jbob0124 wrote:I was reading up on some of this, and came across a website giving specific instructions on how to jailbreak the ps3. Besides the urge to test out the jailbreak on my "non-psn friendly" ps3, the site said something about waiting for upcoming jailbreak packages. Does that mean that the ps3 would have something similar to the iphone's cydia? With that being said, wouldn't that make it legal for us to jailbreak our ps3's in order to purchase things not governed by sony?
The short answer in my view, is
No.
Although this "No" probably depends upon where you live. The question you ask really has to do with the history of what rights exist, if any within a particular country. Not every country recognizes the rights of individuals to own and benefit from any recognition or income resulting from any concept of intellectual ownership outside of government regulation, control or approval. Hopefully it is clear that there is a difference between insuring a product or service is safe for use (which I'm sure at least some would agree is a reasonable task of government) versus what say can happen in say Russia or China and elsewhere where no one except the government may decide what individuals or corporations may do. The same question is very worthy of detailed examination and debate. In countries which place little or no value on individual rights or the rights of corporations to invest and profit from the further development of their products, then in those countries Venezuela, China, Russia, Cuba and others have the environment which would allow you to do as you suggest. However also in such an environment, the moment it is decided that your involvement is not politically expedient or a "successful venture expressing the collective will" - you'll see that kind of view in Cuba, China and elsewhere. You'll even find that thought in France and some parts of Europe, once you reach that line, it's simple -- you disappear. This is happening in various ways throughout the Middle East also for similar reasons, again individual rights are not well protected as the only rights recognized as those of Royalty or what some recognize as those related to Royals or noble classes, etc. The whole spectrum of politics is rather unpleasant and murky but leads finally to the same place, many countries that would allow you to implement the wish you voiced are the same places which would threaten your life at a whim when your efforts and interests, no longer appear from their mercurial view, to be useful to them. Each of the countries I've mentioned have their horror stories elucidating this point.
I don't want to portray that Canadian or U.S. Law is less challenging; at least however any serious challenges to one's efforts occur within the Courts which recognize the rights of individuals and corporations to determine for themselves how the production of their work will be sold, handled, developed, presented, maintained and so on. The issue on the point of this particular question is really one that have yet to be defined from the consumer's view as well as or equal to, the rights of the producer/inventor to have their products protected and respected as unique with associated value. Value is a separate quality of assessment sometimes associated with money and finance but not always, as it has a personal value. It is exactly with personal values that Socialist, Fascist, Militarist and even Religious governments have extreme problems with. It is of course clear that not only governments but also individuals differ in what is considered to be of value. However confusion abounds when anyone believes that nothing is of value because anyone can do what they wish with any material item they come across at all.
If we take the time to think carefully about one example, perhaps the problem and challenge may be clearer. I have the right to modify my car, or any other device I own up to the point where my modifications to it become a hazard to others. If I mod my cellphone or other device such that it interferes with a commercial network which could be a bank, a hospital or other network it's pretty clear that I'd be legally responsible for the death and catastrophic cascade of resulting incidents resulting from my insistence that I proceed to ignore the rights of others to use a commonly shared benefit which here in this example could be a network as in a road of networked traffic lights, or a bank's network or hospital networks, etc. It is not beyond the power of hackers to do such damage; the fact that a few have is exactly why hackers have a dark name which in modern lingo represents maniacal destructiveness as opposed to creativity and inventiveness advancing technology to save lives.
We have moved into becoming a networked society; however the corollary also means that each individual is responsible for participating in a cooperative manner that the network remains useful and clean for everyone. It doesn't necessarily follow however that because I participate within the network in a cooperative manner that I agree to have my identity, ideas or business concepts in development stolen because someone finds it easier to steal my, or another's work, as opposed to doing their own work and development to produce and sell something themselves from their own efforts.
Personally I would refer you to read the works of Ayn Rand, her work, "We the Living" would fit within the context of elucidating rights. It's easy to forget that Marx originally wrote Das Kapital because of the suffering and abuses he found while he lived; he believed his theory would permanently replace and prevent the horrors he then saw.
We've learned quite a bit over the years regarding human nature and the nature of governments from the diverse views of these and other famous authors. Many prefer to have personal control but also recognize that we must intersect cooperatively as a network as individual persons and individuals who are corporations to benefit fully from sharing and moving forward in balance as we learn together how to manage the sequential power and benefits which collective and shared technologies bring together willingly. There is a big difference between what is shared by choice versus what is stolen and abused.
The U.S. and Canada recognize that Sony has created as unique a product as Apple or any other firm has. Sony has a right to sell and offer it and control it as they see fit. Individuals have the right to prepare likewise their products whether it be food or something else with the uniqueness representing their intent, insofar that their work is creative and not destructive of others. Returning to the concept of value, individuals nor corporations would earn customers, much less respect, if the only evidence of their efforts was that they stole and copied another's work or ideas shamelessly.
I agree that Sony should have done things differently and I can appreciate the frustration that PS3 consumers who expected the OtherOS option to remain perpetually available. However, Sony is well within their rights in defending their products, and networks. A different way of understanding is to consider what it would take for you to create anything close to what Sony did utilizing your own resources. In that situation, you know every chip and design and component of hardware and software. You'd understand what makes it sing and what would make it hazardous. You'd also be responsible if your efforts become dangerous to others. Consider however if what made your efforts become a tool for havoc and danger was something out of your control, well dear friend, this is exactly what jailbreaking is. It "breaks" the limits placed upon the product by Sony so that instead of the PS3 behaving within safe and known design parameters, instead the planned function/behavior of the PS3 become unknown/undefined introducing thereby serious risks and potential havoc to Sony's network (and anyone else's networks) as well as Sony's overall publicity regarding the reliability of their products appearing as unreliable or worse.
Just as individuals have the responsibility to control what is permitted for the safety of their region, city and home. Sony has similar responsibilities as well. We don't have to like what individuals choose nor do we have to like Sony either. We should however respect that they do know what they are speaking of when they are trying to protect themselves, their liability, consumers and networks.
Again the exact legal terms and definitions will have to be argued in the Courts throughout various jurisdictions not just in the U.S. but probably throughout the planet. As has been discussed throughout this thread there are different interpretations of what laws apply to Sony as producer and consumers as users/owners.
