DragonKnight (User)

  • Contributor
  • 7 bubbles
  • 9 in CRank
  • Score: 141840
"I don't care about bubbles. Seriously, I don't."

This gen's newest fanboy: The Hacker Fanboy

DragonKnight | 1138d ago
User blog

The term fanboy has been around for a long time. Long before this gen of video game consoles and in more areas of entertainment than just the game industry as well. We can argue all day about what the true definition of fanboy is, but for this blog we will use the definition of a person who has an extraordinarily abnormal love or fixation upon something.

We've seen fanboys of all 3 consoles and all types of game genres popping up all over this site.

"My console is better than yours because it has cross game chat"
"My game is better than yours because it's only on one disc"
"Link iz teh pwn"

These are just some small examples of the kinds of statements you may have come across here. But now, I'm going to add another.

"Hackers are fighting for OUR rights"

As piracy grew thanks to the evolution of consoles into being more PC oriented in design, it opened up ways for people to try and break their way into every aspect of a console or game. Hackers have been around forever, but never more prevalent in gaming than this gen. They are public and they are proud.

These are individuals who believe they have the right to alter software to do anything they see fit. What gives them this right? They believe it's the fact they spent money on a thing.

Let's be clear about that. Hackers, and hacker fanboys, claim that because they bought a product, they should be free to do whatever they want with it. And they will use any loophole they can find to try and work their way around any copyright laws that exist.

But what is it they actually own? Let's take the PS3 for example. Hackers and hacker fanboys are very vocal that they should be able to have Linux and whatever other kind of program they want on the PS3 because they bought the PS3. They will also argue against the removal of Linux from the PS3 as the removal of an "advertised feature" but yet can't find any ads to support this. It's important to remember that argument because I'll come back to it later.

Now then, they are correct that they own their PS3. They paid for a piece of hardware made up of various plastics, metals, and silicon whose design is put in such a way that it allows it to play video games, music, and videos. They can freely turn said hardware into a grill, a toaster, hell even some kind of ventriloquist dummy if they could (that'd be cool to see). They did in fact pay for that hardware.

HOWEVER!!! This is where all hackers and hacker fanboys FAIL at literacy. EVERY PIECE OF SOFTWARE IN THE WORLD (with the exception of open source software and freeware) ALWAYS COMES WITH A TERMS OF USE LICENSE AGREEMENT YOU MUST AGREE TO UPON INSTALLATION OF SAID, AND/OR USE OF SAID.

When you bought your PS3, you paid for the hardware; AND A LICENSE TO USE THE OS SOFTWARE!! You DID NOT BUY the PS3's OS. You bought the right to USE the software. If you had actually BOUGHT the software, then there would be no need for a End User License Agreement, now would there?

Now we come back to the advertised features argument. There is the unproven claim that Linux was an advertised feature, but you know what WASN'T an advertised feature of the PS3? Piracy. Surely any sane person would agree then that since piracy wasn't an advertised feature, the removal of anything that can promote piracy on the PS3 cannot be illegal or immoral yes? Why argue about the removal of something you DIDN'T pay for? But that's what hackers and hacker fanboys do. Constantly change the terms of their arguments to fit the fact that they are doing something illegal.

So we come to the hacker fanboys. These are individuals who state "You can't group all hackers together" and "You have to work with hackers, not against them" and "Hackers shouldn't be called hackers, they should be called modders or tinkerers."

They justify hacking as a means of somehow improving a product, yet conveniently try to push under the rug every security circumvention, every theft, and any other illegal transgression hackers commit. They will fight for the "right to do what we want with what we bought" ignoring the laws set in place that define exactly what you own. And when we get something like the PSN outage, CAUSED BY HACKERS, the hacker fanboys blame Sony for taking a harsh stance against the illegal modifications and circumventions of their recognized original work. They state that it's Sony's fault for protecting their investment, that hackers should be free to do what they please. The problem is that when you give so much freedom, people will always take it too far.

And the idea that you can't judge all hackers the same due to the malicious acts of some of them is partially correct, partially incorrect. As long as you justify any part of what is used to steal or circumvent securities, as long as you don't denounce the acts of those who are trying to give your community a bad name, as long as you do nothing to help prevent real problems occurring because of hackers, you are part of the problem and responsible for the reputation hackers have.

A person who wishes to modify something for their own use should have no problem doing so legally. And if it's known to be illegal, why publicly distribute it and then complain when you're sued? The FACT remains that none of us own the OS's of our respective consoles. We do not have the legal right to tamper with what we do not own. No one had the right to hack into PSN, and it's not Sony's fault that it happened. It's all about choices. But hacker fanboys would have everyone believe that everything created should belong to everyone, and that the original creator(s) shouldn't have complete control of their own works.

Do you want to live in a world where you can't decide what is done with what you created?

Emilio_Estevez  +   1138d ago
Nice read...spot on.
mousearmy  +   1137d ago
"HOWEVER!!! This is where all hackers and hacker fanboys FAIL at literacy. EVERY PIECE OF SOFTWARE IN THE WORLD (with the exception of open source software and freeware) ALWAYS COMES WITH A TERMS OF USE LICENSE AGREEMENT YOU MUST AGREE TO UPON INSTALLATION OF SAID, AND/OR USE OF SAID.

When you bought your PS3, you paid for the hardware; AND A LICENSE TO USE THE OS SOFTWARE!! You DID NOT BUY the PS3's OS. You bought the right to USE the software. If you had actually BOUGHT the software, then there would be no need for a End User License Agreement, now would there?"

The validity of EULA have never been proven and hopefully never will since they are basically trying to take away your consumer rights.
sdtarm  +   1137d ago
then they might as well just give you the PS3 without OS and see what you can do with it
#2.1 (Edited 1137d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
mousearmy  +   1137d ago
That would be fine as long as you could load your own code without having to jump through hoops.
DragonKnight  +   1137d ago
Ok, show me on your receipt where it says "PS3 Operating Software." And then I'll remove this blog.
mousearmy  +   1137d ago
I wasn't aware the Operating System was somehow a seperate thing from the console you buy. Seems pretty much an integral part of it to me.

@QuodEratDemonstrandum (out of bubbles, sorry) Interesting analogy but, at least in UK law, they simply are not allowed to do that. IANAL but that was the understanding I gained from looking into it after OtherOS removal and it seemed to stand up.
#2.2.1 (Edited 1137d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(5) | Report
DragonKnight  +   1137d ago
The analogy below is correct. As for OtherOS, again it's not something you paid for. It was an optional feature Sony decided to add to the PS3 OS and was not integral to the basic function of the console. The only one could successfully argue against its removal is if they can prove that the feature was necessary and integral to the basic function of the PS3. In which case they are then entitled to compensation.

Look at PC's. OS' for PC's are sold separately because you can put any OS you want on a PC. Without an OS your PC is stuck with the basic BIOS. Is an OS integral to the use of a PC? Well it depends on what you want to use the PC for now doesn't it? No one said you can't take the PS3's OS off the PS3 entirely and place your own OS in the system. As long as it doesn't use any part of the PS3 OS in any way, Sony can't do anything to you. But the PS3 OS is licensed out to you, not sold to you. And if anyone thinks it is, well then the OS is itemized as having been sold. Just like on PC's

Go out and buy a PC anywhere and you'll see in the description of the product, what OS is installed on the PC. That's to tell you that the price of the OS was included in the price of the product, and you are in fact buying the OS. That's why MS can't do anything to you if you modify Windows.

But Sony has a licensing agreement with every user who agrees to their terms of use. It's the same with a license of any kind. A pyrotechnician has a license to use fireworks you can't buy in stores, but if he's careless or sells illegal fireworks to the public, that license is revoked and he could face prison time.
QuodEratDemonstrandm  +   1137d ago
Think of a driver on the road.
The driver has a driver's license, which grants him the right to operate his car on public roads. It also gives him the responsibility to follow the rules of the road.
If he violates those rules, the state can take away his license. And driving with no license can get you locked up.

Siimilarly, while the hardware falls under patent law, which means you can't build a console with the cell processor and then sell it. The software falls under digital copyright law, which is a big part of the End User LICENSE Agreement. If you violate a part of the EULA that falls under copyright law, then just like the driver with one DUI too many, you lose your license.
So sony is well within its rights to delete the os from your ps3, bricking the system.
joeorc  +   1136d ago
@mousearmy
"The validity of EULA have never been proven and hopefully never will since they are basically trying to take away your consumer rights. "

that is a urban MYTH!

And yes it has been upheld in court, EULA's are enforceable!

Ninth Circuit rules EULA licensing restrictions on digital content enforceable

http://www.teleread.com/cop...
ZombieNinjaPanda  +   1137d ago
You wrote an entire blog about hackers and "hacker fanboys". You have way too much time on your hands.
DragonKnight  +   1137d ago
Says the guy who read the blog and felt the need to comment.
ZombieNinjaPanda  +   1137d ago
I didn't read the blog, but I did feel the need to comment :)
DragonKnight  +   1137d ago
Sure you didn't. If you'd just read the title, then you'd assume the blog was strictly about hacker fanboys since I didn't mention hackers in the title.

Didn't realize that Chronos, the Greek god of Time had an N4G account. What other advice doth the living day planner have for us lowly mortals?
blackburn10  +   1137d ago
These type of people are deluded. The PS3 is a tool used to access what belong to Sony. Everything Sony gives you the games, the network, the perks belong to them. You can't say 'I can download torrent games and cheat online because I brought the system'. That's like saying that I can paint nude pictures all over a church because I brought the paint. The point is of course I could do that but I also know that I will be hauled off to jail for vandalism. That is what these hackers don't understand. Of course you could do these things but you should be prepared to accept the consequences of doing them instead of pretending that you didn't do anything.
darkpower  +   1137d ago
There's a problem with your argument, though, and I'm sure you already know this, but EULA does not equal law. You cannot put something into an EULA, regardless of whether or not someone would actually agree to it or not, that takes away a right that the federal law states that companies must allow you to have. In essence, that is what is being argued about modding the hardware.

What are the arguments against OtherOS and modding, say, the PS3? Piracy? I own a DVD burner on my computer. Does that mean I'm going to go and pirate movies because I have the hardware and software, and I'm able to install both? That's just silly. Of course you can't make it easy to pirate games, but you can't just assume that everyone who wants to mod a piece of hardware, or someone who wants Sony to listen to them about OtherOS, is doing so in order to pirate games because you're saying they are guilty of doing something they haven't even done yet (guilty until proven innocent). Should we take CD/DVD/Blu-Ray burners off the market because someone who buys any of those things MIGHT use it for piracy?

That's Sony's main problem here: that they view everyone who would want that sort of thing as guilty. They think, or want you to believe so it would be easier for you to side with them on the lawsuits, that everyone who wants to unlock the console or wants OtherOS back is doing it because they want to pirate games or cheat on PSN games. That is always going to be their argument because, as you have seen, it's very easy, and especially easy for Sony fanboys, to buy into it and use whatever hysteria they can come up with to be a part of that echo chamber. That's the frustrating thing about debating this with anyone: there are VERY strong opinions about this, and they don't feel like debating anyone. I want to hear the arguments because I stand by my arguments and I'm not insecure about them, but it's unbelievable how many we have here that are insecure (not saying you're one of them, even though you seem to be insulted by the other side's involvement in this topic).

To understand the issue about OtherOS, you must understand the merits of the complaints about its removal: that Sony was not honest in why they removed it. They said it was because of security reasons (that loophole). However, the argument is that the loophole was not so severe that it warranted the removal of the entire feature, and that Sony had another reason and used security as the reason they gave via PR to garner support by their fanbase for it (remember what I said above). There's a quote out there saying that Sony had a financial reason behind it, but because they told the public that OtherOS wouldn't be removed from older models after the anxiety the absence of the feature from the slim models caused Sony to think it was an important enough issue to warrant them responding to those people worried. So, it seemed like Sony needed to remove OtherOS for another reason that had nothing to do with security, needed to get out of the promise, something happened that made it convenient for them to get out of the promise while gaining support for the removal by the echo chamber, do it, and say that was the reason, and force everyone to pick their poison.

I'm not saying that we should be allowed to hack the PSN and steal everyone's credit card information or anything like that. Don't try to compare one with the other here. I'm saying that you should own the hardware that you bought. People should be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around, and you don't have to be a hacker or a "hacker fanboy" to think that.
joeorc  +   1136d ago
once again
"but EULA does not equal law. You cannot put something into an EULA, regardless of whether or not someone would actually agree to it or not, that takes away a right that the federal law states that companies must allow you to have. In essence, that is what is being argued about modding the hardware. "

which your right but this had nothing to do with the Hacking the Hardware. Its all about the Software

you do know that As an Example:

Linux was not preinstalled in the PS3, it was allowed to be installed by the End user through, that is "through" the PS3's XMB, the XMB is the PS3's OS, once again that belongs to Sony not the Enduser. Hacker's taking to hack their own software is one,the xmb is non ownership but a licence to a enduser, but to reverse engineer for RESEARCH only, releas of such findings would not hurt the Company of such finding's it it allows damage to their property of which applying cracking security or CFW can an did indeed do.

it is this very reason why

Ninth Circuit rules EULA licensing restrictions on digital content enforceable

http://arstechnica.com/tech...

So, to recap: EULAs are binding, they can control just about everything you might dream up, and only Congress can change the situation.
DragonKnight  +   1136d ago
Thank you for this comment. I'll be sure to remember this link you provided for the future, as this issue is far from dead. +Bubs.
joeorc  +   1136d ago
@DragonKnight
No problem, I have seen many on here keep trying to claim EULA's have no way to be legal in court, as i have shown that is just a Myth..EULA's are very enforcable in court.

even if the judge deems some parts go against the laws of their state the EULA can still be enforced it does not break the entire EULA,Thats what a lot of the same people saying EULA's are not enforceable do not seem to understand.
#6 (Edited 1136d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember