Anonymous Not Done With Sony

Seriously guys, it over. Can we just move on please?

I really don't understand all this irrational hate for Sony just because they don't want people to pirate their games. Something which is, the last time I checked, ILLEGAL.

edited 14th Apr '11 6:23:45 AM by dmysta3000

GOH! JII! RAH!

Cute. They think people other than them still care.

edited 14th Apr '11 6:20:48 AM by Legionnaire

Against all tyrants.

"FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHT TO PIRATE!!!"

Well in that case it's indeed a right as no law is covering it.

However, yeah, that 'offensive' will only hold for as long until anonymous gets new fap material.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

<mockery voice>You guize, get your Guy Fawkes masks. We're going to stage another inneffectual protest.</mockery voice>

Seriously, I remember seeing an image from 4chan mocking this debaucle pretty accurately. Something along the lines of "shitting up 4chan even more."

edited 14th Apr '11 6:44:21 AM by Shlapintogan

The part that pisses people off is that they're telling people what they can do with their consoles, not necessarily that they're protecting themselves from piracy (which is futile). Though these guy fawkes mask-wearing /b/ protests are pretty infantile.

What do they think the Guy Fawkes mask means again?

Against all tyrants.

^Anarchy? I dunno, I think they think it as "V for Vendetta" mask.

edited 14th Apr '11 7:08:37 AM by SpookyMask

Hasn't every company done that at some point though? Why is Sony getting singled out?

edited 14th Apr '11 7:09:18 AM by dmysta3000

GOH! JII! RAH!

Misaimed Fandom

The original Guy Fawkes attempted to usurp the Protestant government to put a Catholic government in place. Everyone forgot about the Catholic part and made him the avatar of anarchy.

Then V comes along, fights an oppressive regime using Guy Fawkes' face and commits several acts of terrorism, murder, and is arguably as evil as the government he's fighting. Everyone forgot about him being a terrorist when the movie came out.

And then Anonymous grabbed the image.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

"The part that pisses people off is that they're telling people what they can do with their consoles, not necessarily that they're protecting themselves from piracy (which is futile). Though these guy fawkes mask-wearing /b/ protests are pretty infantile."

Here's the thing, though: You DO own your console. You just don't own the actual software itself. That's the point everyone is missing. Also, if you want to modify it in any way, don't bring that shit online. That's why they show you the TOS every time you do a software update. You either agree, or you don't have access to PSN.

What Geohot did, no matter what his intentions were, was illegal, because he modified Sony's software without their permission and THEN gave everyone else a way to do the same. Why wouldn't Sony take action?

edited 14th Apr '11 7:14:32 AM by MrPoly

As far as I have understood the issue is that they arrested that guy trying to reverse engineer his Playstation at Sony's insistence even though even though there is no law really covering that. So, yeah, settling out of court is too few. It's as much frustration of corporate and state elites always sticking together as particular hate for Sony, I guess.

It's a righteous struggle, per se. It's just that with Anonymous it will not go anywhere.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Anonymous is way less powerful than they think they are.

What exactly did Geohot do, anyways? He wasn't the one who found the USB exploit in 3.41, he didn't create PSGroove, he didn't discover the "keys" to the PS 3, he wasn't the one who released the first CFW. There were several people involved in hacking the PS 3, and he only played a minor part.

edited 14th Apr '11 7:18:37 AM by Redhead

The new It Just Bugs Me!

If Sony's terms of service for using PSN prohibit it, then Sony has the right to sue. It's not Sony's fault that Geohot didn't read the ToS.

Um, actually you do own the software, it's part of the PS 3. It's only different from buying a game or other software in that the developers don't give it to you on a disk. That doesn't mean you can circulate fragments of it on the internet but you are entirely free to modify it to your liking.

^ Fair enough. But yes, the point stands that you can't bring it online. That's how the piracy and other hacks started happening, which is what Sony didn't want.

edited 14th Apr '11 7:28:27 AM by MrPoly

Possibly, but I can't think of anything done by either Nintendo or Microsoft with their consoles in recent years (or ever) which approaches this level of jackassery. They've covered their asses with patches and required updates but I don't think (and please inform me if I'm wrong) that they've sued anyone.

Yes I do.

I don't care what lies corporations try and spew at me. I buy it, I own it.

Nah, you only own what the fine print mentions, if you disagree with it, you can return the console to the store within 72 hours for a full refund. Think these are infringing on your rights as a customer? Try to go to court with it.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

I would argue that the iPhone ruling would apply to a PS 3, just as much. If you alter the software on your iPhone you can't be sued, you can't be arrest, Apple can just void your warranty. I see no significant difference with hacking a PS 3.

I think they secretly KNOW they're going to fail. I mean, a memetic wearer of theGuy Fawkes mask IS Epic Fail Guy.

I think we all know nothing will come of this. Come on, who takes anonymous seriously? They're just a bunch of stupid kids and hacker nerds who think they can affect major soceital change by random acts of dickery on the internet, mostly for lolz.

Can't think of anything witty, so have this instead...

You don't own the software. You own a license for it, which is basically a contract between you and Sony detailed what you're allowed to do with their software. You are not allowed to modify it or redistribute it unless the license specifically says so, and Sony's license most certainly doesn't.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

This is why things like these exist:

This

This

And before anyone says such things would be less secure: they are actually more secure due to the fact that they can't rely on anything that might seem secure to the user but really isn't, as well as the fact that it is much easier to develop and propagate security patches.

Depends on how you define "secure". If you mean "allows Sony to maintain control of the hardware" (which is what Sony means by "secure"), then open source software is not secure at all.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.