, though. Your point was written as if the only choice a person has, if they can't afford the game, is to pirate it. That's false. Their first choice is not to play it. There's no hardship involved there.

What excuses? There are reasons and what people choose to do given those reasons. You and others may find it odd or wrong but that is how it is for them. I still can't see the harm in having someone enjoy what you make if they can't afford it but thats just me.

Again, the point isn't what YOU find harmful, it's what the creator has a problem with. The content being experienced isn't yours. The 2DBoy guys, to celebrate some sales milestone or project anniversary had a 'pay what you want' promotion for World of Goo. Yesterday I picked up a fun little sidescrolling game called Runman. The creators have it for free download, and have a donate button up, in case you think the game is worth some money. The difference is that it's the creator telling people that they can experience their game at no cost, and not some internet person wanting to liberate bits.

Pirates buy games. Don't forget that... Its not quite black and white

Actually, it goes the other way. The claim often given is that pirates don't buy games, that's why # of pirated copies doesn't translate directly into # of copies not sold (apologists will further push to suggest that the # of copies not sold is near-zero).

SG79

26-Jan-2010, 18:57

I could care less if Sony loses money on each PS3 it sells. It's their fault it's so expensive and if people want to hack their PS3's and not buy games for it then yeah tough shit for Sony. They can go after the people who do pirate, but again that's more a software issue than it is hardware.

I don't think anyone here really cares if any of the big three loses anything on hardware (though seriously, $300 is expensive now?) It's the fact that the hardware and software issues aren't unrelated, and ultimately developers are on the losing end. Sony/MS/Nintendo and software publishers lose revenue, but the latter group has more to lose, and it directly affects developers.

You did say you're not anti-piracy so that rant about owning up without making excuses was a bit confusing, since you actually made a great case for anti-piracy.

I still can't see the harm in having someone enjoy what you make if they can't afford it but thats just me.

The point is, entertainment isn't a necessity. You'd have a point if it were, and the harm you can't see is the mere fact that software development isn't done free of charge. Game developers work long hours, often affecting their personal lives. Put yourself in their shoes for a second and think of something you worked countless hours on, only to see someone using that work afterward without footing the bill.

You can argue that lost revenue for big publishers doesn't concern you, but who do you think it affects? Look at Midway's fiasco for example. The suits got off relatively untouched with full pockets.

The lost revenue also affects future games development as well. We're not talking sequels either, but new IPs that can potentially create more jobs.

Silent_Buddha

26-Jan-2010, 20:45

I haven't heard of many incidents of that happening to developers, but piracy is rampant. I'm guessing your opinion that the two are comparable is not a common one.

Sure because you'd likely get punched in the face...or worse.

It still doesn't negate the other inconvenient fact that anyone that pirates is actively endorsing slavery.

Work for free. Make ME what I want for free. I'm not going to give you a single dollar for your hard work. Do it for FREE or else.

Work harder slave. Your game is buggy slave. You need to do better work slave...

What me? "I'm" different I deserve to be paid for my work. But you lowly slave game dev do NOT deserve any money.

Regards,
SB

specwarGP2

26-Jan-2010, 20:59

Who cares if people run pirated games or not? psx, ps2, wii, x360, ds for example had/have tons of piracy and all of them are succesfull systems.

They're successful despite piracy because they are/were the dominant systems in of their generation. Piracy helped kill Dreamcast and PSP is like a dead man walking right now because of it.

NathansFortune

26-Jan-2010, 21:01

That is like saying if you don't have the money to buy food, don't steel, just starve. Ofcourse there is a big difference between dying and having fun but it boils down to the same thing. Fact is its easy to tell people how evil piracy is (and hypocritical as I'm sure 99,9% of the people on this forum has or had pirated content at some point in their lives) when you have a well paying job like the majority of the people on this forum has I think but when you are for example a student or a kid you can't afford to buy every game you want. Does that mean you are evil and spitting in the face of people who developed the game? I don't think so. That doesn't mean everybody should just download like it is a good thing but in most cases there is no damage done either I think because if you can't afford the game, you won't buy it.

I'll put this in a different situation for you.

A family are doing reasonably well for themselves and decide they want to leave their current place and move to a new neighbourhood which is leafier and generally nicer. They've been there for a few years now and are settled in really nicely but they did overstretch themselves in moving to this neighbourhood. Sadly a drug dealer recently moved in down the road and he's brought a lot of bad influence to the area and a lot of the residents have decided to move out. Even worse for the family is that house prices sank to rock bottom since news of the drug dealer and his crackhead friends moved in so they can't afford to move out anymore and their stuck here. Now the biggest problem with the drug dealer is that he has brought all sorts of lowlifes and scum to the area who will steal from homes and mug people (you know because they can't afford to get high three times a week on government benefits only once, but they really want more crack) and the police can't seem to catch these guys or if they do more simply arrive everyday rendering police action pointless.

I'll redo that again now with gaming in mind.

A small/medium developer who have done well on PS2 and Xbox have moved onto to development for PS3 where they can really make their gaming vision come true. Obviously being a next gen console the PS3 is much more expensive and difficult to develop for, so they stretched their resources by moving up, but PS2 isn't really an option anymore. Now some kid called geohotz has developed a hack for this thing and people can download their games for free, and the PS3 userbase being the most tech savvy (unlike the Wii) are more likely to do this than any other userbase (see PSP). So now the developer is stuck hoping that Sony can close the hole, or they lose money and downsize (people losing jobs). So they are left with one option, moving development resources away from PS3 and onto the Wii where piracy is still an issue but less of one given the size of the userbase and the nature of it.

Sorry for the longwinded post, but I really hate piracy and just because you can't see what you are stealing (like going to Wal-Mart or Tesco and physically taking it from the shelf) doesn't mean it isn't theft.

If you can't afford to buy something it's time to get a new/better job or live without it.

NathansFortune

26-Jan-2010, 21:09

Now as for the actual PS3 hacking and what not. More power to the people trying to crack the system. When I buy a machine, phone, whatever the device the manufacturer of that device is selling me a physical object that is now my property. I'll do what I want with it regardless of some pseudo-legal agreement or terms they wish to throw at me when I buy it. When I buy it those companies agree to let me use the machine in a way I see fit. Software is a different matter.

I could care less if Sony loses money on each PS3 it sells. It's their fault it's so expensive and if people want to hack their PS3's and not buy games for it then yeah tough shit for Sony. They can go after the people who do pirate, but again that's more a software issue than it is hardware.

Your sense of entitlement is bewildering.

How is software a different matter. It's a product someone worked on and sold you. Word doesn't have a spreadsheet and I don't want to spend extra to buy Excel so I'm going to crack open Office and add my own spreadsheet software which I happened to rip from some other source. That would be homebrew right?

Sony made the PS3 extremely secure, waaah, they don't let me run XBMC (or 'backup' games) waaah. It's not fair, waaaah. Xbox 360 doesn't let me run XBMC, waaaah, and I have to tamper with hardware to make it run 'backups' of my games waaaah. It's my hardware I spend £200 on it, it should do what I want it do, not what the company intended it to do, waaah.

Boo, fucking, hoo. Grow up.

Silent_Buddha

26-Jan-2010, 21:15

If you can't afford to buy something it's time to get a new/better job or live without it.

It's almost like parents no longer teach kids that stealing is bad.

Back when I was a kid a long long time ago, I used to shoplift. Got caught stealing an Atari 2600 game and not only my parents (dad beat the crap out of my rear) but the law (community service) punished me. Needless to say my shoplifting days were over. Especially when to teach me a lesson my dad allowed my cousins to "steal" some of my stuff to show the impact it can have when it relates to yourself. I never got those items back. :( But I also never stole again after that.

Now if you get caught stealing a computer game, it's either justified by the parents or a light slap on the wrist at most.

It just completely boggles my mind. People growing up now in the age of entitlement. /sigh. The whole thought process of "I deserve this" rather than "I need to work to earn this."

Really I hope the people that do this get robbed, have stuff stolen from them so they know what it feels like. After all, it's OK to steal, right?

Regards,
SB

George

26-Jan-2010, 22:31

It's almost like parents no longer teach kids that stealing is bad.

Back when I was a kid a long long time ago, I used to shoplift. Got caught stealing an Atari 2600 game and not only my parents (dad beat the crap out of my rear) but the law (community service) punished me. Needless to say my shoplifting days were over. Especially when to teach me a lesson my dad allowed my cousins to "steal" some of my stuff to show the impact it can have when it relates to yourself. I never got those items back. :( But I also never stole again after that.

Now if you get caught stealing a computer game, it's either justified by the parents or a light slap on the wrist at most.

It just completely boggles my mind. People growing up now in the age of entitlement. /sigh. The whole thought process of "I deserve this" rather than "I need to work to earn this."

Really I hope the people that do this get robbed, have stuff stolen from them so they know what it feels like. After all, it's OK to steal, right?

Regards,
SB

Do you not see the difference?

Imagine there is someone with a power. That power is to clone ANYTHING they want. imagine this person goes to a car show, sees a prototype vehicle that functions and clones it. Is that theft? Nothing was lost, no-one is disadvantaged.

This is the best I could find on theft

Theft in English law

In English law, theft was codified into a statutory offence in the Theft Act 1968 which defines it as:
"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". (Section 1)
The five elements of the offence are defined sequentially in the Act:

Section 2 dishonesty;

Section 3 "appropriation" which occurs when the defendant wrongfully asserts the rights of ownership over the property. This can be by physical taking, but it will also include many different situations (i.e. a failure to return or omission) in which a person may have lawfully come into possession of the property and then keeps or uses the property in an unauthorised way;

Section 4 "property" includes all personalty, i.e. land itself cannot be stolen but anything severed from the land (with the exception of wild flowers) can be stolen, as can intangible property such as a chose in action; however it seems that the term does not extend to all intangible property, as information (Oxford v. Moss) and trade secrets (R v. Absolom, The Times, 14 September 1983) have been held not to fall within the Section 4 definition of property.

Section 5 "belonging to another" requires a distinction to be made between ownership, possession and control:

ownership is where a person is not legally accountable to anyone else for the use of the property:
possession is where a person is only because it had been physically removed but there were two issues to be decided:
did the car "belong to another"? The garage had a lien i.e. a "proprietary right or interest" in the car as security for the unpaid bill and this gave the garage a better right than the owner to possess the car at the relevant time.
what was the relevance of Turner's belief that he could not steal his own property? The defence of mistake of law) only applies if the defendant honestly believes that he has a right in law to act in the given way. Generalised and non-specific beliefs about what the law might permit are not a defence.

Section 6 "with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it" is sufficiently flexible to include situations where the property is later returned. For example, suppose that B, a keen football fan, has bought a ticket for the next home match. T takes the ticket, watches the match and then returns the ticket to B. In this instance, all that T returns is a piece of paper. Its value as a licence to enter the stadium on a particular day has been permanently lost. Hence, T steals the ticket. Similarly, if T takes a valuable antique but later repents and returns the goods, T has committed the actus reus with the mens rea. The fact that T's conscience forces a change of mind is relevant only for sentencing.

The maximum sentence in the Crown Court is seven years (section 7).
If the act of stealing is already complete before another comes into possession of the goods, this may be handling. For alternative charges involving deceptions, see the deception offences and the Theft Act 1978 which may overlap with s1 Theft. For the theft of motor vehicles with or without violence, see robbery, blackmail and TWOC.

from wikipedia (search theft)

Piracy is not theft. You must not know the difference between stealing and duplicating. Its the world we live in, and unfortunately a developer may feel entitled to your money if you use their product for free (even if you can't or wouldn't use it otherwise).

Worth considering also is who loses should piracy be stopped even for those who can't/won't buy games/movies/songs etc. There would be less demand for broadband, less demand for a variety of hardware (amd and nvidia rely on piracy if PC gaming is in-fact piracy filled. something to think about), storage demand reduces etc.

Again

the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it (http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/theft)

Feel free to argue around calling piracy "theft". There is room to do so but to me the issue of piracy and how media business works is all about what is the best way forward for the consumer and the originator. Not some blind moral idea based on laws that could easily change to allow piracy or otherwise in the future. If you don't lose significantly and there are benefits, what are you b!tching about?

obonicus

26-Jan-2010, 22:34

Florin

26-Jan-2010, 23:09

Sure because you'd likely get punched in the face...or worse.

It still doesn't negate the other inconvenient fact that anyone that pirates is actively endorsing slavery.

You're confusing the word fact with your opinion, which quite characteristically is on the extreme end of the spectrum again.

Florin

26-Jan-2010, 23:11

Really I hope the people that do this get robbed, have stuff stolen from them so they know what it feels like.

Do you really hope this or are you just posting carelessly?

George

27-Jan-2010, 00:07

It's not theft, but inasmuch as the car is intellectual property of the car-maker, they'd have the right to not want you to get their product.

But cars aren't the same as software, since a large part of its value is in the object itself. Instead, think of books. Go check to see what textbook authors think/thought of students taking xerox copies of books.

Furthermore, think of it this way: IP creators, whether books, software or music make an up-front investment that they hope to recoup. People consuming their content and not paying for it means they're not getting closer to recouping their investment. It directly influences their ability to generate more content (authors gotta eat).

You don't own peoples money. The best they can do is hope someone finds it worthwhile to give them their money. So recouping investment is not a reason to call it theft. You have nothing till the consumer gives you something.

Why does it make a difference what the authors thought? They are in the same situation as game developers in this.

No a car is not the same but ppl constantly use a similar argument without considering the differences between copying and taking. The typical thing is comparing robbery to copyright infringement/use without permission.

obonicus

27-Jan-2010, 00:24

Silent_Buddha

27-Jan-2010, 00:34

Do you really hope this or are you just posting carelessly?

No I really do hope this. If they don't have the common sense to realise what they are doing, then I suppose an eye for an eye would be the next best thing.

If you steal from someone they should be perfectly within their rights to steal from you either that or just lock you up in Jail. Either one would be fine with me. Note, you is used in a general case not in reference to a specific person before you somehow twist this into an attack on you (in this case a specific person).

Regards,
SB

George

27-Jan-2010, 00:56

If you don't like the car argument, don't use the car argument. It's invalid no matter who uses it.

And you're dodging the issue; you created the car analogy and asked where's the harm? I said to think of books, rather than cars and see where the harm is.

Maybe i said it incorrectly. I did not mean the car analogy I gave was not the same thing as piracy, I meant a car is not the same thing as a game or a book for that matter. I am accepting that people give value to it differently as you said but the concept still stands. i used that analogy, in a way, as a correction to what people normally say (and it applies to any other object). You have to duplicate the object for the argument to work, you can't take it away.

What is the difference between a book and a car in this case but the value an individual puts on it? Duplicate a book or duplicate a car (if you could), essentially the same concept.

NathansFortune

27-Jan-2010, 01:04

Silent_Buddha

27-Jan-2010, 01:34

Maybe i said it incorrectly. I did not mean the car analogy I gave was not the same thing as piracy, I meant a car is not the same thing as a game or a book for that matter. I am accepting that people give value to it differently as you said but the concept still stands. i used that analogy, in a way, as a correction to what people normally say (and it applies to any other object). You have to duplicate the object for the argument to work, you can't take it away.

What is the difference between a book and a car in this case but the value an individual puts on it? Duplicate a book or duplicate a car (if you could), essentially the same concept.

So basically you are saying that as long as there is no physical product created a person shouldn't get paid to create it.

So book authors that spend months, sometimes years, creating a book should expect to receive ZERO dollars for all his work.

A programmer that spent the last 4 years of his life creating a game should receive ZERO dollars for his work.

Thus a secretary working behind a desk should also receive ZERO dollars for their work. They didn't actually even create anything.

And as long as you can walk out of a hospital after receiving treatment without paying that's also OK. Since they didn't actualy lose any physical objects.

Regards,
SB

George

27-Jan-2010, 01:40

I'll use your car analogy.

Someone steals a car from a car dealer. He hasn't lost use of the car since he doesn't use it and it only sits on the forecourt. By your logic it's not theft. Clearly that isn't the case.

The carmaker, dealer etc... lose out on the sale of that car. Just because digital isn't physical doesn't make it any less thefty.

What's the difference between going into Wal-Mart and stealing a Blu-ray from the shelf and going onto piratebay and downloading the full 50GB rip and burning it to a Blu-ray for use in BD players? I don't see one other than the fear of getting caught by the security guard at WM...

No....

So basically you are saying that as long as there is no physical product created a person shouldn't get paid to create it.

So book authors that spend months, sometimes years, creating a book should expect to receive ZERO dollars for all his work.

A programmer that spent the last 4 years of his life creating a game should receive ZERO dollars for his work.

Thus a secretary working behind a desk should also receive ZERO dollars for their work. They didn't actually even create anything.

And as long as you can walk out of a hospital after receiving treatment without paying that's also OK. Since they didn't actualy lose any physical objects.

Regards,
SB

and No...

NathansFortune

27-Jan-2010, 02:11

No....

Err, yes?

and No...

and yes?

What the hell kind of rebuttal is that?!?!?

Florin

27-Jan-2010, 02:11

No I really do hope this. If they don't have the common sense to realise what they are doing, then I suppose an eye for an eye would be the next best thing.

Sure, so then you should actually hope that someone infringes on their copyright to properly realise what they are doing.

Time limited exclusive distribution rights are a great concept. I support it without needing to equate copyright infringement with something it is not, like for example theft, robbery, slavery, or rape and pillage on the high seas. Such comparisons are intellectually dishonest.

obonicus

27-Jan-2010, 02:22

Exactly. It's not theft, but that doesn't mean content creators don't get to choose how they want to distribute their creations. Don't get me wrong, copyright laws have issues too, but taking content that doesn't belong to you isn't the solution to them.

MrFloopy

27-Jan-2010, 02:36

What if you didn't buy the console but it was given to you? You haven't agreed to any terms in such a case, so there's no fair way you can be held by.

In the case of the live licence agreement you click to agree. If you don't agree you can return the product for refund.

And that's assuming they are even legal, which as Apoc says is questionable.

It is generally accepted that clickable EULA's are enforceable.

Finally, what recourse do the console companies have? If you fail to use your console according to terms you have agreed to, then the penalty would be to remove/brick your console, thereby voiding the company/client arrangement. I guess that could be considered fair although there'll be plenty of people who disagree.

In the case of the XBox example, it is a condition of Live that you adhere to the licence agreement. They don't brick your console, they just stop offering you the service, which is very fair and reasonable.

In general terms, they have recourse of the courts and could reasonably ask for damages, but so far they have chosen not to do that.

On a more general look at this issue, the Homebrew argument always makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time. You have the case where people say they want to do homebrew and should be able to do what they want, with what they have bought.

Well:

1) MS and Sony enabled legal, powerfull homebrew development to satisfy that need.
2) Even thought Sony and MS enabled homebrew, there apparantly is still a need to crack security? I wonder why that would be?
3) You can do whatever you like to your hardware (yes it's yours and you are free to do as you please).
4) You are not free to do what you like with the software. You don't like it? Write your own!

Shifty Geezer

27-Jan-2010, 15:06

Do you not see the difference?

Imagine there is someone with a power. That power is to clone ANYTHING they want. imagine this person goes to a car show, sees a prototype vehicle that functions and clones it. Is that theft? Nothing was lost, no-one is disadvantaged.He hasn't bought the car, ergo the car company has lost a sale.

Don't get hung up on a definition. Is not about following a legal defintion of 'theft'. The moral question here is if it's okay to take someone else's hard work and give them nothing in return? In your hypothetical case, if the car cannot be cloned without the inventor having built the prototype, every clone made only exists because of his labour. The car company has spent millions on designing the car with a view to making that back on car sales. Duplicating the car deprives them of the returns on their investment. In this case, if the guy can clone the car, he should partner with the car company, produce cars and sell them, and take a share of the takings for his part.

If you want to argue your case, you need to present an example whereby it is morally acceptible to take a person's labours and benefit from them, without that person's consent and without reimbursing them an adequate amount for their efforts. You need to present a case where you personally would be happy to be on the receiving end of your work being taken without your consent and without you being reimbursed for your efforts.

George

27-Jan-2010, 15:55

He hasn't bought the car, ergo the car company has lost a sale.

No they haven't. If they have a time machine that determined he was going to buy the car then sure you can say that. otherwise the assumption is a wrong one to make.

Don't get hung up on a definition. Is not about following a legal defintion of 'theft'. The moral question here is if it's okay to take someone else's hard work and give them nothing in return? In your hypothetical case, if the car cannot be cloned without the inventor having built the prototype, every clone made only exists because of his labour. The car company has spent millions on designing the car with a view to making that back on car sales. Duplicating the car deprives them of the returns on their investment. In this case, if the guy can clone the car, he should partner with the car company, produce cars and sell them, and take a share of the takings for his part.

Theft is a age old moral problem. This is not a moral problem at all. Have you ever considered charity? Should those being given something be then reprimanded for not giving something in return? No? Then we have established that it is possible to receive from someone else's hard work without reciprocating. The problem here is you want something even if the person can't give it, not a moral problem.

If you want to argue your case, you need to present an example whereby it is morally acceptible to take a person's labours and benefit from them, without that person's consent and without reimbursing them an adequate amount for their efforts. You need to present a case where you personally would be happy to be on the receiving end of your work being taken without your consent and without you being reimbursed for your efforts.

In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct or a set of beliefs distinguishing between right and wrong behaviors. In its descriptive use, morals are arbitrarily and subjectively created by philosophy, religion, and/or individual conscience. - morality from wikipedia

What might be a moral issue for you is not for another; there is the typical theft and murder that hold to majority decision over centuries but this is not that. What we hold to are laws and contracts that govern digital transactions, these can change anytime down the line so why hold an inflexible damning position on such things? This is why my stance is once you get as much or nearly as much as you can from your product, what are you b!tching about? Would it suffice if an exclusive pirate gave you a "thank you" note?

Neb

27-Jan-2010, 15:55

So piracy aint classified as theft/stealing.. yet. But you are still breaking laws and yes developers losses even if you just "clone" it becouse you take away revenue from the developers that spent their skills, time and money to come up with product. They are at a loss and thus needs to sell to recuperate losses. If you find the need to pirate the target stuff then you damn sure have interest in the product and thus should pay. Most games comes with demos, movies got trailers and music tunes can be pre-viewed at Youtube or online selling sites so you can sample it before buying it. Just like you get to testdrive a car before buying it... with permission!

To bad some people lack moral and finds themselves slug and smart doing pirating on the net "invisible". They like to stick their finger in the pie to sample it eat it all and then hit the exit. And all the appologists to candy coat this behavior to "romantise" their piracy habits/future habits. :thumbsdown:

obonicus

27-Jan-2010, 16:03

What might be a moral issue for you is not for another; there is the typical theft and murder that hold to majority decision over centuries but this is not that.

If you want to go into moral relativity, why are theft and murder wrong? Moral relativity is garbage, it's just a way to excuse opportunism.

What we hold to are laws and contracts that govern digital transactions, these can change anytime down the line so why hold an inflexible damning position on such things?

All of it can change. You're trying to establish that there's no moral grounding for people's claims against piracy, but you can't answer a direct question as to why it's not wrong to not reimburse a creator for consuming his product.

This is why my stance is once you get as much or nearly as much as you can from your product, what are you b!tching about? Would it suffice if an exclusive pirate gave you a "thank you" note?

You didn't answer the question. Why is it right to consume a product and not pay the producer? Because they have 'enough'? Who judges enough? Would you accept it if your employee paid you only for a fraction of your effort, claiming you had already earned enough?

You also haven't really responded as to why you think people are entitled to free content. Just because they can get away with it?

nightshade

27-Jan-2010, 16:34

As part of your agreement with sony or microsoft to use the software that comes with your console you have stated that you will not reverse engineer, copy or modify said software.
So this hacker Geohot is open to potential lawsuits ?

Shifty Geezer

27-Jan-2010, 16:52

No they haven't. If they have a time machine that determined he was going to buy the car then sure you can say that. otherwise the assumption is a wrong one to make.Was the cloner going to buy the car if he couldn't clone it? If yes, he should buy it and not clone it. If no, he doesn't really want it and so shoudn't clone it.

Theft is a age old moral problem. This is not a moral problem at all. Have you ever considered charity? Should those being given something be then reprimanded for not giving something in return? No?No, because I choose to give them something of mine for nothing in return. But if a charity hacks into my bank account and took money without my offering it, even if it were a charity i would normally give to, I'd be most miffed. You wouldn't? You'd be happy for anyone who gains access to your bank account to help themselves? (bet you don't answer that question with a straight yes/no! :p)

In its first, descriptive usage...What might be a moral issue for you is not for another;...You're sidetracking the debate here, and 'what are morals' is a far bigger debate than this little thread. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." "We are all physical creatures in a world of natural selection where the strongest survive and proliferate." Yadayada. Let's not try to determine Right from Wrong in the universal sense, and just consider this from a human sense, what do people actually expect from society and each other?

In that respect I notice importantly you haven't actually answered my question and given an example whereby you would happy to invest your time and effort creating something and then have others take and use it without your permission and without any form of reimbursment. As such I can only conclude that you'd be pissed off if you didn't get paid for your work or investment, like the rest of mankind, but by selectively taking a singular position of consumer you rationalise your stance on piracy by ignoring the those on the receiving end. And unless you actually address this question directly and give an example whereby you are fine having your work taken without ever giving your consent, I can see no other interpretation than rank hypocrisy - a person who picks rules and values how and when it suits them alone.

George

27-Jan-2010, 17:36

If you want to go into moral relativity, why are theft and murder wrong? Moral relativity is garbage, it's just a way to excuse opportunism.

All of it can change. You're trying to establish that there's no moral grounding for people's claims against piracy, but you can't answer a direct question as to why it's not wrong to not reimburse a creator for consuming his product.

You didn't answer the question. Why is it right to consume a product and not pay the producer? Because they have 'enough'? Who judges enough? Would you accept it if your employee paid you only for a fraction of your effort, claiming you had already earned enough?

You also haven't really responded as to why you think people are entitled to free content. Just because they can get away with it?

I was simply picking apart the claims of theft and shifty brought in morals. To me it all depends. I will not condemn someone for doing it depending on the situation and the reasons for it.

This is to shifty as well:

It comes down to what the maker wants. i honestly don't mind someone using my product without paying for it. Of course I will make it hard for anyone who can buy it to pirate but a 15 year old kid or a university student low on cash enjoying my product will make me feel good.

I don't need to give examples for that because its all over the place. Not everything on the net comes with a EULA or has to be bought. Not everyone in the gaming industry is commercial. Even piracy is consisted of others taking advantage of the hardwork of the hackers. The problem here is what the developer feels entitled to and what the user is willing to give.

Is a situation where a developer allows someone to play their game without paying so hard to believe? If you know for a fact that this person cannot (the extreme of piracy is what we have been dealing with, as I see no reason to argue about pirating something to evaluate it) but your product you would intentionally withhold it from them?

Your comment on the charity bit is the point and the source of all this. Its not about morals, theft or whatever its just about human nature. You would be pissed... so what? They did something you didn't want so their morals are wrong or they are thieves.. you lost nothing in the process yet they are terrible people?

I've actually considered donations for programs I consider selling. i don't mind people using it but if someone really likes it they might want to give something. I liked what the guys behind world of goo (?) did allowing people to pay whatever they wanted for the game. You should note that developers set a limit to reimbursement so even if you wanted to give something, their cost might prohibit u. It would be interesting if someone made a game with the typical fixed price but also provided a means to donate should you pirate the game... see what happens. Even provide a way to say thank you so the devs feel better.

Shifty Geezer

27-Jan-2010, 18:45

It comes down to what the maker wants. i honestly don't mind someone using my product without paying for it. Of course I will make it hard for anyone who can buy it to pirate but a 15 year old kid or a university student low on cash enjoying my product will make me feel good.That's your call, your prerogative, to decide how people use your creations. It's not my prerogative to decide how to use your creations though. We don't choose the price of a car or a house or food; it's decided by the people who put in the effort creating them.

I don't need to give examples for that...Then you've missed entirely the point, because this isn't about the rights of creators to decide how people use their creations, but the right you are professing for consumers to choose how to use other people's creations.
The problem here is what the developer feels entitled to and what the user is willing to give.Exactly! As the creator of a work, it's your choice what to expect in return. If you want more than consumers are willing to pay, they don't have to pay. But they can't usurp your position as creator and take it at whatever price they want. I can't say, "I want a Ferrari but I don't think it's worth £200,000. I'll put £3000 on the desk and take it in the night." Forget morals, ethics and law; it's unfair.
Is a situation where a developer allows someone to play their game without paying so hard to believe?But what you're saying is a developer has no choice in allowing this, and that consumers are free to take from them against their wishes! If game developers were allowing people to use their games for free, they wouldn't be complaining about piracy!
Your comment on the charity bit is the point and the source of all this. Its not about morals, theft or whatever its just about human nature.Human nature expects fairness.
you would be pissed... so what? They did something you didn't want so their morals are wrong...No, it's not about 'morals' (despite you're very dubious stance here. If I don't mind murdering people, just because it pisses them off when I kill them, they shouldn't try to stop me??!). It's about the natural order of human society and where our economy comes from. To live, we need to eat. Thus we need to spend our time hunting and gathering. If we aren't going to hunt and gather, we need someone to do it for us. Either we expect them to hunt and gather for us and themselves, supporting two people instead of one, while we sit around having fun, or we spend our time doing something else in return, like helping build them a house. And it has to be something they are willing to accept as a fair trade - if they are happy to take a shiny stone, fine, but if they feel a shiny stone isn't enough and they want you to spend as long doing labour for them as they have for you, either you pay up or they withhold your ration food as is their right for being the person who hunted and gathered it.

You want to play computer games. Either you write your own computer games, or someone else has to do it for you. In which case you need to give something back in return, either in direct trade or through the flexible trade-medium of money.

I've actually considered donations for programs I consider selling...Again, donationware is an option. So's freeware. That's not the same as having someone take your effort without your consent! All your examples are with your approval. You've yet to state an example where you don't want people taking your efforts for nothing but they do anyway. The games being pirated aren't released by the developers as donationware. They have cost considerable time and effort to make and in order to spend that time making computer games for you to enjoy instead of spending it hunting and gathering and building a hut and providing for their families, the creators have to have someone covering those requirements for them, which in our social organisation means they need money to trade for those essentials.

Here's another example to you to fail to answer directly: I want a new version of Star Control. You spend a year creating it, not earning anything from any other job, living off savings in a cheap apartment. Having finished this fabulous creation, you say to me, "as it took me a year to make during which time I could have worked at a £40,000 a year job, I expect that year's wages from you to own this game."
I put to you two straight, non-rhetorical questions:
1) Is that an unfair request on your part? yes/no
2) Would it be fair for me to reply, "No, it's not worth that much to me. I'll take a copy from your hardrive when you're not looking and play it for free"? yes/no

Silent_Buddha

27-Jan-2010, 19:23

Is a situation where a developer allows someone to play their game without paying so hard to believe?

The keyword being allow. As in if the developer wanted to allow people to play his game for free he would RELEASE the game for free.

When you pirate something you are removing all choice from the developer and you are telling them, "I don't give a rat's ass what you want. I don't give a rat's ass that you worked 4 years of your life making this. I am going to decide on the spot that you are going to give this away no matter what you think."

Ergo, you are treating him like a slave with no regards to the effort he put in so that you can be greedy and enjoy his labors for free.

It IS exactly the same as going to the doctor, demanding treatment and then walking out without paying.

Or if your employer (I'm assuming you are old enough to work and have a job) decides day to day whether he should pay you or not. And somedays he just thinks to himself, "You know, I feel like keeping all my money today, I'm not going to pay you, but I appreciate your working for free for me. Thank you."

Did you consent to that? No. Does a software developer consent to you stealing his work? No.

Regards,
SB

George

27-Jan-2010, 19:52

I didn't mean allow as in giving consent, I mean allow as in not opposing. For example I can put my pen down in a lecture room and someone takes it up and uses it for a bit, I could either object or simply allow them to continue using it without making a fuss. (don't go ape on the example).

despite you're very dubious stance here. If I don't mind murdering people, just because it pisses them off when I kill them, they shouldn't try to stop me??!

This is what I don't like to see. I am not denying that devs don't like piracy, but thats just what it is. Its not theft, not murder, not morally wrong, none of those things. Thats all I'm saying. Whether or not you can ask if its right or wrong I don't know. The situation would vary but the main determining factor there would, to me, be "is someone disadvantaged?"

@SB employer doesn't pay you don't work. simple. Why do you think pirates have no regard for the effort? Money is not the only way to show appreciation.As for your quote of a pirates word, how about "I am sorry but I cannot buy it. Thank you for your work and I will try to buy when I can"

Silent_Buddha

27-Jan-2010, 19:53

Sure, so then you should actually hope that someone infringes on their copyright to properly realise what they are doing.

Time limited exclusive distribution rights are a great concept. I support it without needing to equate copyright infringement with something it is not, like for example theft, robbery, slavery, or rape and pillage on the high seas. Such comparisons are intellectually dishonest.

And yet that's basically what it is. Depriving them of the fruits of their labor. Forcefully and with disdain. As such it isn't much different than theft, robbery, or slavery. Note, I didn't bring up rape, I suppose you did that on purpose to try to color the discussion into even darker territory.

Trying to avoid and/or dimish the impact to someone in order to feel better about their acts doesn't in any way diminish the realworld impact this can and does have upon people.

Regards,
SB

Silent_Buddha

27-Jan-2010, 19:56

@SB employer doesn't pay you don't work. simple. Why do you think pirates have no regard for the effort? Money is not the only way to show appreciation.As for your quote of a pirates word, how about "I am sorry but I cannot buy it. Thank you for your work and I will try to buy when I can"

So you would be more than happy to work the rest of your life for nothing but "Thank You" because you're independantly wealthy.

And expect others to possibly starve and go destitute, but hey, a Thank You is perfectly acceptable as a substitute for money.

I'll give that a try the next next time I take a cab ride. And if he doesn't accept it, I'll just walk out anyways and see where that gets me. :P

I'll just assume that every single person in the world wants to give away their work for free.

Regards,
SB

Richard

27-Jan-2010, 20:23

Its not theft, not murder, not morally wrong, none of those things. Thats all I'm saying. Whether or not you can ask if its right or wrong I don't know. The situation would vary but the main determining factor there would, to me, be "is someone disadvantaged?"

How can you "not know"? Are we talking about people that need the software to eat? Or are we talking about those that don't pay simply because they feel the odds of getting caught are in their favour?

Obviously someone is disadvantaged. If a dev doesn't get his 5, 10, 20, whatever euros for a license someone ought to pay and doesn't, that's x euros less in his pocket. We can argue until Thor cries whether a copy is a lost sale but there's two things that are certain:

a) It's against the law. Vote/Campaign/lobby for the law to change if you disagree with it.
b) it's quite certainly "wrong". Again, we aren't talking about an hungry man stealing a loaf of bread to survive and there's no God given right to use whichever software we want for free.

@SB employer doesn't pay you don't work. simple. Why do you think pirates have no regard for the effort? Money is not the only way to show appreciation.As for your quote of a pirates word, how about "I am sorry but I cannot buy it. Thank you for your work and I will try to buy when I can"

Will the developer be able to eat that month then? Devs don't get money from their apps, they stop wasting time/money working on them. Why this reality doesn't sink in baffles me to no end.

I was talking to a few (Computer Science!!) students just before the midterms about the price of software and some of them were saying they had warezed Win7 because it's too expensive. I asked why they did that when they had access to Win7 Pro through MSDN AA and none of them needed the features Ultimate has (I asked them to name a few features Pro didn't have - they couldn't manage one).

I had an educational point to make of course so I proceeded to ask them, since they were in Computer Science, if they intended to sell software they create while attending/after leaving Uni, at which and this was great, I could visibly see their brains finally registering the true implications of "just another warez copy". Nervous, embarrassed laughs all around.

George

27-Jan-2010, 20:57

lol. Agreed its against the law.

Its not obvious that someone is disadvantage, its obvious that 1 person alone might benefit, both parties might benefit or one person is disadvantaged.

The rest of your claim hinges on what you choose to say

We can argue until Thor cries whether a copy is a lost sale but there's two things that are certain:

to

Those students could easily go ahead and use linux. No harm, no foul is my thinking in this but every pirated copy to you is a problem. Imagine they go ahead and use linux, get hooked on it and move away from windows OS forever... who loses?

Talk on piracy should really be about finding out the pros and cons of it. Remove personal opinions and just analyze it objectively. All this pirates are evil crap gets us nowhere.

Btw who is in ownership of these games/movies etc? Is there a collective hive mind behind it all, stating that all those involved in its creation do not wish others to use it freely? Games aren't made by one person; one individuals claim is a portion of the product.

Just to state my problem would be people who pirate for the sake of it when they can easily rent/buy the game. If you are in a place with crap rental facilities, high costs and have a limited budget I have no issue with piracy and would encourage you buy when you can (note the problem in this case you have to know what is worth it, which means pirating before you buy it).

Shifty Geezer

27-Jan-2010, 21:36

This is what I don't like to see...Whether or not you can ask if its right or wrong I don't know...Is it something poeple should do? We've outlined plenty of examples that, if you'd actually try to entertain them, you'd see point to it being wrong as in a poor way to treat people or be treated. But you've ignored, as predicted, my two simple questions. You're clearly unwilling to explore an alternative way of thinking, which means there's no point discussing this further with you. "I have my opinion and will not question it!" the battle-cry of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Florin

27-Jan-2010, 22:09

And yet that's basically what it is. Depriving them of the fruits of their labor. Forcefully and with disdain. As such it isn't much different than theft, robbery, or slavery. Note, I didn't bring up rape, I suppose you did that on purpose to try to color the discussion into even darker territory.

Not at all, that is all just a part of real piracy, which was the first word to be misappropriated for the act of copyright infringement. A clever bit of linguistic programming which unfortunately by now has become almost universally accepted. Interested parties are trying to newspeak the word 'theft' as well, which as this topic and countless others like it demonstrate, is still not quite uncontroversial. I think your 'robbery' and 'slavery' are rather more on the pioneering side of language abuse so far, but who knows, maybe they will stick as well.

George

27-Jan-2010, 23:14

Is it something poeple should do? We've outlined plenty of examples that, if you'd actually try to entertain them, you'd see point to it being wrong as in a poor way to treat people or be treated. But you've ignored, as predicted, my two simple questions. You're clearly unwilling to explore an alternative way of thinking, which means there's no point discussing this further with you. "I have my opinion and will not question it!" the battle-cry of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

And you are supposedly willing to explore an alternative way of thinking? If i were to follow your thinking I'd be limiting myself IMO. I try to put things on a scale and not so much rely on feeling. I know what your point is, i just don't agree.

As to your questions I am sure I answered at least 1 of them, possibly multiple times. I don't know what the other one is.

Not at all, that is all just a part of real piracy, which was the first word to be misappropriated for the act of copyright infringement.

My bad. It's not copyright infringement.

MrFloopy

28-Jan-2010, 00:08

Its not theft, not murder, not morally wrong, none of those things

Yes it is one of those things, it is morally wrong.

The situation would vary but the main determining factor there would, to me, be "is someone disadvantaged?"

When someone puts their work and effort into a copyright protected work, it has a value. That value is owned by the copyright owner.

As with all things in our capitalist world, that value is determined by supply and demand. You are right to say that piracy may or may not change demand (they possibly wouldn't have bought it anyway), but it sure as hell changes the supply.

And from pre-school economics we know that an increase in supply decreases price and thus value. So by illegally increasing supply you have effectively taken value or wealth away from the copyright holder.

Sounds a little like stealing to me.

Silent_Buddha

28-Jan-2010, 01:06

I think your 'robbery' and 'slavery' are rather more on the pioneering side of language abuse so far, but who knows, maybe they will stick as well.

What other word would best desribe assuming everyone is there to work for free to provide you with the products you want. Oh I don't know, slavery? Even indentured servants would eventually expect to get paid for the things they produce after working of their indentured debt. Even an "enlightenend" philosophy such as communism still expects a contribution from all members. What's the pirater contributing? What's that? Oh yeah nothing other than the expections that devs should work for them for free without compensation.

Robbery, ok, I guess this doesn't fit as well as slavery as you aren't sticking a gun in their face and asking them to give you money or possessions. Instead it's just taken with the assumption that whoever made it obviously doesn't deserve to get paid for their hard work.

Regards,
SB

Silent_Buddha

28-Jan-2010, 01:11

Those students could easily go ahead and use linux. No harm, no foul is my thinking in this but every pirated copy to you is a problem. Imagine they go ahead and use linux, get hooked on it and move away from windows OS forever... who loses?

Noone, at that point they've stopped imposing their will on someone else, while at the same time partaking of a product freely given to the public. Win-Win situation in that case.

The problem is, it's hard for those students to then play their pirated games. But that's a win there also as again they've now stopped imposing their will on another and stopped stealing from them.

Oh the conundrum there, do they do the right thing and partake of a free product, or do they continue to rip off someone else? Or <gasp>, actually pay for something they use and enjoy?

Regards,
SB

George

28-Jan-2010, 01:46

Noone, at that point they've stopped imposing their will on someone else, while at the same time partaking of a product freely given to the public. Win-Win situation in that case.

The problem is, it's hard for those students to then play their pirated games. But that's a win there also as again they've now stopped imposing their will on another and stopped stealing from them.

Oh the conundrum there, do they do the right thing and partake of a free product, or do they continue to rip off someone else? Or <gasp>, actually pay for something they use and enjoy?

Regards,
SB

No...

A student is not a student forever and a pirates situation might change. Essentially Microsoft just lost a potential customer.

In relation to the games, same thing. They can't pirate games because of their OS means they can't buy games because of their OS. Another loss for the developer (pirates buy games).

"the right thing" "rip off" "stealing" "imposing their will"

*sigh*

MrFloopy

28-Jan-2010, 03:40

No...

A student is not a student forever and a pirates situation might change. Essentially Microsoft just lost a potential customer.

But they weren't going to buy it anyway remember...

Honestly these are the same old arguments brought up since well, as long as I can remember. They always follow the same path and end up at the same place.

George

28-Jan-2010, 03:48

But they weren't going to buy it anyway remember...

Honestly these are the same old arguments brought up since well, as long as I can remember. They always follow the same path and end up at the same place.

Now or in the future when they hopefully have a greater cash flow?

I have always wondered if MS knew that every pirate using their OS is possibly one less person using the competition and that the one less person could one day be a buyer. Similarly that pirate that is only in gaming because he can pirate could one day be a possible +1 to your target audience or even he might have children when he grows up and introduce them to gaming by buying a console and games for them which = >1 more person to your target audience.

Just a thought.

MrFloopy

28-Jan-2010, 04:35

Now or in the future when they hopefully have a greater cash flow?

I have always wondered if MS knew that every pirate using their OS is possibly one less person using the competition and that the one less person could one day be a buyer. Similarly that pirate that is only in gaming because he can pirate could one day be a possible +1 to your target audience or even he might have children when he grows up and introduce them to gaming by buying a console and games for them which = >1 more person to your target audience.

Just a thought.

Whether that is true or not is utterly beside the point. It is not your's or anyone else's right to decide that on Microsofts behalf. Again these are the same arguments used for decades to justify copyright infringement, and they are simply not valid.

Shifty Geezer

28-Jan-2010, 08:11

And you are supposedly willing to explore an alternative way of thinking? You asked questions and I answered, like the charity example. I have taken your ideas and thought them through and come up with direct responses. You have not done the same with my questions.
If i were to follow your thinking I'd be limiting myself IMO.You already have your way of thinking. You need to see it from someone else's perspective, which means exercising a different train of thought.

As to your questions I am sure I answered at least 1 of them, possibly multiple times. I don't know what the other one is.? Let me repeat them for you...

(See my hypothetical situation (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1386740&postcount=73) regarding you writing software for me)

I put to you two straight, non-rhetorical questions: (the ones you didn't answer)
1) Is that an unfair request on your part? yes/no
2) Would it be fair for me to reply, "No, it's not worth that much to me. I'll take a copy from your hardrive when you're not looking and play it for free"? yes/no

George

28-Jan-2010, 13:08

You asked questions and I answered, like the charity example. I have taken your ideas and thought them through and come up with direct responses. You have not done the same with my questions.
You already have your way of thinking. You need to see it from someone else's perspective, which means exercising a different train of thought.

? Let me repeat them for you...

(See my hypothetical situation (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1386740&postcount=73) regarding you writing software for me)

I put to you two straight, non-rhetorical questions: (the ones you didn't answer)
1) Is that an unfair request on your part? yes/no
2) Would it be fair for me to reply, "No, it's not worth that much to me. I'll take a copy from your hardrive when you're not looking and play it for free"? yes/no

Since you want simple yes or no then yes I would let someone use something I worked hard at for free (and like doing so). I wouldn't be doing it if I hated doing it and money shouldn't be my big reward for it to the point that I need to demand payment from everyone.

From your linked post

Was the cloner going to buy the car if he couldn't clone it? If yes, he should buy it and not clone it. If no, he doesn't really want it and so shoudn't clone it.

Why doesn't he want it because he wasn't going to buy it? Or do you mean he shouldn't want it?

No, because I choose to give them something of mine for nothing in return. But if a charity hacks into my bank account and took money without my offering it, even if it were a charity i would normally give to, I'd be most miffed. You wouldn't? You'd be happy for anyone who gains access to your bank account to help themselves? (bet you don't answer that question with a straight yes/no! )

That is theft, once again not the same thing. If the charity duplicated your bank account what would you do?

Like I said, I know where you are coming from, but with all the mistakes you guys make in stating what piracy is I doubt you know what those you are arguing with are saying.

Shifty Geezer

28-Jan-2010, 15:10

Since you want simple yes or no then yes I would let someone use something I worked hard at for free.So you are quite happy to work the rest of your life for free?! Where on earth do you live and how do you get food??

And incidentally you haven't actually answered the question! The question wasn't, "are you happy giving your work away for free," but "is it fair for you to ask for reimbursement for your efforts?"

Edit : I should add...

Like I said, I know where you are coming from, but with all the mistakes you guys make in stating what piracy is I doubt you know what those you are arguing with are saying.
Your point so far, as I've read it, is where theft and murder are wrong, piracy isn't. It is ammoral, not immoral. Where a person may not like piracy, it's no different to a person not liking Marmite or the colour green. Marmite isn't wrong/evil just because I don't like it. Green isn't wrong/evil just because I don't like it. Piracy isn't wrong/evil just because I don't like it. Correct?

Richard

28-Jan-2010, 22:07

Its not obvious that someone is disadvantage, its obvious that 1 person alone might benefit, both parties might benefit or one person is disadvantaged.

A provides a product, service.
B uses that product, service.
A doesn't get a benefit for the transaction (money).
B does get a benefit for the transaction (whatever the product, service provides).

How can this situation wield anything BUT one disadvantaged party?

Those students could easily go ahead and use linux. No harm, no foul is my thinking in this but every pirated copy to you is a problem. Imagine they go ahead and use linux, get hooked on it and move away from windows OS forever... who loses?

Nobody.

They're using a product, service which is offered for free, as in, no compensation is required. They don't lose.

The linux company didn't get compensation but didn't ask for it either so didn't budget it. They don't lose.

Microsoft doesn't get any compensation but it wouldn't get any compensation anyway. They don't lose.

And btw, I saw you argue that *in the future* those students would have bought Windows. First of all, did they sign a lease contract with Microsoft, promising to pay up in 10 years? Was there even a verbal agreement between them and Microsoft? No. It was an unilateral decision to not pay on the vague and unenforceable promise they would when they turn 18 or whatever. In Law this is meaningless.

Secondly, if those same students walked into a US federal bank and said "look, I'm going to take this big wad of bank notes. But I'll invest it and pay you back" do you honestly believe it would be okay? Like software, the Federal Bank (or more correctly the Mint) can always produce more bank notes to replace those it "lost" so no harm no foul right?

Btw who is in ownership of these games/movies etc? Is there a collective hive mind behind it all, stating that all those involved in its creation do not wish others to use it freely? Games aren't made by one person; one individuals claim is a portion of the product.

The individuals who worked on the game/money may hold MORAL rights to it. By Law, this means that they can demand their company to advertise exactly who worked on the game/movie/software, etc. That's why movies have a credit roll, etc.

The licensing or general commercial exploitation rights to that game/movie/etc. is held by the company so that's the entity that can say whether the product is sold, rented, given away, etc.

Just to state my problem would be people who pirate for the sake of it when they can easily rent/buy the game. If you are in a place with crap rental facilities, high costs and have a limited budget I have no issue with piracy and would encourage you buy when you can (note the problem in this case you have to know what is worth it, which means pirating before you buy it).

Again, there's no 11th commandment that says you have a right to try before you buy, play expensive games or use software without having to take a bus to the store.

People will only get the message when PC gaming is just Sims, WoW and flash-based games. Not too long now.

MrFloopy

29-Jan-2010, 03:51

Like I said, I know where you are coming from, but with all the mistakes you guys make in stating what piracy is I doubt you know what those you are arguing with are saying.

I think it has become quite clear that you do not understand what piracy is and certainly you are oblivious to the real and damaging effect it has on the industry.

Here is a question:

Do you think that piracy has caused the loss of income or wealth for creators of copyrighted material and / or the people employed by them? yes or no please.

George

29-Jan-2010, 18:18

Do you think that piracy has caused the loss of income or wealth for creators of copyrighted material and / or the people employed by them? yes or no please.

Neither you nor I can claim that it has. You will of course want to do that, assume piracy is the only major factor, or even only factor, in industries involving copyrighted material. I on the other hand understand its benefits and its possible negatives and do not simply dismiss it with comparisons to murder/theft and such.

Where is the research into piracy anyway?

Shifty Geezer

29-Jan-2010, 18:36

Where is the research into piracy anyway?How on earth can you have the gall to ask questions in support of your view when you refuse to address ours?! That's not any kind of debating. If you don't want to actually discuss ideas, you shouldn't be on a discussion forum.

I'm done here.

George

29-Jan-2010, 19:31

How on earth can you have the gall to ask questions in support of your view when you refuse to address ours?! That's not any kind of debating. If you don't want to actually discuss ideas, you shouldn't be on a discussion forum.

I'm done here.

The question wasn't directed at you. What MrFloopy post can only be answered with research, not assumptions. It isn't in support of my view, its to further analyse the situation and the results can easily be in support of either position.

People will only get the message when PC gaming is just Sims, WoW and flash-based games. Not too long now.

Seems you are happy to jump from medium to medium once the market rejects one status quo. Blindly assume piracy is the gaming platforms problem and move on. Recently a gaming friend of mine said he was moving to console gaming and leaving PC... this is the fault of piracy of course. Nobody wonders why that would happen, just blame piracy.

Silent_Buddha

29-Jan-2010, 19:57

Seems you are happy to jump from medium to medium once the market rejects one status quo. Blindly assume piracy is the gaming platforms problem and move on. Recently a gaming friend of mine said he was moving to console gaming and leaving PC... this is the fault of piracy of course. Nobody wonders why that would happen, just blame piracy.

Nobody is blindly blaming piracy.

The facts are that whether you agree or not, the publishers and devs have for the most part gotten tired of "pirates' freeloading off of their hard work and are moving to platforms where pirating is less prevalent and anti-piracy measures are more effective. The cost of porting to PC rather than developing for PC means they don't have to sell as many units to hopefully recoup the cost to produce the game. Ergo, PC users can never know whether they will get a good port (more money) or a bad port (less money to port).

There is absolutely no mystery to it.

So YOU (the pirates) didn't give them a choice on whether they are allowed to make money for their efforts, THEY (the publishers and devs) have made a choice to focus on consoles.

And as we all see time and time again, pirates, just like you, will ignore anything that doesn't allow you to freeload and force others to give you things for free. Including answering questions to valid concerns and points as Shifty has brought up.

Regards,
SB

George

29-Jan-2010, 20:57

The facts are that whether you agree or not, the publishers and devs have for the most part gotten tired of "pirates' freeloading off of their hard work and are moving to platforms where pirating is less prevalent and anti-piracy measures are more effective. The cost of porting to PC rather than developing for PC means they don't have to sell as many units to hopefully recoup the cost to produce the game. Ergo, PC users can never know whether they will get a good port (more money) or a bad port (less money to port).

Last post because you guys are inflexibly blind.

You really have no idea why the PC is not as favored as the consoles. It's not all down to the user. Your ASSUMPTION is that piracy pushed devs to leave it, based on the ASSUMPTION that piracy was the cause of reduced sales. There are fewer xbox360s in use compared to PS3s (sales - dead consoles), yet the console sells more games than the ps3. Are you telling me that because there are a hell of a lot of pirates on the 360 devs will leave the console? No, something has to cause a decline in regular users AND pirates buying games. What caused that one the PC? piracy? :roll:

tongue_of_colicab

29-Jan-2010, 21:39

I think for most people the current consoles just offer better bang for the buck than pc. Last gen you still had a large advantage on the pc platform in terms of performance but if you look at it now pc games and console games are pretty much indentical to the average user for a relative low price. Certainly now with x360 at just 200 euro's while a pc offering the same would cost you atleast 3 times at much.

I don't think piracy neccesairly has to be the reason for devs moving to consoles. Just look at the amount of piracy on DS and PSP, especially on PSP I don't think i've ever seen someone with a original game.

As for the ethics of downloading games, I still think it doesn't make sense to see it as every download is a lost sale. I still think the the fair majority of people who download games just don't want/can't to pay for the game. Downloading is just a alternative way to still be able to play the game but if that option wouldn't be available most probably wouldn't buy the game anyway.

That doesn't make download right but I just think it shouldn't been seen so black and white.

George

29-Jan-2010, 21:55

As for the ethics of downloading games, I still think it doesn't make sense to see it as every download is a lost sale. I still think the the fair majority of people who download games just don't want/can't to pay for the game. downloading is just a alternative way to still be able to play the game but if that option wouldn't be available most probably wouldn't buy the game anyway.

That doesn't make download right but I just think it shouldn't been seen so black and white.

Exactly.

Worse than not buying the game, they might even leave gaming altogether since there is nothing in it for them.

Shifty Geezer

30-Jan-2010, 09:45

Last post because you guys are inflexibly blind.I already explained I understood you POV, which you've ignore, and I asked questions which you ignored. We all know who the inflexible one is here, the one dodging issues just to hold onto their fragile opinions that they know won't hold up under any scrutiny. If you're not a politician already, that seems to me to be your natural calling.

Silent_Buddha

30-Jan-2010, 19:17

Last post because you guys are inflexibly blind.

You really have no idea why the PC is not as favored as the consoles. It's not all down to the user. Your ASSUMPTION is that piracy pushed devs to leave it, based on the ASSUMPTION that piracy was the cause of reduced sales. There are fewer xbox360s in use compared to PS3s (sales - dead consoles), yet the console sells more games than the ps3. Are you telling me that because there are a hell of a lot of pirates on the 360 devs will leave the console? No, something has to cause a decline in regular users AND pirates buying games. What caused that one the PC? piracy? :roll:

Wow, and you know exactly how many X360 have failed and NOT been repaired? Rather surprising considering MS's rather generous policy with regards to repairs. And how many PS3's have failed and NOT been repaired?

And let's not even go into WHY X360 can be successful selling games even with the exposure to piracy (which is also far less than PC). Things such as, multiplayer games being the ones that sell the most. Also being the ones with built in anti-piracy measures in that you HAVE to play over Live. You HAVE to expose a hacked console to possible detection (which MS has gotten very good at) and banning.

So even if those titles get pirated, anyone wanting to play it multiplayer (which on X360 is quite a few) has a huge anti-piracy incentive to actually follow the law and purchase a copy.

Add to that, I've already had a few piraters I know give up on pirating X360 due to frequence of firmware patching and ability of MS to detect and ban consoles. Many have actually tried to revert to original drive firmware in order to avoid detection and banning. Others got banned and gave up pirating.

Which fits in with what many of the people in here have been saying.

Pirater's consider it OK as long as they feel they can continue freeloading and ripping off the developers without getting caught. In other words they KNOW it is wrong, but because they don't think they'll be caught they'll continue doing it.

I've seen it time and time again in my discussioins with avid piraters who don't think they are hurting anyone (they are), don't think they are breaking the laws (they are in most countries), think they deserve it (they don't), whatever... At the end of the day whether they say it or not, they KNOW what they are doing is wrong and the only reason they keep doing it is because they think they won't get caught.

And you have done NOTHING to address that.

Regards,
SB

Silent_Buddha

30-Jan-2010, 19:23

That doesn't make download right but I just think it shouldn't been seen so black and white.

It is black and white though. At least with regards to that.

If a developer gives consent to use it for free then it's for free.

If a developer does NOT give consent to use it for free, then it's not free.

And you cannot arbitrarily just decide for your own good and for your own benefit that you have the right to override another person's determination of whether their work and effort should be free or not.

If you disagree with them you do not use it. It really is that simple.

Regards,
SB

tongue_of_colicab

30-Jan-2010, 23:49

That is why I say you shouldn't see it so black and white. I see it a bit like this:

You have a job and no financial problems. Downloading a game would be wrong because you have a steady income and are probably in a position where buying a game wouldn't get you into financial problems.

On the other hand someone who download might be a 14 year old kid who has a part time job bringing around the newspaper. I did this when I was a kid and it pays shit and chances are that you have to work for 2 months easily just to afford one game. And this is without considering you might also want to spend you money on other things. If this kid downloads a game because he can only buy so few but wants to play more, do I feel like he is some criminal spitting in the face of developers by not buying their game? No. The kid obviously can't afford to buy every game he wants so there is no lost sale to begin with. If he likes a game he downloaded he might be more likely to buy a game from that dev next time he can afford one again.

MrFloopy

31-Jan-2010, 23:57

The kid obviously can't afford to buy every game he wants so there is no lost sale to begin with. If he likes a game he downloaded he might be more likely to buy a game from that dev next time he can afford one again.

Again, you are missing the point. This is simply not his decision to make. As has been stated before, we are not talking about stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving family here. We are talking about an entertainment product. What right do you think the kid has to decide that it would be better for the developer / publisher if he pirates it?

Also the argument about not losing a sale has been addressed. At the very least, the copied version increases the supply of the game in the market place, which drives down the price and therefore the value of the copyrighted material. In addition, the simple existence of piracy has a cost. Developers spend money and resources on fighting piracy. That cost is passed on to me as someone who purchased the software. Explain to me, why I should be paying for your copy too?

On a different point there are plenty of other options. He can hire it, buy it second hand, enter a competition, borrow a friends copy. The only difference is that those require either patience or effort on the boys behalf.

tongue_of_colicab

01-Feb-2010, 08:49

What right do you think the kid has to decide that it would be better for the developer / publisher if he pirates it?

The point is he wouldn't have bought it anyway because he doesnt have enough money. It doesnt matter if he thinks its better or not for the dev its just a way of playing a game he couldnt play otherwise.

the simple existence of piracy has a cost. Developers spend money and resources on fighting piracy. That cost is passed on to me as someone who purchased the software. Explain to me, why I should be paying for your copy too?

They should just stop with the copy protection beause it fails anyway. Its the same with movies where you get the you are not allowed to pirate screen that you cant skip. Really, these days its almost like getting punished for buying something with lame protection and messages while if you download you get not of those. Though that is a different story.

And no I dont think you should pay for somebody else pirated copy. But than again you can wonder if its reasonable to count pirated copies as a lost sale. Personally I think the far majority of people who pirate wouldnt have bought the game anyway.

On a different point there are plenty of other options. He can hire it, buy it second hand, enter a competition, borrow a friends copy. The only difference is that those require either patience or effort on the boys behalf.

True. But for example in my country you cant hire games. Second hand and borrowing would be good options but you do know devs/pubs are dead against those 2 as they rather have you spend full price? ;)

Sxotty

01-Feb-2010, 12:03

George

01-Feb-2010, 18:15

True. But for example in my country you cant hire games. Second hand and borrowing would be good options but you do know devs/pubs are dead against those 2 as they rather have you spend full price? ;)

All that doesn't matter. As long as you are not "stealing" it. :roll:

Trying to explain a way of thinking is usually pointless. To these guys if you download it you are a thief and morally wrong regardless of the circumstances and background you have, that they don't have and regardless of your reasons (whether for a proper demo, lack of funds w/e)

@Sxotty

First its not stealing, secondly how cheap is "quite cheap" where you are and where the person is?

tongue_of_colicab

01-Feb-2010, 22:30

You can buy games for quite cheap. Basically what you are saying tongue is that pirates are like children and have little patience or self control. They steal because they do not think they will be caught. Otherwise they could buy the game a year after it came out for quite cheap. They could easily afford it then.

First of all its not stealing. If you steal something you take away a product that has already been paid for by the store owner thus always causing (financial) damage. Dowloading is making a copy, so there is no product taken away, there is no product already paid for that you now have. At best what you did is cause a potential loss and you could even argue that as the whole reason for downloading is that you probably didnt want to or couldnt pay for the game anyway.

Buying games after the go into the discount bin could also be a good option. The problem with this though is that atleast in my country a lot of games just dissapear from stores after a not to long time and the AAA games (the ones you are most likely to want to play) often stay at a high price. Bioshock for pc for example is still 47 euro's and fallout 3 is still 40 euro's (pc games usually retail at around 50 euro's here) and those are prices from the cheapest online stores. consoles games is a bit better but usually still are more than half what the sold for at launch. Even 2 years after launch. So that still isnt that cheap. Also some games never drop in price like Nintendo stuff. If you buy at brick and mortar prices drop even less.

Also I wish some would just drop their opinion from a moment and try to see it from more than just their own side. I do the same. I understand why some people consider it stealing and I'd even agree with that depending on the case. But I can also understand why people do it and why in some cases I could even see it being ''acceptable''.

Sxotty

01-Feb-2010, 23:50

Tongue I understand both sides of the issue quite well. Downloading games against the creators wishes is immoral no matter how you butter it up.

The financial implications of it are open to argument. I don't think that every download=lost sale. That is stupid. I do think that those that download illegally should stop and doing so is a bad thing. If you cannot find a cheaper price on those games then look harder.

I actually postulated earlier that the game companies are a bunch of jerk offs b/c by selling games for widely varying prices in different areas they show that they do not actually have a consistent value like regular goods. Oil is a similar price in most places taking into account the difficulty of getting it there. That is b/c it is a physical good. Non-physical goods obviously can have any price they want to set. This does make the economics work in a wonky way and the companies try to take advantage of this by charging everyone the maximum price they are WTP. There are definitely problems b/c of this, but it doesn't justify breaking the law and behaving in an immoral manner IMO.

MrFloopy

02-Feb-2010, 01:16

First of all its not stealing. If you steal something you take away a product that has already been paid for by the store owner thus always causing (financial) damage. Dowloading is making a copy, so there is no product taken away, there is no product already paid for that you now have. At best what you did is cause a potential loss and you could even argue that as the whole reason for downloading is that you probably didnt want to or couldnt pay for the game anyway.

I have already pointed out in this thread that by copying you are increasing the supply of the product in the market place. Simple economics (and by simple I mean pretty much the first thing you learn) states that increasing the supply of a product reduces it's value. Therefore the value owned by the copyright holder has been reduced. So by copying the product you have reduced the net wealth of the copyright holder.

Buying games after the go into the discount bin could also be a good option. The problem with this though is that atleast in my country a lot of games just dissapear from stores after a not to long time and the AAA games (the ones you are most likely to want to play) often stay at a high price. Bioshock for pc for example is still 47 euro's and fallout 3 is still 40 euro's (pc games usually retail at around 50 euro's here) and those are prices from the cheapest online stores. consoles games is a bit better but usually still are more than half what the sold for at launch. Even 2 years after launch. So that still isnt that cheap. Also some games never drop in price like Nintendo stuff. If you buy at brick and mortar prices drop even less.

Three things:

1) you are still assuming that you have some rights to a product. You do not.
2) If the price is still high, then demand is still high or supply is limited. The price reflects the value of your product.
3) The argument you guys keep bringing up is that you wouldn't have bought it anyway so what does it matter how expensive it is?

Also I wish some would just drop their opinion from a moment and try to see it from more than just their own side. I do the same. I understand why some people consider it stealing and I'd even agree with that depending on the case. But I can also understand why people do it and why in some cases I could even see it being ''acceptable''.

Mate, it's not opinion, it's very established law. I'm also not sure what could possibly make it acceptable?

I'll try to make this as simple as possible:

The Game belongs to the company that made it. They have exculsive rights as to it's distribution. You have none. Contrary to what some here try to submit, International copyright law is well established and is clear on this matter (if not enforced in some parts of the world).

MrFloopy

02-Feb-2010, 01:28

I actually postulated earlier that the game companies are a bunch of jerk offs b/c by selling games for widely varying prices in different areas they show that they do not actually have a consistent value like regular goods. Oil is a similar price in most places taking into account the difficulty of getting it there. That is b/c it is a physical good. Non-physical goods obviously can have any price they want to set. This does make the economics work in a wonky way and the companies try to take advantage of this by charging everyone the maximum price they are WTP. There are definitely problems b/c of this, but it doesn't justify breaking the law and behaving in an immoral manner IMO.

This is again simple economics.

All companies will set the price of their product based on maximum total profit. Maximum Total profit will occur at the equilibrium price which is where supply meets demand.

In different regions of the world this price will be different. This is not unique to games, software or even computing.

The example you gave is incorrect also.

The price of oil per barrel is very different on the New York Mercantile Exchange as opposed to the singapore NYMEX, and that's well before it get's to the pump :)

orangpelupa

02-Feb-2010, 09:16

Pirater's consider it OK as long as they feel they can continue freeloading and ripping off the developers without getting caught. In other words they KNOW it is wrong, but because they don't think they'll be caught they'll continue doing it.

I've seen it time and time again in my discussioins with avid piraters who don't think they are hurting anyone (they are), don't think they are breaking the laws (they are in most countries), think they deserve it (they don't), whatever... At the end of the day whether they say it or not, they KNOW what they are doing is wrong and the only reason they keep doing it is because they think they won't get caught.

in my country, many pirater understand that what they do is wrong. and yes its againts the law.
but the normal gamer, usually dont understand about this piracy thing. They just buy game. without thinking its original or not.

in my country :
- almost all (i think 100% lol) PS1 and PS2 rental in here, play using pirated games.

- almost no relatailer selling original game. original game can be buyed if I go browsing some gaming forum and buy from person who import game. then it will be mailed to me. And most gamer just dont understand this online buying thing. if go to shopping mall, you will only see pirated games.

- game rental only renting pirated games. and pirated softwares.

- we cant buy games from steam. because our download speed is very slow, and internet capped 3GB / month. and not everyone have internet connected. (the infrastructure is not have wide coverage).

- our income rate is very low. for a work like become seller on a store, full for a month, only got about 35USD.

as for PS3, we usually buy used games. or old games. or just trading with friends. Those games are not from official distributor. but from importers.
yes, they also imports used games to be sold in my country.
usually they sell from forum thread. some of them also have retail store. (only in a few big city)
yes they selling pirated games and original games side-by-side :) :)

for myself, i only buy original discs if i really like it and the original disc come with special package. and ofcourse, waiting for it to become old and affordable, about 20USD. Saving for a year usually can buy 1 new original or 2-3 used.

so PS3 if hacked, and can play from HDD. it will be a big help for gamer in my country.
we can :
- make 20 human group. Saving money together.
- when a game come out, we buy that ONE game using our saving.

then person 1 copy to HDD then mail the disc to person 2. Person 2 copy to HDD then mail the disc to person 3. and so on.

because pirating BluRay will still hard for us. Blank BR disc is expensive. the BR Writer is expensive and Its impossible for us to be able to download that GB GB GB GB data. (we have bad bad internet)

thanks and sorry my bad english

Sxotty

02-Feb-2010, 11:54

The price of oil per barrel is very different on the New York Mercantile Exchange as opposed to the singapore NYMEX, and that's well before it get's to the pump :)

You are incorrect in your main assertion here. Physical goods have an equilibrium price and in a global market it is the same everywhere when taking into account the transportation costs. That is why it doesn't matter if we buy our oil from Canada or Iran. If we get it from Canada Iran just sells it to someone else. The global price will still fluctuate. Different crude oil has different values due to fundamental differences in the goods. But the price is definitely a very global thing. If OPEC countries sell oil cheap to their citizens they lose income and are effectively subsidizing the price. If you do not understand that the market is globalized then try reading this.
http://omrpublic.iea.org/omrarchive/15jan10full.pdf

In other markets such as the natural gas market the transportation infrastructure is worse and so stranded gas makes the pricing much more variable geographically. Physical goods that are easily transported are priced similarly when taking into account the transportation, and marketing costs. It costs more to pay a truck driver in the US to make a delivery, and the grocer to sell pineapple.

MrFloopy

02-Feb-2010, 22:33

You are incorrect in your main assertion here.

Yes I was. What I should have explained was that even in the oil industry, pump prices vary significantly from region to region due to various factors: (e.g. local supply and demand, excise and taxes, legislation etc) just as the software industry does.

Anyway, you've successfully dragged me off point :).

Back to the main point:

It still doesn't matter and cannot be used to justify piracy. If you don't like the price then don't buy it. Responding to this by illegally copying and distributing the software which you have no right to do so is not acceptable.

This whole thread comes comes down to whether you are explaining why people pirate software or justifying. I suspect you are explaining it, whereas George certainly seemed to be justifying it.

While it can be explained, it cannot be justified.

Sxotty

04-Feb-2010, 11:51

Yes I was. What I should have explained was that even in the oil industry, pump prices vary significantly from region to region due to various factors: (e.g. local supply and demand, excise and taxes, legislation etc) just as the software industry does.

Anyway, you've successfully dragged me off point :).

Back to the main point:

It still doesn't matter and cannot be used to justify piracy. If you don't like the price then don't buy it. Responding to this by illegally copying and distributing the software which you have no right to do so is not acceptable.

This whole thread comes comes down to whether you are explaining why people pirate software or justifying. I suspect you are explaining it, whereas George certainly seemed to be justifying it.

While it can be explained, it cannot be justified.
I was not saying it explained, or justified piracy.

It undermines the case that the software groups make when they claim how much income they lose to piracy. The fact that goods such as these, with a negligible physical cost (in terms of DVD pressing), and no physical good lost at all in piracy, combined with their insistence on changing pricing to try and extract the maximum WTP from each consumer makes their estimates of lost revenue/income bollocks.

When some groups have to pay more than others it is unfair. Of course games are not alone, it happens with all sorts of items where the physical cost of the good makes up a small percentage of the total cost (text books, drugs, etc...). What I do think is that if a group is going to do this then it should not be illegal to purchase the good and re-import, instead efforts to enforce the region specific nature should themselves be illegal.

George

04-Feb-2010, 15:54

No...

A student is not a student forever and a pirates situation might change. Essentially Microsoft just lost a potential customer.

In relation to the games, same thing. They can't pirate games because of their OS means they can't buy games because of their OS. Another loss for the developer (pirates buy games).

"the right thing" "rip off" "stealing" "imposing their will"

*sigh*

Response?

Whether that is true or not is utterly beside the point. It is not your's or anyone else's right to decide that on Microsofts behalf. Again these are the same arguments used for decades to justify copyright infringement, and they are simply not valid.

A provides a product, service.
B uses that product, service.
A doesn't get a benefit for the transaction (money).
B does get a benefit for the transaction (whatever the product, service provides).

How can this situation wield anything BUT one disadvantaged party?

Nobody.

They're using a product, service which is offered for free, as in, no compensation is required. They don't lose.

The linux company didn't get compensation but didn't ask for it either so didn't budget it. They don't lose.

Microsoft doesn't get any compensation but it wouldn't get any compensation anyway. They don't lose.

And btw, I saw you argue that *in the future* those students would have bought Windows. First of all, did they sign a lease contract with Microsoft, promising to pay up in 10 years? Was there even a verbal agreement between them and Microsoft? No. It was an unilateral decision to not pay on the vague and unenforceable promise they would when they turn 18 or whatever. In Law this is meaningless.

Secondly, if those same students walked into a US federal bank and said "look, I'm going to take this big wad of bank notes. But I'll invest it and pay you back" do you honestly believe it would be okay? Like software, the Federal Bank (or more correctly the Mint) can always produce more bank notes to replace those it "lost" so no harm no foul right?

The individuals who worked on the game/money may hold MORAL rights to it. By Law, this means that they can demand their company to advertise exactly who worked on the game/movie/software, etc. That's why movies have a credit roll, etc.

The licensing or general commercial exploitation rights to that game/movie/etc. is held by the company so that's the entity that can say whether the product is sold, rented, given away, etc.

Again, there's no 11th commandment that says you have a right to try before you buy, play expensive games or use software without having to take a bus to the store.

People will only get the message when PC gaming is just Sims, WoW and flash-based games. Not too long now.

I think it has become quite clear that you do not understand what piracy is and certainly you are oblivious to the real and damaging effect it has on the industry.

Here is a question:

Do you think that piracy has caused the loss of income or wealth for creators of copyrighted material and / or the people employed by them? yes or no please.

What does bill gates say?

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article2098235.ece

"It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not," the Microsoft co-founder and chairman told Fortune magazine.

Exactly what I was saying. At least he has sense and I guess thats why he is bill gates and you guys aren't :wink:

Not hard to imagine the same strategy came into play on the 360. It could easily have been made more secure, instead its hacked, sells a lot of software and is able to force persons to buy multiple 360s. They failed on reliability though.

MrFloopy

05-Feb-2010, 03:40

It undermines the case that the software groups make when they claim how much income they lose to piracy. The fact that goods such as these, with a negligible physical cost (in terms of DVD pressing), and no physical good lost at all in piracy, combined with their insistence on changing pricing to try and extract the maximum WTP from each consumer makes their estimates of lost revenue/income bollocks.

So you are saying that the true cost is different to what they say? No argument from me there. But again that is not the point of this discussion.

What I do think is that if a group is going to do this then it should not be illegal to purchase the good and re-import, instead efforts to enforce the region specific nature should themselves be illegal.

I do have issues with exclusive distribution, however at the end of the day, it is still the copyright owners right to distribute as fairly or unfairly as they like. As long as they are not in a monopoly position, the market should deal with that.

MrFloopy

05-Feb-2010, 03:43

Response?

Sorry didn't see a question in your original quote. Is there one?

What does bill gates say?

Exactly what I was saying. At least he has sense and I guess thats why he is bill gates and you guys aren't :wink:

Sure, I'm no Bill Gates, but this just backs up my position. He is the copyright holder, and so he can distribute his software as he sees fit. If he wants to give it away, thats entirely up to him. It's not up to you!

I'm not sure why this point is so hard to understand?

Sxotty

05-Feb-2010, 13:38

So you are saying that the true cost is different to what they say? No argument from me there. But again that is not the point of this discussion.

I do have issues with exclusive distribution, however at the end of the day, it is still the copyright owners right to distribute as fairly or unfairly as they like. As long as they are not in a monopoly position, the market should deal with that.

But they are in a monopoly position to some extent by default. If you are required to get a specific text book for a class you can't just buy a different one and hope it will work out well enough. If you are dying and need a specific drug that is still patented you can't just buy a generic aspirin and hope it will work out.

Obviously electronic stuff is different in that you won't die, and it is strictly optional, but you can't buy a replacement for certain things.

George

05-Feb-2010, 14:03

Sorry didn't see a question in your original quote. Is there one?

Sure, I'm no Bill Gates, but this just backs up my position. He is the copyright holder, and so he can distribute his software as he sees fit. If he wants to give it away, thats entirely up to him. It's not up to you!

I'm not sure why this point is so hard to understand?

A response doesn't require a question. Similar to how the world trade centre bombings weren't questions yet the initiated war was a response. Understanding simple things like that would go a long way to convincing others your point had some actual thought behind it.

Its not hard to understand what you mean... its just pointless to do so. Nobody is trying to tell someone how to market their product.

Rys

05-Feb-2010, 16:13

I'd like to make it clear that George wasn't banned for his position in this thread. Far from it, I was actually happy to see the debate and have enjoyed the thread progression as an interested party.

He was banned because it turns out it's the guy's fifth (known) account here at B3D, and we don't allow additional accounts here after bans. A ban is just that, not an invitation to just sign up again and keep going.

Sorry if my decision hurts the discussion.

patsu

06-Feb-2010, 04:57

Just got into the thread. When I saw "Naughty Boy!" in his tag, I thought he's an "old customer". He's the one who got me to register @ B3D 3-4 years ago... in order to reply to one of his posts. ^_^

Sxotty

06-Feb-2010, 16:15

MrFloopy

07-Feb-2010, 22:48

thop

29-Dec-2010, 21:27

Update December 2010:
A new crew announced retrieval of a private key allowing arbritrary signing of code. The technical discussion is held here (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=56284). Videos describing this hack here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEFMAP0mTvY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEFMAP0mTvY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFuTCEtK6l8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFuTCEtK6l8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84WI-jSgNMQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84WI-jSgNMQ)

The following posts are the non-tehcnical discussion of the reasons and ramifications of this hack.
[/mod]

Shouldn't have taken Linux away. Can't say I didn't tell them not to. Maybe Sony would've listened if I charged $25,000 for the same advice and declared it consulting.

Shifty Geezer

30-Dec-2010, 10:01

Not part of the technical discussion, but the vid explains the reason for hacking as Linux, and yet while Linux was available no-one did anything with it. It'll be very interesting if PS3 Linux development gets anywhere now, or if Lonix on consoles is and ends to itself, and these hackers who want to open up the hardware only want to open the hardware and don't actually want to use it.

What would be nice is if they enabled you to swap old HDDs into new PS3s when one dies to copy over/backup your stuff. Or a better backup utility wouldn't go amiss.

-tkf-

30-Dec-2010, 12:53

Shouldn't have taken Linux away. Can't say I didn't tell them not to. Maybe Sony would've listened if I charged $25,000 for the same advice and declared it consulting.

Bullshit, OtherOS was a part of the Console until Geohot started to poke around, afaik without him doing that to begin with we would not be where we are now.

But wow, what a crappy effort by Sony, they brought this on themselves.. i just hope that they will be able to perma ban any cracked/hacked consoles from the PSN network.

JardeL

30-Dec-2010, 14:58

That " They shouldn't take Linux away " thing is BS. I used PS3 Linux for 2-3 years and there weren't any useful homebrew app or something. All you had was VLC for video or Audio playback, Firefox for explorer etc. There were talks about SPE based video acceleration or something but that never happened or not useful. Where were these "penguin lovers" when we needed them? Did they have any useful project on PS3 Linux? I don't think so.

Anyway, what if Sony says "that Private keys are subject to intellectual property" and sue these guys?

Silent_Buddha

30-Dec-2010, 15:21

Bullshit, OtherOS was a part of the Console until Geohot started to poke around, afaik without him doing that to begin with we would not be where we are now.

But wow, what a crappy effort by Sony, they brought this on themselves.. i just hope that they will be able to perma ban any cracked/hacked consoles from the PSN network.

It wasn't on PS3 Slim, however. So the reasoning is still valid no matter how much you personally dislike Geohot.

Regards,
SB

corduroygt

30-Dec-2010, 15:23

Anyway, what if Sony says "that Private keys are subject to intellectual property" and sue these guys?

That's like saying the number 4 is subject to IP. Far better alternative is to pay these guys off and stop them from releasing the hack.

Npl

30-Dec-2010, 15:50

That's like saying the number 4 is subject to IP. Far better alternative is to pay these guys off and stop them from releasing the hack.Big fat nothing that would do.
The way they did calculate the key was already presented, even if they dont release the key + tools themselfes that wont stop anyone else from doing it. The hard part was finding the hole/weakness (or epic fail as they titled it).

What wasnt covered is how much of the public key system is exposed through this, if this is just some firmware internal module then you could change the whole system with an update.
If everything is done this way then you can recreate all keys for every released PSN and Retail game, its just not feasible to counter this.. well expect losing all compatibility to PS3 games and calling the console PS4 after a Firmware update.

That " They shouldn't take Linux away " thing is BS. I used PS3 Linux for 2-3 years and there weren't any useful homebrew app or something. All you had was VLC for video or Audio playback, Firefox for explorer etc. There were talks about SPE based video acceleration or something but that never happened or not useful. Where were these "penguin lovers" when we needed them? Did they have any useful project on PS3 Linux? I don't think so.Quite doesnt work this way. Creating software might be just a practical sideeffect of the fun part - that is hacking around in the system. Its like sex, mostly you dont do it for the long-lasting consequences (STD or kids).

JardeL

30-Dec-2010, 16:24

That's like saying the number 4 is subject to IP. Far better alternative is to pay these guys off and stop them from releasing the hack.
But that key is not that simple. Look at what marcan said about it ;
@marcan42 (http://twitter.com/#%21/marcan42) Hector Martin

Clarification #4: the random number isn't 4, it's more like 007eabbb79360e14df1457a4194b82f71a0dc39280 (example). But it's still constant.42 digits, contains letters and numbers.

corduroygt

30-Dec-2010, 16:28

But that key is not that simple. Look at what marcan said about it ;
42 digits, contains letters and numbers.

It's still a number in the end, and you cannot claim IP on a number. I can't copyright 84^984! for example. It also doesn't contain letters, that's just hexadecimal representation.

Elan Tedronai

30-Dec-2010, 16:32

Arwin

30-Dec-2010, 16:34

Very likely, yes. However, Linux on PS3 with full RSX support would still be neat. It would be fun to have the RSX render some nicely shaded triangles whose position and animation were Cell driven.

patsu

30-Dec-2010, 16:47

This incident has a different twist. Besides RSX access, you can actually run you own programs in Sony's GameOS. It's much more attractive than OtherOS.

I wonder how difficult it is to run Linux apps inside GameOS.

Florin

30-Dec-2010, 16:51

i think the funniest thing here is the apparent claim by the hackers that linux removal was the sole purpose of the whole hacking. When linux was present on the system what apps have these guys actually developed? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Did they actually widen the field for linux development for the ps3? nope.

Actually, there were a number of quite serious projects (http://www.ps3cluster.umassd.edu/) based on OtherOS, and as a matter of fact the Air Force just this month unveiled their most powerful supercomputer (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/105767-U-S-Air-Force-Finishes-PS3-Supercomputer-of-Epic-Proportions) yet, which is also based on a stack of PS3s running Linux.

Sony's idiotic move affected quite a few people and pissed off many more. Poetic justice here, whichever way these guys wanna spin it.

Shifty Geezer

30-Dec-2010, 16:52

Given the rise of apps thanks to iPhone, I can see PS3 getting interest in terms of apps you can add to the XMB. Could be useful. That wasn't the spirit of the hacking attempts though. As that guy they brought on said, the only reason to hack was to add Linux. The claim was they only bothered to add Linux. That's clearly bunkum, because PS3 has Linux and it was ignored. IMO the real reason they have produced this hack was other people produced other hacks that let them get inside and hack it. That is, Linux or not, this would have happened. It's unfortunate Sony closed Linux support because that would have nullified their excuse and they'd have to be honest and say they hacked the PS3 because it was there, and consequences be hanged.

JardeL

30-Dec-2010, 17:41

Actually, there were a number of quite serious projects (http://www.ps3cluster.umassd.edu/) based on OtherOS, and as a matter of fact the Air Force just this month unveiled their most powerful supercomputer (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/105767-U-S-Air-Force-Finishes-PS3-Supercomputer-of-Epic-Proportions) yet, which is also based on a stack of PS3s running Linux.

Sony's idiotic move affected quite a few people and pissed off many more. Poetic justice here, whichever way these guys wanna spin it.
These guys are not from Air Force.

I still don't get how it's not illegal to make public confidential business information.

Florin

30-Dec-2010, 17:44

These guys are not from Air Force.

I still don't get how it's not illegal to make public confidential business information.

It was reverse engineered. They did not have access to confidential information.

JardeL

30-Dec-2010, 18:01

Reverse engineered or not. This is not a simple hack, not a custom firmware to add new features to PS3. They somehow gained access to confidential information and decided to release it.

Florin

30-Dec-2010, 18:23

Reverse engineered or not. This is not a simple hack, not a custom firmware to add new features to PS3. They somehow gained access to confidential information and decided to release it.

No, they gained access to the box that they bought. Until there is proof that they had access to confidential information (like, under an NDA) and then released that in violation of the terms of that contract, this is not illegal. Fortunately.

JardeL

30-Dec-2010, 18:44

That doesn't make sense. What's the benefit of gaining access to confidential information and making it public?

We all know this is gonna lead to piracy; harm software sales, harm business, Sony, other publishers and even retailers. Downloading pirated software is illegal but enabling piracy through releasing hardware's private key [ which belongs to Sony, not end user ] is not, that REALLY doesn't make any sense to me.

Shifty Geezer

30-Dec-2010, 19:13

No, they gained access to the box that they bought. Until there is proof that they had access to confidential information (like, under an NDA) and then released that in violation of the terms of that contract, this is not illegal.I'm not sure if the legality of this has been tested in court. Signing their own code required reverse engineering Sony's software technology, which is a breech of EULAs. Doing the usual Googling around this, this stub (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Baystate_Technologies)states a US ruling where software contracts supercede rights to reverse engineer. European law will be different, and of course this was a European endeavour.

Thus legailty rests with whether the owner of the hardware has ownership of the software included on that device. Unlike other hacks that change the hardware or inject software, this hack is actually using Sony's software, so needs to be evaluated in its own right.

Shifty Geezer

30-Dec-2010, 19:26

We all know this is gonna lead to piracy; harm software sales, harm business, Sony, other publishers and even retailers. Downloading pirated software is illegal but enabling piracy through releasing hardware's private key [ which belongs to Sony, not end user ] is not, that REALLY doesn't make any sense to me.Laws rarely do! It's legal to sell speed-camera detectors but illegal to use them (or at least was when they were introduced). Similarly handguns are owned primarily for shooting people, and sold legally even though that purpose is frowned upon. IP laws tend to respect humanity's interests in learning and don't prohibit exploration, which is what this is. Such laws aren't trying to judge an action by its possible outcomes, but for what it is. On paper there's nothing wrong with this hack - it's an interesting intellectual challenge that could enable improved use of PS3 hardware. The fact it will lead to dirty-rotten piracy isn't the fault of the hackers, just as nuclear bombs aren't really the fault of the scientists who were exploring nuclear fission as a power source or just general scientific understanding. Of course we all knew what it would lead to, because everything good ever invented is turned to ill, but then if you never invented anything because of the harm it could do, you'd never invent anything!

In an ideal world where people acted morally, this hack wouldn't be an issue. I think the IP laws, at least around engineering which are steeped in history, are considered more regards such an ideal world rather than the real one. But then laws that try to protect IP in the real world end up in opression and draconian policing. Freedom comes with responsibilities. Irresponsibility leads to lack of freedoms. No state can control people's responsibility, only limit their freedoms, and you end up with the same irresponsible people complaining about their rights being infringed and complaining about injustices when they're on their receiving end. You can't look to laws to solve this. Laws can only choose the line between freedoms and responsibilities, and that line gets shifted one way and another with both good and bad results.

Elan Tedronai

30-Dec-2010, 19:44

Actually, there were a number of quite serious projects (http://www.ps3cluster.umassd.edu/) based on OtherOS, and as a matter of fact the Air Force just this month unveiled their most powerful supercomputer (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/105767-U-S-Air-Force-Finishes-PS3-Supercomputer-of-Epic-Proportions) yet, which is also based on a stack of PS3s running Linux.

Sony's idiotic move affected quite a few people and pissed off many more. Poetic justice here, whichever way these guys wanna spin it.

you still don't get it. I am talking about these fail over flow guys. did they develop any sort of apps for linux when it was available for all ps3s? nope.

funny how linux has become their priority since the slim came out.

corduroygt

30-Dec-2010, 19:51

funny how linux has become their priority since the slim came out.
It's the challenge that drives these guys. Sony took away Linux and they wanted to get it back.

JardeL

30-Dec-2010, 19:59

@Shifty
You're right at what you say, let's forget about that " this will lead piracy " part. Laws don't work that way. But, I don't agree with " On paper there's nothing wrong with this hack " part ;

from Sony PS3 System Software Licence Agreement ;
2. RESTRICTIONSYou may not lease, rent, sublicense, publish, modify, adapt, or translate any portion of the System Software. To the fullest extent permitted by law, you may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble any portion of the System Software, or create any derivative works, or otherwise attempt to create System Software source code from its object code. You may not

(i) use any unauthorized, illegal, counterfeit, or modified hardware or software in connection with the System Software, including use of tools to bypass, disable, or circumvent any encryption, security, or authentication mechanism for the PS3TM system;

(ii) violate any laws, regulations or statutes, or rights of SCE, its affiliated companies, or third parties in connection with your access to or use of the System Software, including the access, use, or distribution of any software or hardware that you know or should have known to be infringing or pirated;

(iii) use any hardware or software to cause the System Software to accept or use unauthorized, illegal, or pirated software or hardware;

(iv) obtain the System Software in any manner other than through SCE's authorized distribution methods; or

(v) exploit the System Software in any manner other than to use it in your PS3TM system in accordance with the accompanying documentation and with authorized software or hardware, including use of the System Software to design, develop, update, or distribute unauthorized software or hardware for use in connection with the PS3TM system for any reason. Any violation of these restrictions will void the PS3TM system's warranty and affect your ability to obtain warranty services and repair services from SCE or its affiliated companies.I don't think everything ok with this hack on paper.

Actually I'm not that interested in with hacking part. But accessing to private keys and making it public is another story for me. You have nothing to do with that key as an end user. You don't need to access it. Even let's say you need to access it to sign your own code to run on system, even if we accept that I still can't understand how it is legal to publish that.

As an end user what's the point of releasing a confidential information? Ok, you paid for PS3, that's your property but private key is not! That key doesn't belong to you. Sony making business through that key and there's a reason they're keeping it private. You can't mess with it.

xatnys

30-Dec-2010, 20:58

With regard to the actual flaw, there's no bypassing going on here. It's part of why this failure is so 'epic'.

Florin

30-Dec-2010, 22:00

@Shifty
You're right at what you say, let's forget about that " this will lead piracy " part. Laws don't work that way. But, I don't agree with " On paper there's nothing wrong with this hack " part ;

from Sony PS3 System Software Licence Agreement ;
I don't think everything ok with this hack on paper.

Do you know if those hackers signed that agreement you quoted?

Actually I'm not that interested in with hacking part. But accessing to private keys and making it public is another story for me. You have nothing to do with that key as an end user. You don't need to access it.

Says who?

Even let's say you need to access it to sign your own code to run on system, even if we accept that I still can't understand how it is legal to publish that.

As an end user what's the point of releasing a confidential information? Ok, you paid for PS3, that's your property but private key is not! That key doesn't belong to you. Sony making business through that key and there's a reason they're keeping it private. You can't mess with it.

Yes you can :D

nightshade

30-Dec-2010, 22:34

@Shifty
You're right at what you say, let's forget about that " this will lead piracy " part. Laws don't work that way. But, I don't agree with " On paper there's nothing wrong with this hack " part ;

from Sony PS3 System Software Licence Agreement ;
I don't think everything ok with this hack on paper.

Actually I'm not that interested in with hacking part. But accessing to private keys and making it public is another story for me. You have nothing to do with that key as an end user. You don't need to access it. Even let's say you need to access it to sign your own code to run on system, even if we accept that I still can't understand how it is legal to publish that.

As an end user what's the point of releasing a confidential information? Ok, you paid for PS3, that's your property but private key is not! That key doesn't belong to you. Sony making business through that key and there's a reason they're keeping it private. You can't mess with it.
Marcan and his team are based in Europe and the way I see it the laws regarding EULA are different from the ones in USA.

-tkf-

30-Dec-2010, 23:08

It wasn't on PS3 Slim, however. So the reasoning is still valid no matter how much you personally dislike Geohot.

Regards,
SB

The point still stands, there was OtherOS in the wild, was it used? nope not really, was it usefull? for some, and those that was left in the cold after OtherOS was removed, was still helped by Sony.

However, Geohot claimed he would get OtherOS back on the Slim. Sony´s "excuse" for removing it from the slim was that cost. If any of the hackers are able to get OtherOS as we know it back on the Slim then they proved Sony wrong. If they just get some kind of Linux running, they just prove that they hacked the console.

These guys know that whatever they do it will lead to piracy and cheating online gaming, and they do NOT take any kind of responsiblety for their actions. They just point at OtherOS and tells everyone it´s sony fault.

I think Sony just got one message from all this, never again let anything remotely like Linux happen on their console again, it lead them into this mess and became a platform for Geohot to snoop around with..
But lets hope that the hackers will be working 24/7 on the next PS so we can have linux on that.. just as we have on the Wii and the 360..?

No one wins from this, except piracy

Florin

30-Dec-2010, 23:14

I think Sony just got one message from all this, never again let anything remotely like Linux happen on their console again, it lead them into this mess and became a platform for Geohot to snoop around with..

Hmm so how do you figure Linux led to this mess, when the other consoles were hacked into long ago without such a 'platform for snooping'?

xatnys

31-Dec-2010, 02:06

These guys know that whatever they do it will lead to piracy and cheating online gaming, and they do NOT take any kind of responsiblety for their actions. They just point at OtherOS and tells everyone it´s sony fault.

I think Sony just got one message from all this, never again let anything remotely like Linux happen on their console again, it lead them into this mess and became a platform for Geohot to snoop around with..

The very presence of Linux on the PS3 is what kept people at bay to begin with - Geohot and the others didn't take action until Sony implicated OtherOS. I think it's arguable that if Sony hadn't removed OtherOS, they wouldn't be in this mess.

The CCC presentation illustrated exactly this point: within a year or less, those consoles without Linux were opened up. The PS3, despite its look-pretty-do-nothing security, was unscathed until Sony pulled OtherOS.

And, while they are aware that piracy is a side-effect, the ones who really know what they're doing don't go out of their way to supplement piracy.

draconian

31-Dec-2010, 03:52

The very presence of Linux on the PS3 is what kept people at bay to begin with - Geohot and the others didn't take action until Sony implicated OtherOS. I think it's arguable that if Sony hadn't removed OtherOS, they wouldn't be in this mess.

The CCC presentation illustrated exactly this point: within a year or less, those consoles without Linux were opened up. The PS3, despite its look-pretty-do-nothing security, was unscathed until Sony pulled OtherOS.

And, while they are aware that piracy is a side-effect, the ones who really know what they're doing don't go out of their way to supplement piracy.

actually, that's wrong. The OtherOS was removed from all existing ps3s due to geohot's exploits.

Colourless

31-Dec-2010, 04:16

OtherOS was removed from Slims before Geohat was involved.

xatnys

31-Dec-2010, 04:20

actually, that's wrong. The OtherOS was removed from all existing ps3s due to geohot's exploits.

OtherOS was omitted from Slims, prompting Geohot to act. From there, Sony proceeded to remove OtherOS on all PS3s.

http://twitter.com/#!/fail0verflow/status/20465412542042112

AmFreak

31-Dec-2010, 05:36

I remember a post in Geohots blog in reference to a question asking what took so long. He answered that someone long ago donated a ps3 to him to hack the thing. But he didn't had time earlier, to try to hack it.
But either way i don't understand the discussion, because the jailbreak guys were the first ones to bring homebrew and backups to the ps3.
And as i see they used a complete different method and they surely didn't do it because Sony removed OtherOS ...

Shifty Geezer

31-Dec-2010, 10:09

@Shifty
You're right at what you say, let's forget about that " this will lead piracy " part. Laws don't work that way. But, I don't agree with " On paper there's nothing wrong with this hack " part ;

from Sony PS3 System Software Licence Agreement ;
...
I don't think everything ok with this hack on paper.Sorry, misunderstanding. You're right regards the EULA; I already mentioned that as the legal issue. What I meant by 'on paper' is that this hack in itself is not harming anyone. It's what is done with the hack that can harm people. So there's nothing really wrong with the hacking side. It's a type of investigation like studying botany or reverse-engineering a Victorian steam engine to see how it was put together. That in itself isn't a bad thing.

I agree that providing people the means to sign their own software undermines Sony's business. However, jailbreaking phones similar undermines businesses but that's been deemed legal. It seems as far as the law is concerned, when you buy a device, it's up to you how you use it and the originating company can't dictate any limits, like forbidding you to find a way to put your own software on it. If they want that level of control, they need to not sell consoles but rent them, Sky box style.

JardeL

31-Dec-2010, 11:29

I don't know. Maybe you're right, maybe this is how it works but that doesn't make sense to me. Do whatever you want with the console, hack it but that doesn't mean you have rights to publish Sony's confidental information.

There must be something like "tort action" to prevent this kind of actions & prevent people to cause a loss to companies.
Marcan and his team are based in Europe and the way I see it the laws regarding EULA are different from the ones in USA.
That's right and the one in my post is from PS UK site (http://uk.playstation.com/ps3/support/system-software/detail/item326207/Update-features-%28ver-3-55%29/).

Shifty Geezer

31-Dec-2010, 12:34

I don't know. Maybe you're right, maybe this is how it works but that doesn't make sense to me. Do whatever you want with the console, hack it but that doesn't mean you have rights to publish Sony's confidental information.That's possibly true, but at the same time have they published this info? The actual key hasn't been published AFAIK, with only examples given. If failoverflow write a signing application that people can use, they are using Sony's 'confidential information' but that information is just a number, and it's got to be hard to stake a claim to ownership of a number. That would mean no-one else was allowed to encrypt using that key if it's Sony's, but clearly that's not the case. So a file encryptor using a number for encrypting won't be an IP infringement, and users wouldn't be violating Sony's IP either.

What would clearly be illegal is using Sony's SDK to write your own apps. In that respect Sony could punish anyone releasing Sony applications. That's the old cat-and-mouse game though, and there are always many, many mice, small and hidden and difficult to catch. Still, they could go after failoverflow if they release a custom FW written with the PS3SDK. I don't know how Sony could prove they used it though.

senas8

31-Dec-2010, 13:35

"We come in peace, said the conquerers of the New World.
We come in peace, says the government, when it comes to colonise, regulate, and militarise the new digital world.
We come in peace, say the nation-state sized companies that have set out to monetise the net and chain the users to their shiny new devices.
We come in peace, we say as hackers, geeks and nerds, when we set out towards the real world and try to change it, because it has intruded into our natural habitat, the cyberspace. Let us explore each other’s truly peaceful intentions"

Elan Tedronai

31-Dec-2010, 14:42

It's the challenge that drives these guys. Sony took away Linux and they wanted to get it back.

in another words its all about the ego and the fame for these social rejects. Anyone who truly wanted linux would have scooped those non slims at any time.

sony's biggest mistake in all this was to allow linux in the first place. They should have went the MS route and closed their system completely. Sometimes it does not pay to have an open system with all these cracker heads rubbing their hands in glee.

Shifty Geezer

31-Dec-2010, 15:00

in another words its all about the ego and the fame for these social rejects. Anyone who truly wanted linux would have scooped those non slims at any time. That's a very unfair, and probably unrealistic, generalisation. Intellectuals often feel uncomfortable in the limelight and their endeavours have nothing to do with the pursuit of fame and recognition. Some hackers go unknown and unrecognised, enjoying the challenge of pitting their wits against those who are trying to keep them out. It's no different in terms of what the hacker gets from the challenge as playing chess or even playing a puzzle game.

sony's biggest mistake in all this was to allow linux in the first place. They should have went the MS route and closed their system completely. Sometimes it does not pay to have an open system with all these cracker heads rubbing their hands in glee.How can that be true when the period of Linux availability on PS3 was the period it was uncracked and there was hardly any progress in that field? It was the removal of Linux that encouraged the hackers, throwing down the gauntlet as it were. The Linux corps have a fascination with getting their OS on every device, and a device that says to them "not on me" is a red rag to a bull, inviting them to prove the experts wrong.

The real problem here was incompetance on Sony's part, using a public cryptographic system instead of inventing their own, and recycling their key instead of generating new ones. If they implemented their security features effectively, this hack that's broken the system wide open wouldn't have happened, and there'd still be limits to what was possible.

RobertR1

31-Dec-2010, 16:57

Legally, there is nothing they can do that would be effective. A few c&d letters is just a waste of lawyer fees. At this point their goal should be similar to MS. How can we detected these consoles and ban them off PSN.

AmFreak

31-Dec-2010, 16:59

How can that be true when the period of Linux availability on PS3 was the period it was uncracked and there was hardly any progress in that field? It was the removal of Linux that encouraged the hackers, throwing down the gauntlet as it were. The Linux corps have a fascination with getting their OS on every device, and a device that says to them "not on me" is a red rag to a bull, inviting them to prove the experts wrong.

The thing is the "Linux corps" did nothing, cause the first usefull hack came from the JailBreak Team. fail0verflow built on the foundation of this.
No JaliBreak no fail0verflow Hack.

xatnys

31-Dec-2010, 17:41

What would clearly be illegal is using Sony's SDK to write your own apps. In that respect Sony could punish anyone releasing Sony applications. That's the old cat-and-mouse game though, and there are always many, many mice, small and hidden and difficult to catch. Still, they could go after failoverflow if they release a custom FW written with the PS3SDK. I don't know how Sony could prove they used it though.

As far as I'm aware, this is pretty much a non-issue as of several months ago for newer homebrew due to the development of a free and open sdk.

https://github.com/HACKERCHANNEL/PSL1GHT

senas8

01-Jan-2011, 04:27

The way some hackers see it as far as moral: . "I see it as a kind of deal: we (Sony) let you install another OS under a thin hypervisor veil, and in exchange you don't try to break that. Except that Sony broke their part of the bargain.
I'm happy the system was broken, but I'm also happy it was broken after Sony called the "deal" off, so the hackers have the moral upper ground."

Shifty Geezer

01-Jan-2011, 12:01

The thing is the "Linux corps" did nothing, cause the first usefull hack came from the JailBreak Team. fail0verflow built on the foundation of this.
No JaliBreak no fail0verflow Hack.I'm not claiming all hacking is Linuxers! There'll be those who do it just for fun, those who do it with malicious intent, those looking to make money somehow. But every device seems to have to contend with Linux. If Linux were on PS3, homebrew would be present 9as it was) meaning the homebrew community wouldn't need to concern themselves with cracking a platform to enable Linux, and the only crackers then would be those looking for fun, who'll quit when it gets boring, and those looking to make money, who'll quit when they find easier targets. But the Linux group won't quit until they get Linux on, IMO, so pacifying them seems key to protecting your security. By Linux, I suppose I should say Homebrew, but they are often one and the same.

As far as I'm aware, this is pretty much a non-issue as of several months ago for newer homebrew due to the development of a free and open sdk.

https://github.com/HACKERCHANNEL/PSL1GHT
Gosh! That seems very legal then, a legitimate way to open up your PS3 to homebrew software via this security breach, and legitimately develop homebrew software. Trusting this SDK to be kosher.

AmFreak

01-Jan-2011, 20:21

@ Shifty Geezer

The "Linux corps" tried hard to bring home the point, that the PS3 is hacked because of the OtherOS (Linux) removal. And they succeeded - you can read it everywhere on the internet. They make it seem like that you as a company can do what you want, but don't mess with the Linux guys, because you can't stop them. I would have no problem with all that, if that were the truth. But in reality it was the Jailbreak team who made Backups and Homebrew possible. So it doesn't matter if they removed OtherOS or not, the hack (Jailbreak) would have happenned either way.

JardeL

01-Jan-2011, 21:37

That's possibly true, but at the same time have they published this info? The actual key hasn't been published AFAIK, with only examples given.
[ http://twitter.com/Mathieulh ,
http://twitter.com/fail0verflow ].

Shifty Geezer

01-Jan-2011, 22:19

The "Linux corps" tried hard to bring home the point, that the PS3 is hacked because of the OtherOS (Linux) removal. And they succeeded - you can read it everywhere on the internet. They make it seem like that you as a company can do what you want, but don't mess with the Linux guys, because you can't stop them. I would have no problem with all that, if that were the truth. But in reality it was the Jailbreak team who made Backups and Homebrew possible. So it doesn't matter if they removed OtherOS or not, the hack (Jailbreak) would have happenned either way.There's a difference between cracking for piracy and cracking for homebrew. At least, to me there is! As I see it, Geohotz did his stuff because he enjoys the challenge, and not because he wanted to enable piracy. Jailbreak happened for the purpose of making money selling it. These developments were stopping clear of homebrew. Well, I think Geohotz was in favour, but he pulled out (at least publically). If Linux remained on PS3, these people who were pursuing homebrew wouldn't have had a reason to continue, save maybe to enable RSX access, thus there'd be less work and investigation and this total crack may well never have happened.

It's probably impossible to know for sure, but if these people (Fail0verflow) are to be trusted, their work started when Linux stopped. As such, we wouldn't be discussing this as of December, because there wouldn't have been a presentation, because this hack wouldn't have happened.

Shifty Geezer

01-Jan-2011, 22:19

[ http://twitter.com/Mathieulh ,
http://twitter.com/fail0verflow ].Well that's something for Sony's lawers to take a shot at.

Bludd

01-Jan-2011, 23:33

I am just astounded by how Sony messed up the crypto on the PS3. I am sure they are doing a code review at this very moment just to see how bad it really is.

N_B

11-Jan-2011, 22:10

New DF artcile..

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-in-theory-psn-jailbreaking

The amount of access Sony has to your machine is greater than you probably suspect: the company even has the means to irrevocably disable your console should it so wish, and if that happens, it will remain non-functional whether you're online or offline.

Is this true? Not that Sony would do it because of the legal ****storm that would follow.

whome0

11-Jan-2011, 22:49

New DF artcile..
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-in-theory-psn-jailbreaking
Is this true? Not that Sony would do it because of the legal ****storm that would follow.
(Mind game) What if Sony says Updating a tampered firmware may permanently break your console. You don't believe it, update CFW, efuse is burned in a next boot due to a software error. It was CFW to blame it did not do everything properly so system crashed. You can always repair but it costs you money and get a new hardware. Installing CFW definitely(?) voids warranty.

Silent_Buddha

11-Jan-2011, 23:46

Isn't this what is basically being done if the system detects that LV2 has been tampered with? Granted that's an automatic function, but it's entirely possible it's based on the same functionality.

Regards,
SB

Neb

12-Jan-2011, 00:11

So when you buy a console you dont actually own it you just got the right to use it within TOS for undertminated time, yeah? So Sony or MS can if they want just HW lock ("smoke it") the system into unplayable state?

Thats sounds worse than any other DRM I've ever heared of. No wonder consoles are cheaper with such TOS conditions... hell you buy it but you dont own it.

Now since the consoles can be "blown" via software over the intarwebs then wouldn't that also be a security risk either by compromised network system or modified "infected" firmwares? What if somebody takes control of one of the sockpuppets string?

Xenus

12-Jan-2011, 00:23

Except that's not what it means at all Nebula that's a weak pirates argument against Sony frying their console cause they tried to hack it. If you try to modify a console beyond it's original purpose the warranty is voided and any damage done is not liable. I don't have any issue with frying consoles when it detects a blatant attempt to hack lvl. 2 like that.

MfA

12-Jan-2011, 01:17

Heh, no ... I'm pretty sure the courts wouldn't see it that way.

Bricking is not an option unless they want to be sued off the face of the earth.

Xenus

12-Jan-2011, 01:28

MfA

12-Jan-2011, 02:01

Xenus

12-Jan-2011, 02:28

No you have a device of your own which toy did something to at your own risk to gain something the device didn't formerly do. It's just like trying to steal cable ion my eyes. You do not have an unalienable right to modify any device you own for any purpose you see fit with impunity.

AzBat

12-Jan-2011, 02:38

Do I have a right to install Linux on my netbook?

Tommy McClain

Xenus

12-Jan-2011, 02:48

Sure a good chunk of them come with it however it also has to right to not work properly if there are no drivers and you can't sue for that cause it is outside the scope of the original device assuming they never promised you you could. On top of that installing linux is nothing like deliberately circumventing the security of a device like this hacking is. It is more akin to stealing cable or getting free phone calls by modifying a device which in fact you do not have the right to.

Thius is how I view it what is the difference between you bricking your console in an attempt to hack it or Sony having some sort of intrusion detection that bricks it for you if you you try to hack it. I don't see much of one. It was a risk you took when you tried to hack it. If you didn't want your console bricked don't hack it.

Rangers

12-Jan-2011, 03:21

This disgusts me. Gehot hacked the iPhone, 360 was pirated to hell and back, DS, Wii, nobody sued. Even APPLE wasn't that arrogant.

Maybe they should have designed better security first.

I wonder if Geohot now regrets his anti-piracy on PS3 stance now that this happened. Fat lot of good it did him.

Mize

12-Jan-2011, 03:21

I'm sorry, what was the profit motive for the jailbreak again?
I figured they go after copyright for the keys.

aaronspink

12-Jan-2011, 04:54

I don't really see why the courts would care. You have a device you did something to the device to make it unauthorized it doesn't work anymore. That was a risk you took when you decided to modify the device itself. There is no grand evil plan for them to brick your console whenever they feel like it to make you pay more money that would certainly get shot down in the courts but this is not that.

If the bricking was unintentional and simply and error then sony would be in the clear. If however, it is a deliberate strategy, then they will get sued to oblivion and lose. Plain and simple. The amount of laws they would violate doing it intentionally would be massive!

aaronspink

12-Jan-2011, 04:56

You have a device of your own, which you did something too and which worked perfectly fine ... which subsequently gets bricked by a malicious software update engineered to destroy it's commercial value. It wouldn't just be civil suits, governments would take them to court. Economic suicide.

Exactly, it would be a criminal act in most countries in the world. They do not own the console. They have no ownership rights in the console.

aaronspink

12-Jan-2011, 04:57

Sure a good chunk of them come with it however it also has to right to not work properly if there are no drivers and you can't sue for that cause it is outside the scope of the original device assuming they never promised you you could. On top of that installing linux is nothing like deliberately circumventing the security of a device like this hacking is. It is more akin to stealing cable or getting free phone calls by modifying a device which in fact you do not have the right to.

No, it is perfectly legal to install software onto a computer system which you own. You own the PS3 console.

Thius is how I view it what is the difference between you bricking your console in an attempt to hack it or Sony having some sort of intrusion detection that bricks it for you if you you try to hack it. I don't see much of one. It was a risk you took when you tried to hack it. If you didn't want your console bricked don't hack it.

One you did out of your own negligence, the other was done illegally with malicious intent!

-tkf-

12-Jan-2011, 09:24

But the cat is out of the bag.
It's hard for me to understand why - when you are in deep sh*t up to your neck, you feel the need to make waves around you.

What this lawsuit is doing is puting the romance/danger back into the whole hacking practice. It had become so boring lately, with hackers helding conferences and make powerpoint presentation and everything. Now we're back in the good old Kevin Mitnick days.

Kevin.. he did 3 years in jail?

First of, these hackers destroyed the security system in the PS3, they ripped it apart, Sony has billions invested in the platform and just because someone wants to "install Linux" all that is put a risk.
It would be incredible naive and not just stupid but super stupid, not to expect a backlash.

When Geohot started to use OtherOS on the fat PS3 Sony removed it, when hackers exposed a key to the console why the f*ck shouldn´t Sony try and destroy them and "ruin" their lives. Everything is going according to plan. The real sad thing is that those that found the flaws was most likely (we don´t really know) not going to use it for anything that resembles piracy, but the flaws will be picked up by hackers that only has one goal. And if they keep of the radar they wont get caught...

obonicus

12-Jan-2011, 11:52

I wonder if Geohot now regrets his anti-piracy on PS3 stance now that this happened. Fat lot of good it did him.

Do recall, however, that geohot's original statement was 'if it gets pirated they kinda deserve it, I don't care'. He recanted on that eventually and changed his tune.

RenegadeRocks

12-Jan-2011, 13:26

Do I have a right to install Linux on my netbook?

Tommy McClain

Exactly. The device is MINE ! I can do anything with it.

Once I buy a refrigerator, if I decide to get a heater installed in it instead and turn it into an oven, the company which made the refrigerator cannot come and disable my fridge. I bought the fridge, I can do anything I want with it. throw it over my roof, if I wish. The company cannot do anything.

Sony cannot brick a console if it is running an OS different from what it wants it to run. its like saying that Sony can brick my console if I use my PS3 as a paperweight instead of playing games on it. They can ban someone from playing online, yes, but they cannot brick a console.

Sony bricking a PS3 is illegal, playing pirated games is illegal, Modifying hardware and installing a homebrew OS is NOT !

Arwin

12-Jan-2011, 14:15

Sony bricking a PS3 is illegal, playing pirated games is illegal, Modifying hardware and installing a homebrew OS is NOT !

This has been a similar line of argument in court here for a while, against installing mod-chips in PS2s. However, one of the latest lawsuits ended differently - the argument was that as 95% of those installing mod-chips used it to pirate games, and only 5% used it to play imported games (which is not considered illegal, at least not yet ;) ), it is a service that primarily facilitates crime and can therefore be outlawed. This same kind of logic has then resulted in regular stores no longer being allowed to sell those N4 or whatever they are called flash-things that open up the DS.

This means that if a homebrew OS also enables piracy, and then the majority of its users use it for piracy, it can be considered illegal to at least distribute this OS. A 'legal' Homebrew OS should therefore ensure you can not install illegal software. That could get complicated, but it should be no surprise that some custom firmware creators are looking to achieve just that.

Xenus

12-Jan-2011, 15:33

Exactly. The device is MINE ! I can do anything with it.

Once I buy a refrigerator, if I decide to get a heater installed in it instead and turn it into an oven, the company which made the refrigerator cannot come and disable my fridge. I bought the fridge, I can do anything I want with it. throw it over my roof, if I wish. The company cannot do anything.

Except there are plenty of instances of no you can't. You can't modify a shotgun to make the barrel shorter then a certain length or make semi auto guns fully auto. If a gun maker where to sense that and cause the gun to stop functioning I don't see the moral outrage. Same with a cable box you can't modify it to get more channels then you are paying for etc....

Sure it's perfectly legal to install software on a computer you own. It's far more of dubious legality to install software with an express intent of breaking the security features of a said device for the purpose of getting features which were unavailable to you previously for free.

As far as the bricking there is no illegal malicious intent. This isn't a virus being spread with the purpose of destroying PS3's no matter what the cause. It's a last line of defense in security intrusion and one that is a risk you take if you try to hack your system. If you try to hack your system it may get bricked. There is no difference in my mind between bricking the system cause the hacker did something wrong and breaking the system cause the hacker did something wrong that allowed Soney to detect they were trying to break the system. It's a risk inherent of hacking if you don't like the risks don't hack the system it's that simple.

cjo

12-Jan-2011, 16:03

Except there are plenty of instances of no you can't. You can't modify a shotgun to make the barrel shorter then a certain length or make semi auto guns fully auto. If a gun maker where to sense that and cause the gun to stop functioning I don't see the moral outrage. Same with a cable box you can't modify it to get more channels then you are paying for etc....

There are laws against owning certain kinds of weapons, for the safety of the general public. This is enforced by the government.

Modifying hardware to be able to recieve a pay-for service for free is arguably theft (or similar), as you are modifying the thing with the sole purpose of avoiding paying them money.

The difference is by hacking at hardware to enable functionality that isn't otherwise provided, you aren't actively depriving them of revenue. You've bought the hardware. In this case, it is functionality that sony (sort of) supported in the past, and later removed. There are non-criminal use cases for this stuff. If this should be banned, by the same reasoning, bittorrent should be banned because it allows you to download illegal material.

If enabling your PS3 to run non-official code allows sony to brick your console, should having a bittorrent client installed should allow content producing companies to brick your PC for having a bittorrent client installed?

Xenus

12-Jan-2011, 16:12

No cause one is an open platform another is a closed platform. One is intended to run just about any code you can throw at it while the other isn't. There running any code you want isn't some kind of right on the 2nd device. though I'd prefer a less heavy handed measure of disabling a PS3's ability to ply PS3 games and blu-ray if you want you run any home brew you feel like it doesn't make it some kind of unalienable right to do whatever you feel like to a device as the device make just bends over and takes it up the ass so to speak.

novcze

12-Jan-2011, 17:58

cjo

12-Jan-2011, 18:11

Shifty Geezer

12-Jan-2011, 20:07

Sony bricking a PS3 is illegal, playing pirated games is illegal, Modifying hardware and installing a homebrew OS is NOT !I've covered this in the other thread, but legal isn't the same as moral, and even if one is outraged at the prospect of some forces getting to choose how we get to use our hardware or not, there is a legal argument to be said that this particular type of hack was only possible by breaking some laws. Thus making it illegal, even though the use of one's hardware to do what one wants with is legal. Where you have two opposing laws covering the same issue, the courts have to decide which laws take precedence. As an example, the R4 cartridge enables users to get much use out of their DSes than Nintendo allows, but the cartridge has been outlawed in the UK (http://www.mcvuk.com/news/40185/R4-made-illegal-in-UK)and Australia and Japan, but ruled legal in France (http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Nintendo-DS-France-Judge-Flash,news-5270.html).

On the one hand you have people buying hardware wanting freedom. On the other hand you have creators of content wanting protection from the ease of their content being pirated. These two interests are at odds, and the law courts constantly go back and forth deciding who's interests will be protected.

Scott_Arm

12-Jan-2011, 21:27

If Sony starts bricking consoles to an unrecoverable state, they will be committing the most massive error in the history of home consoles.

Xenus

13-Jan-2011, 01:47

Possibly I don't think there is anything legally or morally wrong with it but they risk serious public backlash by doing so.

itsmydamnation

13-Jan-2011, 05:30

Possibly I don't think there is anything legally or morally wrong with it but they risk serious public backlash by doing so.

yes and its seems like you are the only one :wink:
ballmer got his nickers in a knot a few years ago when a modchipper in aus was acquitted, he was acquitted for many of the reasons listed here such as when you buy a console you own it and can do what you want to it, modchips allowed import games to be played etc.

the funny thing is how different markets treat *ix differently. linksys actually made version of the routers that would still work with openwrt when they had some big hardware changes that caused it to become unuseable.

if companies dont want you to own your console then simply dont sell it, rent it :eek:

RenegadeRocks

13-Jan-2011, 06:48

yes and its seems like you are the only one :wink:
ballmer got his nickers in a knot a few years ago when a modchipper in aus was acquitted, he was acquitted for many of the reasons listed here such as when you buy a console you own it and can do what you want to it, modchips allowed import games to be played etc.

the funny thing is how different markets treat *ix differently. linksys actually made version of the routers that would still work with openwrt when they had some big hardware changes that caused it to become unuseable.

if companies dont want you to own your console then simply dont sell it, rent it :eek:

Yes, i own my PS3. I am not at the mercy of sony to use it. Its not a bloody subscription. I own it ! Sony sold it to me. If I install software in it to control my washing machine with it, Sony CANNOT brick my console. Sony CANNOT say I can't run my washing m/c with a gaming console.

Sony CAN say that they don't want their PS3 to be used that way, they can say that they won't help me if my ps3 doesn't work properly, but they CANNOT enter my house and brick my PS3 ! IT IS MINE ! They have no right over it anymore after I BOUGHT it from them. Sony providing services and upgrades for the ps3 to consumers is Sony's choice as they want more people to buy it. If I don't want any of those, Sony cannot brick my PS3. The service is Sony's, the hardware is mine.

If I say I don't want Sony OS and can run my ps3 on my own, I can. It doesn't matter that its a console and not a PC. If I find a way to run an OS on my DVD player and tell everyone about it, is it a crime ? No !

Don't bring in guns, my friend Xenus. Its not a bloody WMD that can't fall in wrong hands. its a simple Home entertainment system and no special laws apply to it.
If I pirate games, they can get police to confiscate the HDD on my PS3, but SONY cannot brick my ps3 ! If the police takes it from my house, fine, but Sony cannot. And if I am just running my own software on it, nobody can touch me.

Consider, I bought a Safe locker from a company. Once I bought it, I tried to dismantle it and see how the lock works. I succeed and I tell everyone "See, this is how the lock in this ultra secure safe locker works !" I can do that as the safe is mine and I have full right to dismantle it. if Sony's locks have failed, they will have to get new locks. It happens in bussiness.

I have not installed CFW or pirated stuff, but just the thought that Sony thinks it can brick my ps3 is revolting ! It is MINE !

Xenus

13-Jan-2011, 13:07

You are far to obsessed with this personal property I can do whatever I want to it. Simply put electronic devices are not like other devices. No one cares if you modify a fridge or a safe simply because there is no money lost for them in you doing so no one is harmed by your actions and honestly if you find a way to brick a safe/fridge whatever you'll be the first. Devices with software with a certain feature set are completely different. AS I said earlier this is far more akin to modifying your cable box so you can get dvr and free shows without paying the cable company. That is illegal. Running an OS like linux is one thing but when these same acts allow pirating of software that's illegal no matter how you want to privately justify it. Which in turn gives them legal grounds to stop you. Bricking the device is just one possible way of that happening. I don't see why everyone get's their panties in a twist over it. It is a possibility inherent with hacking that your device won't work when you are done. I guess they fear if they can brick their console for hacking next comes cheating and it's a slippery slope or so in their eyes. And as for modchips as shifty has said the courts have basically gone whichever way they feel like that day. There has been no be all consistent stance that this is legal tough luck.

NRP

14-Jan-2011, 02:44

Am I the only one who doesn't feel sorry for these dickwad hackers? I hope Sony ruins these fuckers.

lilbroK

14-Jan-2011, 02:53

Am I the only one who doesn't feel sorry for these dickwad hackers? I hope Sony ruins these fuckers.

Wow... why the hostility? They broke no laws. Also, why are you mentioning them? They aren't pirates, they are modders. There is a big difference.

AzBat

14-Jan-2011, 03:08

HyAUG0RmyD4

Tommy McClain

NRP

14-Jan-2011, 04:07

Wow... why the hostility? They broke no laws. Also, why are you mentioning them? They aren't pirates, they are modders. There is a big difference.
Bullshit. Enabling those who will pirate is no different than pirating yourself imo. You can tip-toe around the morality of their actions and pretend the "modders" are innocent victims all you want, but it doesn't change reality. :roll:

deathindustrial

14-Jan-2011, 04:43

Bullshit. Enabling those who will pirate is no different than pirating yourself imo. You can tip-toe around the morality of their actions and pretend the "modders" are innocent victims all you want, but it doesn't change reality. :roll:

Are you referring to Sony selling DVD and Blu-Ray burners? I agree, Sony can tiptoe around the morality all they want but they are just enabling piracy. Same for the "MP3 ripping" feature on the PS3, Sony is helping people steal music. Let's burn them at the stake!

TrungGap

14-Jan-2011, 04:55

If I modify a Ford's car to get an additional 25% MPG. It would reduce the oil companies' revenue by 25%. Now, what if Ford took royalty from the oil companies. Imagine, if Ford could choose different type of fuel, but chooses gasoline, because the oil company would provide a kick-back.

You can substitute Ford's car with anything, printer - ink cartridge, fridge and electricity. For an example, imagine a GE asking for a kick-back from the electric companies...But you modified it to use solar.

Now, if you modified the electric metering (which you don't own) and take electricity (that you don't own), then this is illegal. But modifying an electric metering that you own is not illegal (as long as you don't take electricity that you don't own).

lilbroK

14-Jan-2011, 05:54

Are you referring to Sony selling DVD and Blu-Ray burners? I agree, Sony can tiptoe around the morality all they want but they are just enabling piracy. Same for the "MP3 ripping" feature on the PS3, Sony is helping people steal music. Let's burn them at the stake!

Aye, I cannot deny this.

RenegadeRocks

14-Jan-2011, 05:56

RenegadeRocks

14-Jan-2011, 06:22

HyAUG0RmyD4

Tommy McClain

I love it, He says, "The case is all about whether you really own that device that you purchased !" Exactly what I was talking about in the ethics thread.

I think by sueing and all that Sony is creating much more awareness about the hack than, say , when the X360 got hacked. I still don't know how to hack a 360, but now, thanx to the hoopla, I know exactly how to install CFW on my ps3.

Rotmm

14-Jan-2011, 06:33

HyAUG0RmyD4&feature=player_embedded

GeoHtoz on some TV program called "The Loop" !

Awesome stuff! Where did you find the video? Was it 5 posts above your own? :p

I know exactly how to install CFW on my ps3.

I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying I'd know how to do it (because (a) I don't and (b) it's still dead and I just can't bring myself to buy one of those fugly 'slims') but it's true that this lawsuit is going to get the mainstream media interested, therefore advertising to the wider PS3 owning audience the fact you can (potentially) play pirated software.

Truly great move by Sony.

aaronspink

14-Jan-2011, 06:41

Bullshit. Enabling those who will pirate is no different than pirating yourself imo. You can tip-toe around the morality of their actions and pretend the "modders" are innocent victims all you want, but it doesn't change reality. :roll:

So, what you are saying is that Sony should be suing Sony because they've enabled pirate for decades! After all, a large percentage of piracy wouldn't have been possible without sony, sony's inventions, and sony's products.

Do we next start arresting college professors because they teach classes on security which enables pirates to learn about security and how to break it?

Your argument has no basis.

Shifty Geezer

14-Jan-2011, 09:48

Wow... why the hostility? They broke no laws. Also, why are you mentioning them? They aren't pirates, they are modders. There is a big difference.We don't know if they broke any laws or not yet. Sony think they did. Others think they didn't. These differences of opinion can only be resolved in court, or one side backing down. And the way the law works, no-one of sound and rational mind can actaully predict outcomes. Something might seem patently legal and they may still lose in court.

We can discuss the ethics, whether it's right or wrong, but we can't really discuss the legality other than our own interpretations of the law.

senas8

05-Feb-2011, 16:49

Running a different OS on a device instead of one which was supplied with it is not a crime. No corporation can remotely kill an entertainment system cos I decided to run a different software on it.

@Xenus: What is mine is mine. I have given my money for it and I own it now. They chose to take my money in return for full rights over their product. That is what buying something means, you seem to think its being possessive. There is nothing more discuss about it.

You keep talking about stealing stuff, which I ain't talking about.

Speaking of different OS, screen shots included posted today. Is this not something everyone using linux would love? : http://dukio.com/full-working-linux-341-ps3-screenshots-grafchokolo.html
Benefits: "It has all GameOS features, it has access to all HDD, VFLASH and FLASH regions. It can communicate with Dispatcher Manager, Update Manager, SYSCON Manager, it can run isolated SPUs, and of course RSX. CORE OS and GameOS firmware updates are possible now from Linux because we have access to Dispatcher Manager and Update Manager of Hypervisor
Linux can do now everything what GameOS can do."
The Debian distribution used here is a just normal PPC64 Linux without any modification. :P

green.pixel

07-Feb-2011, 12:19

So, what you are saying is that Sony should be suing Sony because they've enabled pirate for decades! After all, a large percentage of piracy wouldn't have been possible without sony, sony's inventions, and sony's products.

Do we next start arresting college professors because they teach classes on security which enables pirates to learn about security and how to break it?

Home (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3jkUhG68wY) taping killed (http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/) the music, didn't you know. And couple of decades later, OiNK (http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2007/10/trent-reznor-on/) put a nail in its coffin.

senas8

09-Feb-2011, 19:49

Kevin Butler oops! Unbelievable! "Sony Marketing Man Tweets PS3 Master Key" http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/02/09/1412253/Sony-Marketing-Man-Tweets-PS3-Master-Key

I.S.T.

10-Feb-2011, 03:27

Oh, damn that is funny.

eastmen

15-Feb-2011, 10:09

I'm just happy that i can play games on my ps3 again. Friggen dead bluray drive. Uncharted 2 here i come

corduroygt

15-Feb-2011, 19:25

I'm just happy that i can play games on my ps3 again. Friggen dead bluray drive. Uncharted 2 here i come
Are you admitting to piracy?

Shifty Geezer

15-Feb-2011, 19:38

bomlat

15-Feb-2011, 19:58

No, because he's bought those games but can't play them. Unless you think eastmen has bought a PS3 and no games on it until piracy was enabled; at which point how does he know his BRD drive is bust if he's not trying to play actual disc games?

20-40 pounds a new BR laser assembly.

TheWretched

16-Feb-2011, 09:50

Well it depends... in Germany for example, it's illegal to circumvent (working) copy protections (the law says "working"... there's no definition on that... if a protection is broken, does it still work?)... running PS3 isos off of the HDD would then be illegal, even if he owned the games. But I doubt anyone would sue him because of it... I did the same with my PS2 years ago, when my DVD drive started to die.

Toaddio

16-Feb-2011, 17:43

eastmen

16-Feb-2011, 17:47

Are you admitting to piracy?

I own Killzone 2 , uncharted 1 + 2 , little big planet 1 , resistance

My bluray drive on the my ps3 broke awhile ago , if you search you can see me mention it and sony wants alot of money to fix it ( I believe they said $120 to fix the drive and the power button ) and its not worth it to me since i barely play the ps3 .

The custom firmware is letting me play games again which is great for me

Toaddio

16-Feb-2011, 18:00

The custom firmware is letting me play games again which is great for me

That doesn't answer the question. You may still legally be a pirate and while illegal, discussing it here is probably also against the rules of the forum.

Shifty Geezer

16-Feb-2011, 18:36

That doesn't answer the question. You may still legally be a pirate and while illegal, discussing it here is probably also against the rules of the forum.It's not as clear cut as that though. Is piracy the act of downloading an illicit copy of a game, or the act of playing a game without renumerating those who created it? Surely someone who buys the game new giving money to the developer and publisher and then downloads a copy to play, has the moral highground over someone who buys a lawful second-hand copy getting the game without giving anything to those who made it? This is really a moral discussion and doesn't belong here, but me, as a mod, has nothing against eastmen saying he's going to use custom FW to play games he bought and therefore has a right to play. Anyone passing links to download titles, or wanting to play games without paying for them (does that include second hand buyers?) - that sort of blatant piracy will not be tolerated. If another mod wants to go all hardline and remove eastmen's post, they are free to do so!

eastmen

16-Feb-2011, 18:42

That doesn't answer the question. You may still legally be a pirate and while illegal, discussing it here is probably also against the rules of the forum.

I'm not sure how that would make me a pirate , i paid for the ps3 and for the software. so what exactly did i steal ? There is no piracy involved.

Shifty Geezer Quote:
Originally Posted by Toaddio
That doesn't answer the question. You may still legally be a pirate and while illegal, discussing it here is probably also against the rules of the forum.

It's not as clear cut as that though. Is piracy the act of downloading an illicit copy of a game, or the act of playing a game without renumerating those who created it? Surely someone who buys the game new giving money to the developer and publisher and then downloads a copy to play, has the moral highground over someone who buys a lawful second-hand copy getting the game without giving anything to those who made it? This is really a moral discussion and doesn't belong here, but me, as a mod, has nothing against eastmen saying he's going to use custom FW to play games he bought and therefore has a right to play. Anyone passing links to download titles, or wanting to play games without paying for them (does that include second hand buyers?) - that sort of blatant piracy will not be tolerated. If another mod wants to go all hardline and remove eastmen's post, they are free to do so!

I wont be posting any links of the sort so you don't have to worry about that.

I also have a flash cart for my ds , but i own all 15 games that are on the flash cart , it makes my life easier having to not carry anything aside from the ds when i'm out on the road and i have acess to all my games without a real fear of loosing them

bomlat

16-Feb-2011, 18:48

I own Killzone 2 , uncharted 1 + 2 , little big planet 1 , resistance

My bluray drive on the my ps3 broke awhile ago , if you search you can see me mention it and sony wants alot of money to fix it ( I believe they said $120 to fix the drive and the power button ) and its not worth it to me since i barely play the ps3 .

The custom firmware is letting me play games again which is great for me
http://cgi.ebay.com/Blu-Ray-Drive-w-KES-410A-KEM-410ACA-Laser-Lens-ps3-/170515914011?pt=Video_Games_Accessories&hash=item27b38a5d1b

42$ the KES-400A laser assy.
Not cheap,but cost as much as a game......

And if you disassembly the ps3 then change the thermal compound too.

If you are brave enough to install CFW then you can be brave enough to swap the laser assy for a new one.

-tkf-

16-Feb-2011, 18:56

It's not as clear cut as that though. Is piracy the act of downloading an illicit copy of a game, or the act of playing a game without renumerating those who created it? Surely someone who buys the game new giving money to the developer and publisher and then downloads a copy to play, has the moral highground over someone who buys a lawful second-hand copy getting the game without giving anything to those who made it? This is really a moral discussion and doesn't belong here, but me, as a mod, has nothing against eastmen saying he's going to use custom FW to play games he bought and therefore has a right to play. Anyone passing links to download titles, or wanting to play games without paying for them (does that include second hand buyers?) - that sort of blatant piracy will not be tolerated. If another mod wants to go all hardline and remove eastmen's post, they are free to do so!

I absolutely support Eastmen in his right to play his purchases by any means necessary i do think that there should be some cool headed judgement on a case by case basis. Someone that maybe just read one post out of posters 1000+ post history may think that it´s a pirate and why is he allowed to brag?

Just as it´s ok to backup movies and cd´s and play them without the actual copy being present it should be considered ok to play the games you own.

The picture is muddy if it´s not your own backup and you downloaded someones copy, be it movie,music or game. Morally right, i think so. Legally not so sure.

Toaddio

16-Feb-2011, 19:36

This is really a moral discussion and doesn't belong here, but me, as a mod, has nothing against eastmen saying he's going to use custom FW to play games he bought and therefore has a right to play. Anyone passing links to download titles, or wanting to play games without paying for them (does that include second hand buyers?) - that sort of blatant piracy will not be tolerated.

1) He's not playing a game he paid for. He's playing a game he downloaded.
2) What if someone shares a link for people to download a game that they've bought but want to play on a PS3 they've modded?

AlphaWolf

16-Feb-2011, 19:50

1) He's not playing a game he paid for. He's playing a game he downloaded.

Perhaps he ripped it himself. I don't see where he says he downloaded it.

2) What if someone shares a link for people to download a game that they've bought but want to play on a PS3 they've modded?
Why don't you try posting a link and see what happens...

Or perhaps you could just read the forum rules instead of clogging up the thread with petty stupidity.

N_B

16-Feb-2011, 19:55

Perhaps he ripped it himself. I don't see where he says he downloaded it.

Can't rip a game with a broken BD drive.

BRiT

16-Feb-2011, 19:56

Can't rip a game with a broken BD drive.

Not even on a PC with a working BD drive?

N_B

16-Feb-2011, 20:03

Wouldn't that require a backup manager that's been made for PC?

betan

16-Feb-2011, 20:04

Perhaps he ripped it himself. I don't see where he says he downloaded it.

Not even on a PC with a working BD drive?

Just out of curiosity, would it be piracy if he downloaded it?

corduroygt

16-Feb-2011, 20:11

The ethics of downloading stuff that you already own and paid for can certainly be debated, I see nothing wrong with it personally since no one is being cheated out of a sale. However as far as US copyright law is concerned, it's illegal.

Shifty Geezer

16-Feb-2011, 20:45

1) He's not playing a game he paid for. He's playing a game he downloaded.If he bought the game, he bought the rights to play it. How does it matter ( morally, not legally) whether that code gets onto his PS3 via disc of download or USB storage?
2) What if someone shares a link for people to download a game that they've bought but want to play on a PS3 they've modded?That would obviously be a no-no because sharing of links to ripped software is not allowed as scum will use it to play games for free. However, that's not the same as playing games you have paid for.

According to the letter of the law, eastmen should either try and fix his hardware himself, or pay a lot of money to someone else. However, in principle he is entitled to play the games he purchased, and it's only a matter of bad luck that he can't. Playing downloads of those games isn't a moral crime any more than buyers of PC games using the cracked version because the official game's DRM is so intrusive.

BRiT

16-Feb-2011, 20:47

Seeing as this topic has been properly moved ...

On a similar notion to what corduroygt said, the act of backing up an item you physically own may be illegal thanks to some clauses in the DMCA even though having a backup of an item can fall under the fair-use statutes of copyright and thus is not illegal. The content owners seem to have lobbied successfully for a damned if you do, damned if you don't legal situation.

As for the ethics of the entire thing, I suppose it depends on the view you take with the media and the sales of it. Did they sell you the right to use and access the content in any form or only to use the content on that physical media and as they see fit?

AntShaw

16-Feb-2011, 20:52

I fully support Eastman, because I'm looking to do the same thing. I currently own 2 semi working PS3's. As of now, 1 of them is being used strictly as a PSN game playing device and Media Server from my NAS because of a failed BRD drive (2nd one). It kills me that I have no way to play some of the 30+ BR PS3 games that I've purchased on my device. Much like Eastman, I refused Sony's $150 repair for the drive after I've already purchased 4 PS3's in my lifetime.

Shifty Geezer

16-Feb-2011, 20:58

That's covered in the medium and stuff though. Developers make the games to make money. Gamers play the games for fun. A fair trade exists between the gamers and developers (and publishers for investment) when the gamers pay to play the games. As long as the publisher gets paid what they want to be paid, that trade remains fair. If the publishers want to charge more than the gamers want to pay, the gamer only has the right to refuse payment, not to pick their own pricepoint. If a publisher wants to charge a subscription fee or DRM to lock the license to a particular machine and prevent non-paying users, they are entitled to do so. It all remains fair within the principals of a mutual trade.

I don't see anything anywhere that suggests a purchasing a game disk is only entitlement to put that disk in your machine and use whatever happens as a result. If a disk is faulty and you cannot access the content, you are entitled to a new disk, hence the disk itself is not being purchase; it's the right and access to the content that a gamer buys. You are free to copy your bought CDs, even though there are services to sell digital copies, because you bought access to the music. Well, until the DMCA screwed things up. :roll:

As long as the gamer pays the publisher's required fees, what aspect of the trade is being violated? There is an IP right to prevent distribution without agreement, which is where the host sites are in the wrong supplying such files, but there's no IP infringement by a person using that data if they've already paid for full access to it on another media. And as I said, downloading the game data of a game you have bought at retail is a darn sight more morally sound than buying a game cheap second hand, getting exactly the same experience as if buying new, but paying absolutely nothing to the people who created that experience that you enjoy.

Nesh

17-Feb-2011, 00:55

Wow... why the hostility? They broke no laws. Also, why are you mentioning them? They aren't pirates, they are modders. There is a big difference.

Well if they want to mod their console to add some additional functionality for personal use I dont think Sony would have been involved. By the time they made it run illegal software that may have negative impact on the product's sales and release the means to do so to everyone, then....there seems to be a problem.

But I can see some that will face consequences without having fault unfortunately.

eastmen

17-Feb-2011, 08:00

http://cgi.ebay.com/Blu-Ray-Drive-w-KES-410A-KEM-410ACA-Laser-Lens-ps3-/170515914011?pt=Video_Games_Accessories&hash=item27b38a5d1b

42$ the KES-400A laser assy.
Not cheap,but cost as much as a game......

And if you disassembly the ps3 then change the thermal compound too.

If you are brave enough to install CFW then you can be brave enough to swap the laser assy for a new one.

Here is the thing , thats $50 bucks after shipping , cfw was free , not only that but the cfw is loading my games faster than before .

Toaddio Quote:
Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer
This is really a moral discussion and doesn't belong here, but me, as a mod, has nothing against eastmen saying he's going to use custom FW to play games he bought and therefore has a right to play. Anyone passing links to download titles, or wanting to play games without paying for them (does that include second hand buyers?) - that sort of blatant piracy will not be tolerated.

1) He's not playing a game he paid for. He's playing a game he downloaded.
2) What if someone shares a link for people to download a game that they've bought but want to play on a PS3 they've modded?

Its very simple , I just used another ps3 to rip the titles to my external hardrive and then loaded them onto my ps3's hardrive.

If you really need me to , i can take a picture of all the games i have .