41–50 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then Sony's console business would go bankrupt? But seriously, except for scientific computing, the PS3 was a terrible Linux system, especially for the price. Is this really about restoring functionality, or is it just punishment?
It can't be both?
If you watched the CCC presentation on the PS3, you know these people are more interested in running their own software than breaking the console to play pirated games. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbUVgxw1yWc (30 seconds)
Other formats here: http://events.ccc.de/congress/2010/wiki/Conference_Recording...; slides and links here: http://events.ccc.de/congress/2010/Fahrplan/events/4087.en.h...
Judging from a lot of the comments on this topic and others many geeks don't believe intellectual property should be protected. When someone creates a platform (Heroku, Facebook, Apple's App Store) they have a right to lock it down. If you don't believe in that don't buy the product!
It's not a cut-and-dry matter of whether intellectual property "should be protected". I think most hackers expect some protection in the form of copyright. However, most hackers are also tinkerers and are disturbed that current IP law so heavily favors corporate interests, even to the extent where you cannot use something you rightfully own according to your own desires. Would you buy an oven if there was a big label…
This is often cited as the reason for copyright. Was this the actual historical reason, or just some windowdressing after the fact? (And the wording of the law in America doesn't count. It that argument hold any water, the USA PATRIOT Act wouldn't be so funny.)
Wikipedia has something like "The origin of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers." and similar lines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EULA's have nothing to do with copyright, it's plain contract law. If you and I are neighbors and we agree that you I will pay you 250$ a month to not park you car in front of my house (while you legally have a right to do so), should that not be allowed? If I am a shoe manufacturer with local retail outlets you and I agree that I will sell you my shoes for reselling overseas, but part of the agreement is that you wo…
Technically yes, except with a PS3 your purchase amounts to agreement with the EULA; it's tucked away in a manual that no one reads, or at best is shown to the user on a screen during setup which is simply clicked through. Most people don't realize that they aren't buying the physical machine, they're buying the right to use the physical machine in approved ways only (this may be technically untrue, but it's certainl…
You say the contract is 'unethical'; I understand that position and in some cases agree, to an extent. But do you agree with me that even if it's unethical, the principle is still sound and that the contract should be both enforceable and enforced?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then Sony's console business would go bankrupt? But seriously, except for scientific computing, the PS3 was a terrible Linux system, especially for the price. Is this really about restoring functionality, or is it just punishment?
The PS3 is now viable as a new host platform for XMBC (XBox Media Center). >Then Sony's console business would go bankrupt? The Music and Movie industries continue to stay in business even in the face of piracy. Wake me up when PS3 pirating comes close to the level of Napster. I'm not justifying piracy, just saying that Sony should be more worried about their real competitors.
Guess it's time to fork git://xbmc.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/xbmc/xbmc but I'd almost prefer to take a wait and see approach with Sony's first salvo against custom firmware users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I'm right though, that's only a proposed restraining order? Or do I have the wrong end of the stick?
I think you're right. There's no signature from a judge at the bottom, which suggests this is something they're submitting to the court in the hopes of having it approved. IANAL, so I don't know how that would work.
> IT IS ORDERED that SCEA shall post a bond in the amount of $_______ as security...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a cut-and-dry matter of whether intellectual property "should be protected". I think most hackers expect some protection in the form of copyright. However, most hackers are also tinkerers and are disturbed that current IP law so heavily favors corporate interests, even to the extent where you cannot use something you rightfully own according to your own desires. Would you buy an oven if there was a big label…
> Copyright was originated to make the creation of intellectual property economically worthwhile so that more intellectual content could be produced and distributed. This is often cited as the reason for copyright. Was this the actual historical reason, or just some windowdressing after the fact? (And the wording of the law in America doesn't count. It that argument hold any water, the USA PATRIOT Act wouldn't be so…
http://moralpanicsandthecopyrightwars.blogspot.com/
And I know it's not the first copyright law (we flaunted it for years before developing our own), but the reason copyright is allowed in the USA is, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Judging from a lot of the comments on this topic and others many geeks don't believe intellectual property should be protected. When someone creates a platform (Heroku, Facebook, Apple's App Store) they have a right to lock it down. If you don't believe in that don't buy the product!
It's not a cut-and-dry matter of whether intellectual property "should be protected". I think most hackers expect some protection in the form of copyright. However, most hackers are also tinkerers and are disturbed that current IP law so heavily favors corporate interests, even to the extent where you cannot use something you rightfully own according to your own desires. Would you buy an oven if there was a big label…
It depends. Did they sell me the oven at below cost, and their plan for not losing money overall depends on people not using the ovens for brownies? If that were the case, I'd consider buying the oven and satisfying my brownie desires some other way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I buy physical goods, I have an expectation that I completely own it and can do with it whatever I want, and can share my experience completely with others. What Sony is trying to say is that when you buy a PS3 you are sort of renting it, and they still own what you can and can't do with it. Perhaps because they are selling it at a loss so they can make money when you buy games. I think that in this case they shou…
It may seem like renting to you, but unfortunately those licensing terms you agree to when you open a package of new hardware or install a piece of software, are legal. It is a shame, but if you don't agree to it, don't buy and use the product. Sony, in this case, has strong reasons for wanting to protect their console. Namely because of the contracts they hold with certain chip makers, and because they are expecting…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea. Seriously, don't know why sony is making fools out of themselves - seems like act of desperation. Just move on to innovating a newer version with more security. I guess lot of game developers are not happy with this.
Why should they move to a newer version? Can't they just drop the `security'?