Do people have the right to take consoles and especially consoles sold at a loss and repurpose them for other uses? I can understand maybe after 5 years since release or maybe after the hardware itself has been discontinued, but it seems like it breaches an implicit contract between the buyer and the seller that the buyer only use the device as intended. To me CFW for that reason is morally wrong, at least within a few short years after release as applies to consoles anyway.
Sony Disable “Install Other OS” in firmware (v3.21)
- Thread starter Alucardx23
- Start date
From the PS3 security thread in the B3D console tech forum.
http://psinsider.e-mpire.com/index.php?categoryid=17&m_articles_articleid=1572
Pirating, CWF or not, I must say that the boy needs props for his skills, if this i legit of course.
http://psinsider.e-mpire.com/index.php?categoryid=17&m_articles_articleid=1572
Pirating, CWF or not, I must say that the boy needs props for his skills, if this i legit of course.
Absolutely. It's not my problem the companies are selling their products at a loss. I can take it home and let my cat piss all over it or do whatever else I want with the product. I made a clean transaction which gives me sole ownership of the merchandise. This is something that people need to grasp a little better.
However, if I alter the product in a manner that does not comply with the company other offerings associated to said product, they are well within their right to block me from using those services.
It's a very simple concept that somehow gets horribly skewed on both extremes by "hackers" with entitlement mentalities or the corporate apologists.
This graph, based off of US NPD disagrees, PS3 software revenue compared to its install base is far higher than the other 2.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4299/npd_behind_the_numbers_february_.php
At work, so I don't have time to hunt down a link, but it has also been noted that PS3 games tend to see fewer and later price drops relative to 360 games (possibly only applies to exclusives though) and the Wii's games are $10 cheaper. There are way too many variables involved to use this as proof of piracy/no piracy making a major difference in software revenue.
You own the box.
The main problem with CFW is no one can control/enforce its intended use, and no one is responsible for the bad effects.
It has nice effects for the consumers (which is why some champion it), but the same people are not accountable for the bad effects. Everyone has a partial view of the whole picture.
I get the feeling that Linux is getting "used" as the champion right now. If GameOS is compromised, most people will shift their focus there just because it's the place where all PS3 users come together. If GameOS is not compromised, it would be interesting to see whether we have full RSX access in Linux, or PS3 BeOS, or a better XMB than Sony's XMB. ^_^
What if the company detects your modification and alters the box so it will no longer work ever again by blowing a fuse inside the CPU? Is that not also within their rights? Thats the extent of the limit of a potential response from the companies in question. If people have the right to hack, do the companies have the right to brick?
Edit: This applies to Patsu as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's true of anything. No-one can enforce a chainsaw to not be used to cut people up. The best you can do is catch criminals after the fact. Nothing should be banned on account of it could be used for bad things unless it evidentally is to be used for bad things, otherwise we'd ban everything!
No they do not. They have the right to discontinue your usage of their service because you failed to be in complaince with their pre requisites. That's it.
Definitely not! Once I have bought the console from them, it belongs to me. If they brick it, they are guilty of criminal damage. They have no more right to destroy my console as they have to destroy my TV, fridge, cuddly toy or curtains. The only way they could maintain rights on usage policy is if the lease the hardware instead of sell it. If I were renting my PS3, Sony could have a policy that I am not allowed to adjust the firmware otherwise the contract is voided and I have to return the console.
When someone is cut to pieces and goes missing, it's a bit easier to find / punish and enforce than a 16 year old with a laptop downloading games illegally from place to place, don't you think?
I stand by the fact that you cannot justify CFW that allows someone to obtain and use something illegally. Period. If you do, you are a part of the problem, and are just as bad as the pirates.
Doesn't mean they're caught (plenty of murders get away, not to mention even lower capture-rate crimes like burglary), and that example doesn't just change the principle of the thing either. How a thing is used is not the responsibility of anyone but the owner. In a bizarre comparison, it is legal to sell and own speed-camera detectors in the UK, but it is illegal to use them. That's one of those oddities where the only use is really to break the law but people are still allowed to sell them. CFW on the other hand has been shown to have benefits beyond criminal piracy, even if that's the principle reason to use CFW.
It's a matter of risk assessment.
In the chainsaw example, you only highlight one general enforcement approach; but there are a lot of differences between a chainsaw incident (or war) and a piracy ecosystem. It's also not about civic safety. It's about consumer rights vs corporate profitability.
A company can choose to defend its position before the threat happens. The problem is Sony reacting in a silent, unfriendly and one sided way.
Any modification to your fridge, cuddly toy or curtains are done at your own risk correct? In addition to this, there has never been a successful case bought against Apple or anyone else for that matter in instances where custom firmware has resulted in the bricking of a device. If it so happens that inserting a disc or operating a program with X not supported firmware results in Y, bricked console then they are absolved of responsibility are they not? Even if the bricking is totally deliberate they can wash their hands of responsibility so long as the vector for that bricking is not arbitrary and results directly from user action. The reason? They can always say that you bricked it, not them.
I suspect their rights go beyond just accessing certain services. For example Microsoft was able to remove the ability to install games to the HDD of consoles deemed to be compromised. This goes beyond a service to an actual feature inside of the consoles. Bricking in this case is simply an extension of something they have already done and the complete removal of all services offered by the console.
There's a German saying I'll roughly translate as "No trial without a complaint". You may theoretically bump into someone who minds whatever you do, and then you'll be in hot water. But if nobody feels particularly bothered about your activites, the state won't press the issue on its own.
I think that's the principle behind all these "illegal to use, legal to trade" things, and there are actually a bunch of them.
Don´t they have the right to brick it and offer a "reboot" with a new firmware? If you go online with a CFW i think you are breaking some (maybe far stretched) rules and they could (should imho) be allowed to kill your machines custom firmware.
corduroygt
Banned
That's irrelevant sincce companies price their games to make the most profit, and don't care how many copies they sell, it's about profit. They could have given less discounts for 360 games and priced the wii games higher, but that's not what brings them the most profit Similarly for the PS3, reducing prices doesn't give them more profit to offset the price reduciton it seems.
Anyway in the end, the actual revenue matters since that determines the profit, and that chart is very valid. PS3 is able to generate much more sw revenue than expected from its user base.
corduroygt
Banned
Forget cable boxes, how does Microsoft get away with permanently criplling a modded xbox? I'm not talking about banning from the live service, which is completely their right, but they're actually sending a kill code to the customer's unit and revoking the CPU encryption keys, preventing them from using their hdd's and some other things I believe.
