The above video goes away if you are a member and logged in, so log in now!
Are you seriously comparing child ****ography to a PS3 SDK? And you talk about logic?
Originally Posted by iamyou
Since you don't seem to be able to use the brain, let me explain it for you.
Child ****ography is regulated by law, and illegal in all (I guess) countries. For obvious reasons.
Reading PS3 SDK and reverse engineering PS3 things is not regulated by law, nor is illegal activity.
Originally Posted by yoshi314
Hope this helps.
try reading the manual, then.
Why would I?
Originally Posted by yoshi314
When I bought the PS3, noone made me sign any papers where I agree to read the manual and/or agree to anything written in that manual.
Do I have a legal obligation to read the manual, and I am not aware of it?
edit: I also bought a Samsung LCD TV yesterday, but didn't read the manual. Do I need to read manual for TV as well?
Why going the impossible way? PS3 is closed-source even with the best intensions with the free SDK you will be able to do what "Hello World"? A lot of the API is undocumented or missing, not to mention the best effort in this way is ifcar0's softGL (which btw is amazing achievment). Plus Sony strictly forbidd running unsigned code on their console, so why bother making it with free SDK? I understand the desire to be legal, but even with best intensions Sony just doesnt give a **** about homebrew and forbids it in the EULA/TOS.
Whether you signed any terms of service, NDA, EULA, whatever, that's irrelevant. You downloaded an SDK in breech of copyright law.
Originally Posted by chocobo
If you create software with it, distributing that is most likely illegal too. This is more of a grey area, sure.
However if that software includes any part of the SDK, or if you give the SDK to anyone else, that's another copyright infringement and is distribution. Distribution is usually treated much more harshly than acquisition.
Your argument effectively is the same as saying "There was no license agreement on this movie I downloaded from bittorrent, therefore it must be legit, right?"
1. It's not impossible to reimplement the SDK, either using a document/cleanroom scheme, or by experimentation with the hardware, documented or not. There is no reason a FOSS SDK shouldn't have full functionality.
Originally Posted by ceckin
2. What Sony forbids me running on a piece of hardware I own does not matter, to me, in the slightest. Distributing material that breeches copyright law (the Sony SDK) is not something I want to get into if possible. In some countries (though I'm hard pressed to think of any where the laws haven't been changed for the worse in the last couple of decades), reverse engineering and ownership rights trump the Sony EULA, but distribution of Sony copyright material in the form of the SDK or derivatives is an open and shut case of copyright infringement.
Sony will have a harder time shutting down a homebrew scene that's not entirely based on ripped-off Sony "IP"
, i can't wait too
Why don't you all learn on how to code? The more coders, the faster the homebrew scene will grow, and will save us from all of the whinnings...
Otherwise, don't blame us if it's taking forever for the homebrew scene to grow.
i guess most people do not care and settle for leaked sdk. there are notable exceptions, though.