Sony Offline Entertainment (Hacking of PSN and SOE)

[Correction]

I'm all for exposing corruption and illegal practices, but this is getting a little too loose-cannon for me. Anonymous is losing their impact when they get this stupid.

I notice with interest that Scientology is alive and well, Quaddafi still controls the important bits of Libya and, interestingly enough, Habbo Hotel is still up and functioning.

Anonymous's 'impact' has always been about at the level of spraypaint vandalism. Unless customer data gets compromised or executive/legal team email is leaked, a DDoS attack on PSN isn't really 'hacking.' They're full of themselves ever since they took the credit for the HBGary shit.

[tyven]

I don't have any opinion about this, but I always love hearing news of anonymous. They always make me laugh at how far they go with things.

this is the boat that i am in

[aurik]

Shinzon doesn't really have a good concept of what's going on.

Also I find it interesting people are mad now about Anon ddos but were all on the bandwagon when they were hittin mastercard.

[miokomioko]

Like I said, I'm all for objective corruption/illegal activities exposure... but when they decide to use this power because of some opinion that this specific business practice is "corporate greed" and "manipulating the judicial system..." That's completely irresponsible.

if you could ever consider anon "responsible"

[Kerberoz]

this is the boat that i am in

this. Fuck caring who wins, gimme some popcorn.

[aurik]

Like I said, I'm all for objective corruption/illegal activities exposure... but when they decide to use this power because of some opinion that this specific business practice is "corporate greed" and "manipulating the judicial system..." That's completely irresponsible.

if you could ever consider anon "responsible"

Anon is practically the definition of irresponsible. It's in the nature of being, at best, a collective of people who sometimes agree.

[Pirian]

It's in the nature of being, at best, a collective of people who sometimes agree.

We're talking about the Senate/HoR, right?

[*Shinzon*]

Shinzon doesn't really have a good concept of what's going on.

Also I find it interesting people are mad now about Anon ddos but were all on the bandwagon when they were hittin mastercard.

In regards to what? I've actually been following the story for awhile now, and I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.

[Raytheon]

We're talking about the Senate/HoR, right?

LOL!


To the people vehemently defending Sony and bashing Geo into dust; I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be charged, I'm not saying he does either. If he does time for this, I wouldn't be surprised, but I'd be pissed off.

I do ask though, why the fuck you ride Sony's balls like you're on the payroll? Companies like Sony take capitalism to the next level. They're one step away from copyrighting words in the fucking dictionary and charging you $.99 per use.

From le Wiki:

Digital rights management (DRM) is a term for access control technologies that are used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to limit the use of digital content and devices. The term is used to describe any technology that inhibits uses of digital content that is not desired or intended by the content provider. The term does not generally refer to other forms of copy protection, which can be circumvented without modifying the file or device, such as serial numbers or keyfiles. It can also refer to restrictions associated with specific instances of digital works or devices. Digital rights management is used by companies such as Sony, Amazon, Apple Inc., Microsoft, AOL and the BBC.

The use of digital rights management is controversial. Proponents argue it is needed by copyright holders to prevent unauthorized duplication of their work, either to maintain artistic integrity[1] or to ensure continued revenue streams.[2] Some opponents, such as the Free Software Foundation (through its Defective By Design campaign), maintain that the use of the word "rights" is misleading and suggest that people instead use the term digital restrictions management. Their position is essentially that copyright holders are restricting the use of material in ways that are beyond the scope of existing copyright laws, and should not be covered by future laws.[3] The Electronic Frontier Foundation, and other opponents, also consider the use of DRM systems to be anti-competitive practice.[4] This position holds that the rights of the user need legal protection.[5]

Now, do you think Sony is taking Geo to the cleaners to:

A: Prevent unauthorized duplication of their work
B: Maintain artistic integrity
C: Ensure continued revenue streams




Answer: C


This is why Sony = "Greedy faggots"

[Xno Kappa]

Fuck Sony, its my right to pirate free shit on my PS3.

[Yugl]

LOL!
To the people vehemently defending Sony and bashing Geo into dust; I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be charged, I'm not saying he does either. If he does time for this, I wouldn't be surprised, but I'd be pissed off.

That sounds so familiar.... oh wait.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...Iw0W_blog.html

Fyi, if Anon does this, SE will commit sepuku. You can't fuck around with the Japanese like that.

[kyod]

LOL!


To the people vehemently defending Sony and bashing Geo into dust; I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be charged, I'm not saying he does either. If he does time for this, I wouldn't be surprised, but I'd be pissed off.

I do ask though, why the fuck you ride Sony's balls like you're on the payroll? Companies like Sony take capitalism to the next level. They're one step away from copyrighting words in the fucking dictionary and charging you $.99 per use.

From le Wiki:

Digital rights management (DRM) is a term for access control technologies that are used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to limit the use of digital content and devices. The term is used to describe any technology that inhibits uses of digital content that is not desired or intended by the content provider. The term does not generally refer to other forms of copy protection, which can be circumvented without modifying the file or device, such as serial numbers or keyfiles. It can also refer to restrictions associated with specific instances of digital works or devices. Digital rights management is used by companies such as Sony, Amazon, Apple Inc., Microsoft, AOL and the BBC.

The use of digital rights management is controversial. Proponents argue it is needed by copyright holders to prevent unauthorized duplication of their work, either to maintain artistic integrity[1] or to ensure continued revenue streams.[2] Some opponents, such as the Free Software Foundation (through its Defective By Design campaign), maintain that the use of the word "rights" is misleading and suggest that people instead use the term digital restrictions management. Their position is essentially that copyright holders are restricting the use of material in ways that are beyond the scope of existing copyright laws, and should not be covered by future laws.[3] The Electronic Frontier Foundation, and other opponents, also consider the use of DRM systems to be anti-competitive practice.[4] This position holds that the rights of the user need legal protection.[5]

Now, do you think Sony is taking Geo to the cleaners to:

A: Prevent unauthorized duplication of their work
B: Maintain artistic integrity
C: Ensure continued revenue streams




Answer: C


This is why Sony = "Greedy faggots"

If someone pulled a Geo with software my company makes (small company), we'd stand to lose a ton of money and probably end up going out of business. Hundreds would lose jobs.

Not saying the same would happen to Sony, but I can't fault them for aggressively protecting their revenue streams.

[Raytheon]

That sounds so familiar.... oh wait.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...Iw0W_blog.html

Fyi, if Anon does this, SE will commit sepuku. You can't fuck around with the Japanese like that.

lol for the love of Christ don't compare me to Beck. I've never cried on TV once. And I don't use a chalk board in 2011.

What I was getting at is that's not the part I'm interested in arguing. It's the idea that I buy something and don't have full reign over it. You might as well be renting your PS3, "Yeah you paid $700 for it, yeah you can take it home, but you HAVE to use it the way we say. If you use it for anything other than it's intended purpose, we'll fuck your day up." That's horseshit.

Like the car analogy that's been said several times, if you 'reverse engineered' your car, figured out how the gears worked, then tweaked the gear ratios to give yourself more torque, you've just committed copyright infringement, because the car wasn't originally intended to have that much torque. At least according to Sony. You see how this is ridiculous when presented with ANYTHING other than a piece of entertainment technology, right?

[kyod]

lol for the love of Christ don't compare me to Beck. I've never cried on TV once. And I don't use a chalk board in 2011.

What I was getting at is that's not the part I'm interested in arguing. It's the idea that I buy something and don't have full reign over it. You might as well be renting your PS3, "Yeah you paid $700 for it, yeah you can take it home, but you HAVE to use it the way we say. If you use it for anything other than it's intended purpose, we'll fuck your day up." That's horseshit.

Like the car analogy that's been said several times, if you 'reverse engineered' your car, figured out how the gears worked, then tweaked the gear ratios to give yourself more torque, you've just committed copyright infringement, because the car wasn't originally intended to have that much torque. At least according to Sony. You see how this is ridiculous when presented with ANYTHING other than a piece of entertainment technology, right?

My company sells software for transportation companies. If you alter our software in anyway you broke the TOS. You have to use it the way we say you do. Don't like it? Find another software provider (but all competitors make you sign a similar TOS). So no, it's not just an entertainment technology issue. In the business world, TOS like these are very common. If a customer who bought our software and Geo'd it, we would stand to lose a lot of money. It's not as simple of an issue as you're making it seem.

[*Shinzon*]

lol for the love of Christ don't compare me to Beck. I've never cried on TV once. And I don't use a chalk board in 2011.

What I was getting at is that's not the part I'm interested in arguing. It's the idea that I buy something and don't have full reign over it. You might as well be renting your PS3, "Yeah you paid $700 for it, yeah you can take it home, but you HAVE to use it the way we say. If you use it for anything other than it's intended purpose, we'll fuck your day up." That's horseshit.

Like the car analogy that's been said several times, if you 'reverse engineered' your car, figured out how the gears worked, then tweaked the gear ratios to give yourself more torque, you've just committed copyright infringement, because the car wasn't originally intended to have that much torque. At least according to Sony. You see how this is ridiculous when presented with ANYTHING other than a piece of entertainment technology, right?

To be fair, the car analogy really doesn't cross apply to the situations regarding Sony. First actually buying a car is a one time purchase. Once you own you it, you can do whatever you want with it so long as you acknowledge voiding your warranty and that the modifications also meet regulations set forth by state, city, or even national governments. Each automaker and their suppliers have trademarked and patented processes that protect the way for example steel is created and engine engineering, even all wheel drive systems.

What Sony is trying to protect here is not the one time purchase of the ps3, which I mentioned before isn't where the money is made. The money is made on licensing and the sale of accessories and the sale of each game. This is why the piracy argument here is different than that in any other case. The source codes that Hotz has access to is basically the keys to unlocking and allow changes to be made that don't affect, again for example just your car, it effects every console system around the globe. Like I said before, just because Hotz will argue he never originally intended to to release the codes for profits, his collaboration and subsequent discover of the keys that now allow for pirating still make him liable to be sued.

Again you are buying the product from Sony under their terms of service agreements with the promise of continued support and game development which is circumvented via piracy. This is even worse when you consider the fact that unlike the XBOX pay to use network which allows the company to ban users of pirated software, the PSN network is free and those doesn't allow the company any remedy to curb piracy.

[Raytheon]

If someone pulled a Geo with software my company makes (small company), we'd stand to lose a ton of money and probably end up going out of business. Hundreds would lose jobs.

Not saying the same would happen to Sony, but I can't fault them for aggressively protecting their revenue streams.

I'm curious what software you guys make, or at least sell? Earlier in the thread I posted that if there was a law that protected the company if a pirate accumulated more than 1% of the total profits the company made, that would be grounds for charging the pirate. With Sony being worth $137,600,000,000 (137.6 billion dollars), Geo would have had to made $1,376,000,000 (1.3 billion dollars) to take away 1% of Sony's profit. I don't know how much Geo made from pirating this, but I know damn well it was no where near a billion, or a million for that matter.

Now, the POTENTIAL damages to Sony's proprietary hash algorithms, that may be in the millions of dollars, but let's face it. Sony is an entertainment industry, they're not saving the fucking world, they're not protecting classified information for our country, or even their own country. And any losses sustained in revenue, they're going to write it off on taxes anyway, Sony isn't out anything.



They're a big whiny fucking Metallica all over again. At least Metallica used to make good music.

[Raytheon]

To be fair, the car analogy really doesn't cross apply to the situations regarding Sony. First actually buying a car is a one time purchase. Once you own you it, you can do whatever you want with it so long as you acknowledge voiding your warranty and that the modifications also meet regulations set forth by state, city, or even national governments. Each automaker and their suppliers have trademarked and patented processes that protect the way for example steel is created and engine engineering, even all wheel drive systems.

What Sony is trying to protect here is not the one time purchase of the ps3, which I mentioned before isn't where the money is made. The money is made on licensing and the sale of accessories and the sale of each game. This is why the piracy argument here is different than that in any other case. The source codes that Hotz has access to is basically the keys to unlocking and allow changes to be made that don't affect, again for example just your car, it effects every console system around the globe. Like I said before, just because Hotz will argue he never originally intended to to release the codes for profits, his collaboration and subsequent discover of the keys that now allow for pirating still make him liable to be sued.

Again you are buying the product from Sony under their terms of service agreements with the promise of continued support and game development which is circumvented via piracy. This is even worse when you consider the fact that unlike the XBOX pay to use network which allows the company to ban users of pirated software, the PSN network is free and those doesn't allow the company any remedy to curb piracy.

I see what you're saying. I guess it would be like screwing with the governing chip on a new ride. Voids your warranty, but you're not going to jail over it.

Just because you agree to terms of use, doesn't mean you signed an NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement), meaning you have an obligation to protect Sony's intellectual property if you happen to come across how it works.


Take for instance Open Office. Looks, works exactly like Microsoft Office, just doesn't say Microsoft. Anyone else use it? Cause we should turn ourselves in to Bill Gates post haste!

[Pirian]

I'm curious what software you guys make, or at least sell? Earlier in the thread I posted that if there was a law that protected the company if a pirate accumulated more than 1% of the total profits the company made, that would be grounds for charging the pirate. With Sony being worth $137,600,000,000 (137.6 billion dollars), Geo would have had to made $1,376,000,000 (1.3 billion dollars) to take away 1% of Sony's profit. I don't know how much Geo made from pirating this, but I know damn well it was no where near a billion, or a million for that matter.

Company worth =! company profit. Sony's Q1-4 profits last year totaled 24.6 billion. If they were making 137.6b a year then they would have bought out Microsoft, lol. Of course, he isn't making 1% of their profit either.

[Eliseos]

I see what you're saying. I guess it would be like screwing with the governing chip on a new ride. Voids your warranty, but you're not going to jail over it.

Just because you agree to terms of use, doesn't mean you signed an NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement), meaning you have an obligation to protect Sony's intellectual property if you happen to come across how it works.


Take for instance Open Office. Looks, works exactly like Microsoft Office, just doesn't say Microsoft. Anyone else use it? Cause we should turn ourselves in to Bill Gates post haste!

Open source software doesn't apply here either. Google's Android is open source, Sony's PS3 operating system is not.

[miokomioko]

Take for instance Open Office. Looks, works exactly like Microsoft Office, just doesn't say Microsoft. Anyone else use it? Cause we should turn ourselves in to Bill Gates post haste!

I think you're confusing yourself regarding who is the original offender and who is simply reaping the benefits of the offender's crimes (the latter is an entirely separate discussion, and 99% subjective).