Sony Responds To PS3 Hacks

Discussion in 'Gaming News Discussion' started by comp_ali, Jan 6, 2011.

  1. Trusteft

    Trusteft HH's Asteroids' Dominator

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2004
    Messages:
    21,835
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    Trophy Points:
    153
    First of all, they are not hackers, they are crackers.

    As for the rest, it sounds like a blackmail, either you release your console as we want it, or we will break it open and damage you financially.
    I don't react well to blackmail and I hope Sony doesn't either.
     
  2. blibbax

    blibbax nahm8

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    6,210
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    73
    I'm with Ivan and Erroneous. When you buy a games console you buy a physical object. It's not up to Sony to decide what you do with it. If they don't want people to use their products for anything other than a specific purpose with their licensed software, frankly they're in the wrong business.
     
  3. Erroneus

    Erroneus Get off my lawn!

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2002
    Messages:
    13,727
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    103
    That depend of if you approve of their work or don't.

    You can call blackmail, it doesn't make the problem anything different. I can't understand why Sony hasn't learn from previous experience, Nintendo, Microsoft and Sega. Or maybe you are right, they will not realize the facts and think their were smart enough to avoid hackers opening it up. Again if you decide to go into a fight with hackers, you better damn be sure your security are top notch. This was sadly proved by fail0verflow, not to be the case with the PS3.
     
  4. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    38,669
    Likes Received:
    974
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Legally under most situations...... Any item or peice of hardware for whatever it is..... cannot even under contract usually, IF the hardware itself is BUILT IN... removed ever if sold with such a feature...

    Perhaps not in all countries... but least in canada, you cannot go in afterwards and pull anything out that is physically part of the house.

    Even with an agreement written up and "agreed to" AFTER the building has been purchased can be fought and legally won because it's ilegal to issue an agreement like that anyways. The agreement must be something the purchaser can choose first on. The seller can make a suggestion during or after the purchase, but if the purchaser doesn't want to, that's their right.

    This also applies to products sold such as the playstation. It is ilegal for sony to provide an agreement after purchase in which they can modify the console to the extent of actually removing an advertised feature, at which point the purchaser can do with it whatever he wants. This applies to all products.

    I know that in canada, the customer generally has more power in the realms of being the purchaser of any product out there then in the states usually from what i've read. It isn't much... but i know that technically, lets take satalite stealing signals situation, technically it's only ilegal for say a business to give information on how to do it. However it is not ilegal for me to sell a product that is capable of doing it provided it is not setup to do so initially, the owner can modify it EVEN if the agreement for the product is breached (which is similare to that of the playstation), but due to the canadian laws... the owner of the product has the right to modify it to any wish they like, they however cannot sell it to another user in that condition "legally"... but they can steal satalite to their hearts content and even if a police officer walked into the house and saw they were stealing... they couldn't do anything.

    Recently in the states they've been passing bills and admendmants left and right to further protect large corporations (while in the same breath killing small businesses)....

    but i do know that the legal bit varies from country to country....

    And frankly, I'm glad i'm in canada for at least this one reason. Because the modification of any product that we've purchased should never be ilegal. It's done all the time, and frankly, it spurs further invention and advancement.

    I'm puzzled by your last statement.

    Isn't this the way things should be?

    Customers should always have the power to destroy a corporation if they screw up or make a terrible product or don't do what the customers demand.

    If i produce something of bad quality or do something in bad taste that the general population doesn't like in terms of a product...... or does something that goes against what the customers want from my products..... how could i not expect either mass boycotting or even attacks from them in some form or another?

    No company/corp/whatever should EVER produce a product that goes AGAINST what the customer want. It doesn't make sense too at all. The demand is for something..... you don't bite the hand that feeds you in this respect.

    It's bad enough that many customers today are being baby fed what they are, and the roles have reversed to where the corporations are the ones feeding us.... when it should be the other way around. Who put them where they are? The public/customers...... there no damn good reason why it is now to the point where the corporation are saying they can dictate everything to us....

    but unfortunately, they are sitting around several countries presidents and primeministers, their they entire forearm up most of all of their asses like puppets.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2011
    comp_ali likes this.
  5. Just Learnin'

    Just Learnin' New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,414
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So if someone sells you a glass of water advertising how fancy the glass is but suddenly takes the glass away before you can drink the water you are ok with that? I mean providing they didn't state that they would not dump your water out and take the glass back in the sales contract?

    It just seems to me a blatant case of false advertising/theft by Sony.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2011
  6. Trusteft

    Trusteft HH's Asteroids' Dominator

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2004
    Messages:
    21,835
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    Trophy Points:
    153
    a glass of water? why not a glass of happiness? Or baby's laughter?

    I didn't see the crackers going all ape shit for Sony releasing PS3s that cannot play PS2 games in Europe. Yet, they were sold as such. Of course if you looked closer, they clearly stated that the European ones won't be able to.

    It doesn't matter if one considers an action ethical or not. The reason it doesn't matter is because it is highly subjective and impossible to be objective when there are things to gain or lose. That's why there are laws and contracts, so that we don't end up in an anarchic society.

    As long as there was part of the contract that they can remove/disable features, they had every right to do so and the crackers had no right to do what they did.
    If one supports either action, is irrelevant to what is done.
     

Share This Page

visited