It is interesting to see how fast this key spreads over the net. At the moment, a quick google search shows 26,700 results: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22C0+CE+FE+84+C2+27+F7+5B%22
Results counts on Google are wildly inaccurate.
PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued
61–70 of 104 posts
Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Sorry but that doesn't make sense. When you buy from a supplier, you are already bound by a number of contractual stipulations, (almost) nobody reads those, either. They're still enforceable, there are mountains of jurisprudence on that. Should contracts be void because one of the parties can't be bothered to check the content of the agreement? Or should suppliers force users to read the contract to be enforceable? S…
Is there actual case law supporting the notion that I can be party to a contract on the basis of a bunch of legalese buried in a manual I'll never read, for a product I purchased through a third party?
I paid for a product, I own it. If Sony wants ridiculously extended protections that turn the arrangement into some kind of conditional rental, they'd damned well better force the Walmarts of the world to have us sign documents to that effect at the point of purchase. This implicit agreement stuff is nonsense.
Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued
#63If 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)
Sony doesn't get a cut when people play games they've made themselves. If people play their own games, then they have less time to play games where Sony does get a cut, so it hurts them in just the same way that pirated games do. This is going to be a problem one way or another as long as the cost of the hardware is subsidised.
Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Sorry but that doesn't make sense. When you buy from a supplier, you are already bound by a number of contractual stipulations, (almost) nobody reads those, either. They're still enforceable, there are mountains of jurisprudence on that. Should contracts be void because one of the parties can't be bothered to check the content of the agreement? Or should suppliers force users to read the contract to be enforceable? S…
These things are intentionally made unreadable though. I'd be surprised if even people that spend a lot of time reading and encountering legal terms could sit through one unless they were trying to do something unusual and what to cover themselves.
Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry but that doesn't make sense. When you buy from a supplier, you are already bound by a number of contractual stipulations, (almost) nobody reads those, either. They're still enforceable, there are mountains of jurisprudence on that. Should contracts be void because one of the parties can't be bothered to check the content of the agreement? Or should suppliers force users to read the contract to be enforceable? S…
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? That's total nonsense, at least in my country. Any abusive clause would be nulified, even if the rest of the contract is valid. You can't put in a contract anything. You can't give up rights that the law gives you no matter what. I.e. you can't sign to be a slave.
That's not what I said. Of course there are things that can't be contractually agreed. I hope you see the difference in moral weight that contracts to commit murder or be someone's slave have when compared to contracts that stipulate certain restrictions on the use of objects, restrictions that don't influence the normal, primary use case of the object.
Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued
#66It is interesting to see how fast this key spreads over the net. At the moment, a quick google search shows 26,700 results: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22C0+CE+FE+84+C2+27+F7+5B%22
Results counts on Google are wildly inaccurate.
It's still a data point to take. How else do you propose to measure the popularity of one thing on internet (in a quick way) ?
Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry but that doesn't make sense. When you buy from a supplier, you are already bound by a number of contractual stipulations, (almost) nobody reads those, either. They're still enforceable, there are mountains of jurisprudence on that. Should contracts be void because one of the parties can't be bothered to check the content of the agreement? Or should suppliers force users to read the contract to be enforceable? S…
Is there actual case law supporting the notion that I can be party to a contract on the basis of a bunch of legalese buried in a manual I'll never read, for a product I purchased through a third party? I paid for a product, I own it. If Sony wants ridiculously extended protections that turn the arrangement into some kind of conditional rental, they'd damned well better force the Walmarts of the world to have us sign…
Yes, there is. I can't easily present a list, especially not one that shows it for multiple jurisdictions, but EULA's have existed since the 1980's at least and the general concept is well-accepted, in many countries.
(there are discussions over implementation details: is a eula that is only shown after you install the software which is in shrinkwrapped box and that says that breaking the shrink wrap constitutes acceptance valid, for example. Those corner cases are beside the point, the thing is that the concept of a contract that regulates the use of software is broadly accepted, to the point that the actual simplest case isn't even litigated over since it's not a point of discussion.
There is no need to sign anything to make a contract. I don't know where that idea comes from, it's so misguided I don't even know where to begin. When you go to Starbucks and order a double frappuccino latte with extra whipped cream, and the girl behind the counter gives it to you, do you then say 'I'm not paying because we don't have a contract'? Of course not, there is a contract: they offer to sell coffee, you accept by ordering, the result is an obligation on their part to deliver coffee, and an obligation on your part to pay for it. No signature or paper or whatever needed.
Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued
#68If 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)
Sony doesn't get a cut when people play games they've made themselves. If people play their own games, then they have less time to play games where Sony does get a cut, so it hurts them in just the same way that pirated games do. This is going to be a problem one way or another as long as the cost of the hardware is subsidised.
Do you seriously think homebrew is a threat to commercial games? The quality is 1/1,000,000th. The budget is one billionth.
Let me know when SCOURGE ( http://scourgeweb.org/tiki-browse_gallery.php?galleryId=2 ) starts impacting Diablo sales.
Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued
#69If 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)
Sony doesn't get a cut when people play games they've made themselves. If people play their own games, then they have less time to play games where Sony does get a cut, so it hurts them in just the same way that pirated games do. This is going to be a problem one way or another as long as the cost of the hardware is subsidised.
> Sony doesn't get a cut when people play games they've made themselves.
So, the obvious solution is to stop subsidizing consoles with title royalties.
Let the market decide whether they prefer a more expensive homebrew-friendly console or a cheaper homebrew-hostile console.
And, BTW, when it was introduced, the PS3 was an amazingly powerful computer. Now it's not. It's, at best, interesting.
Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued
#70This notion of owning a piece of hardware without the legal right to take it apart worries me. Close that car hood citizen, there are secrets in there, don't make me taze you. erk: C0 CE FE 84 C2 27 F7 5B D0 7A 7E B8 46 50 9F 93 B2 38 E7 70 DA CB 9F F4 A3 88 F8 12 48 2B E2 1B riv: 47 EE 74 54 E4 77 4C C9 B8 96 0C 7B 59 F4 C1 4D pub: C2 D4 AA F3 19 35 50 19 AF 99 D4 4E 2B 58 CA 29 25 2C 89 12 3D 11 D6 21 8F 40 B1 38 C…
> Close that car hood citizen, there are secrets in there, don't make me taze you.
Auto makers originally tried to prevent car owners from servicing their own cars or taking them to third parties to be serviced. It took a legal struggle and legislation to enshrine the rights of ownership that car owners take for granted.
Or at least took for granted. A new legal struggle is turning around the right to repair modern cars that make extensive use of processors and proprietary software.
http://blog.fosketts.net/2010/07/29/walled-gardens-gilded-ca...