|
If it promises easy, legal downloads, be aware. If it has testimonials, read carefully and look for any regularities that might indicate a common author. Check the disclaimer; if it mentions P2P, leave. If it promises unlimited content, at high speeds, with a one-off or regular membership price, walk away. Look for a security certificate logo that is clear, and links to an authentic certificate from a reputable organization. NEVER obey a site when it tells you to disable your security software, this is a commonly used trick! Use a site advisory product. I suggest downloading "McAfee site advisor." |
|
|
[Via PSP3D]
Permalink |
Email this |
Linking Blogs
| Digg It!
Bookmark / Find this article on: |
|
pj1115 over at 54 Comments
|
 |
by 1st (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
 
|
1st
|
Re: thebeeg (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
yeh..this is jus childish..no one cares anymore...
I feel sorry for DAX, as he is prob 1 of the best things 2 happen to PSP, but he is being plagued by these ghey boys tryin to rip him off... they are just jealous
|
Re: ??? (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
1st, your just an arse. :)
|
Re: yo (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
hey, another 1st poster? anyways, I'm seeing that Sony is going to sue them, possibly even the homebrew devs, as programming for PSP ver1.5 is never illegal, gee, whoever out there, I hope you cleaned the code good, cuz your gonna need it.
|
Re: . (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
The next time you do it, I'm gonna rip your skin off and throw you into the river.
|
Re: nice (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
nice 1st poem
|
Re: . (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
ya know, you guys aint no better than him. look at yourselfs, you're clogging this comment system just complaining about it...
|
Re: gygggygfdcgegfwguwg (Unregistered) - 2006-12-01 |
|
|
your an artard
|
by Advertising - |
|
|
|
by me gusta (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
1st, and now 2nd, where is everyone?
|
by Warhawke (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
No, it's not legal to sell freeware. Since the developers of freeware don't require anyone to pay for it, it's illegal to force someone to pay for it. The only way you can get someone to pay for freeware is if you make a compilation and put it on a CD. And in that case you can only charge for the media and shipping costs, not the actual software.
|
Re: flapjack (Unregistered) - 2006-12-01 |
|
|
You are an idiot. If someone says something is free, then you can do with it what you want. It's not illegal to sell freeware.
However, it is dumb to buy it. I mean, it's free.
|
by Kris_09 - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
Hmm i wonder how you can avoid such a thing. O right DON'T BE A F*CKING MORON.... How stupid can you be?
|
Re: Granvatar_Ofme (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
I was just going to point that out,who is that stupid to buy this "Freestuff" (Just because i dont want to enter into the specifications realm) anyway?.Every PSP user knows homebrew is free,if you dont i dont think you have the level of intelligence required to manage a PSP.
|
by soopergooman - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
i sent the fake guy 10 billion emails
|
Re: PotFarmer (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
you gotta teach me how to do that
|
Re: Fanjita - 2006-12-01 |
|
|
You realise that will have no effect, since his email is a deliberate temporary trash account?
Might wanna do some research before becoming a vigilante.
|
Re: Hoonatic - 2006-12-01 |
|
|
even if it's not a trash account, you probably just took clogged up the e-mail server of some innocent conpany.
|
by Advertising - |
|
|
|
by neok182 (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
I've been in the grand theft auto modding community since GTA3 came out and we had a whole bunch of trouble like this last year. some guy was selling CD's with not only the game (in this case San Andreas) but another CD that replaced all the cars and many other things with mods that had been made. in many auctions he just sold the mods. Many of the mods that are made for GTA are conversions from other games (for example we take cars from Need For Speed and put them into GTA, those models are the property of EA Games and are not allowed to be resold)
After a month of talking with e-bay we got the guy banned and we managed to make the news in a few places and since then no GTA mods have gone for sale that were not made as freeware.
And it dosn't suprize me that people are putting stuff up on ebay for the PSP. the owners just need to fight for it to be taken down. just show proof that it's freeware and you made it and it can be taken down.
and the pricks that do this should be shot. jerks trying to make money off of other peoples hard work.
|
Re: yea (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
yea, exactly
|
Re: Ladsaber (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
You need to threat Ebay for a few weaks before they do something.
Fu/cking Ghay a$$ liking butt holes
|
by ipsp (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
Now I really don't support what these people are doing on ebay, but if they are providing a service (i.e making consumer aware/helping the consumer) then they are within there rights to do so. Just as long as they are not claiming the software is belongs to them, nothing wrong with it.
This article itself seems a little rightous. Sony does NOT support homebrew at all, hence making it illegal. Now these people are on selling this illegal software, your arguement is a little hypocritical, you believe homebrew should be allowed but not the reselling of it.
A similar example of this is mod chips. The person selling/installing the mod chip is not the creator just the installer. So they are being paid for the service and the chip. These people on ebay are being paid for the service they are providing.
I'm a supporter of the homebrew community, but much of the popular software is used for playing isos and the such. Please anyone the claims otherwise is just wrong.
I agree with this article I dislike the practice of selling the software but I totaly agree about them selling the service. This article has made generalisations about the sales on ebay, which is again not right.
I realise I have made generalisations to but unlike this website I don't think my opinion should be pushed onto other a hence is just a comment
|
Re: . (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
I am going to pinch off a hot steaming log in your mouth.
|
Re: Max F. (QJ. NET Staff) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
You said, This article has made generalisations about the sales on ebay, which is again not right." Before this site gets flamed because of people misunderstand our article because of your comments, let me correct them. #1 We never self-righteously said that Sony supports homebrew. As I wrote above: "Besides, what does Sony have to say about that? Can people sell applications for Sony's PSP even though these applications don't have a license from Sony?" #2 About our "generalizations" - well anything a person says is at least partly a generalization. Even the phrase "many of things that people say are, in fact, generalizations" is a generalization. It would be a sorry day (on at least one side of the world - at least in this world, unless you believe in another), if we have to make room for every exception (well, not really have to, unless of course....... Hehehe. It is awkward - careful use of generalizations is a blogger's best friend! Haha. Notice that we avoid a generalization FOR the eBay sales and we also avoid a blanket generalization AGAINST eBay sales. In fact, the article was quite long because we considered different possibilities and at least reported the different nuances of "free." Thank you for your feedback - but you understand that this is a touchy subject and I don't want QJ to be dismissed offhandedly as "just another website that pushes opinions onto others." We don't present both sides of a debate EQUALLY (they don't get the same number of paragraphs) but we do present both sides FAIRLY and JUSTLY. We, of all sites, know that being unfair is bad manners - and it will get us flamed. :) Once again, thank you for your comment (feedback is always welcome and you always have the right to disagree - I just had to comment on your response because, as I said, I do not want other readers to misinterpret what we had tried to present in a manner fair and open). :)
|
Re: ipsp (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
Max F., you did make generalisations maybe you are not aware of the logically implications of the english you have written. I admit I made them TOO, but I straight up admitted it so you are not point anything out but what I stated.
This article does NOT represent both sides equally (you admit that) but how can an article be FAIR or JUSTLY when you write it towards one opinion.
It's a shame that you are unable to take onboard what I'm saying rather then flaming me.
I'll point out that this article is ONLY reaching those that are already in the KNOW. So it's falling on deaf ears.
As far as I'm concerned these people are doing the community a service. Depends on your view on it.
Thanks for replying nice to see you think that you think I could make a difference. The fact is I'm being MORE honest than you and rather than correct your mistakes you prefer to flame.
|
by big baz (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
its funny that theres quite often a site who advertises in that box on the top right of this site that does unlimted games/film/music downloads...........for a price
i've always thought that one sounds dodgy... because umd's have never been available for download legally!!
perhaps qj.net should check who they allow to advertise here, and its not an excuse to say that the adverts are supplied via a third party is it??
|
Re: ipsp (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
I noticed the same thing, in fact I contact the site directly about it. It's highly unlikely they will remove the adevertising, but if they don't then they should remove this article.
This article has made me loose alot of respect for this site.
Regardless if the adverts are supplied by third party, it's the pot calling the kettle black.
|
Re: Warhawke (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
All QJ can do is set up the kinds of ads that they want through Google, not the actual ads themselves. So they have no control over what companies are advertised.
|
Re: Advertising - |
|
|
|
Re: joey (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
Then remove Google ads?
|
Re: Max F. (QJ. NET Staff) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
No, we are not the pot calling the kettle black. We are a site with ads from the Google MACHINE - we writers do not sit down and pick which ads we like and do not like - just because we are bloggers does not mean we have the power to sift through Internet advertising as if it was a salad bar.
Also, I have another point to make: just because the blind person can not see the sun does not mean the blind person has no right to talk about the sun. Well, just because we have the occasional random ad for sites that demand payment for downloads (which has yet to be confirmed by the way), that does not invalidate what this article is about - nor is it a reflection of the opinions and reputation of our bloggers and editors. :)
Finally, thanks for your feedback - I have told my editor about it - we always appreciate it. So sorry for this text wall, but I felt that I had to say something about your comments before wild theories and ideas run rampant. :)
|
Re: ipsp (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
Come on Max F you can't write an article about these sites being bad when this site make money off people that click the links, if you do say you should be flamed, and yes it does invalidate your arguement cause you are profiting from these sites existence.
Noone is saying you choose the ads, simple I'm sure you have google configured with a number of words, just go back in and exclude words. I don't think you have the pwoer to control the internet but you do have the power to control what content you deliver.
I don't have to prove these links exist, cause simple fact is they do. Trying to avoid it is stupid.
The only theories that are running rampant in my mind is your ignorance, funny you guys say you have no control over the ads, so why should ebay be any different. You want to hold ebay to a higher standard then yourself. If you want to change anything in this world, set an example.
|
Re: Yangon (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
You ARE right, can't argue with that.
|
Re: Max F. (QJ. NET Staff) - 2006-12-01 |
|
|
We are not picking a fight with eBay. This article was never about fighting eBay. It was about three things.
First, it mentioned a site pretending to be Dark_Alex - no big issue there - we all agree that is bad and we all feel bad for Dark_Alex.
Second, it mentioned three sites that took your money in exchange for that pj1115 said were unseeded torrents. We blogged about this because it was interesting and helpful to know - some newbies out there might benefit, and some of the long-time gamers might also want to read out it. The only issue there is those sites can pop up in our Google ads because PSP is a key word. Because of this incidental thing, some people argue that we lose credibility and no longer have the right to report possible scams. I argue that any QJ blogger still has the right to blog about the truth - like I said, even a blind man has a right to blog about the sun.
The third issue is PEOPLE who sell what should be free (not eBay or sites that allow the selling of free stuff). What things did we say about the selling of homebrew? Here it is: the article said that is bad if the software is freeware, confusing because of Sony rights, OK if the software is free software, an issue because of sellers can be sued for misrepresenting products, and confusing because sometimes the software is part of a package or compilation so then it is no longer clear if that is black or white.
We were not out to attack eBay. Neither did we expect that ads would become the big issue when I wrote this blog entry. I thought we would have a lively discussion about software rights. Oh well. :)
Finally, I have reported your complaints and criticisms to my editor. :) As a blogger, I can try to clarify your understanding of what I have blogged, but your criticisms will not go unheard. :)
|
Re: Madd (Unregistered) - 2006-12-01 |
|
|
qj has every right to advertize,
Im sure they got a hefty hosting bill
and many people who dont run a LARGE site such as QJ have no clue as to what a task it can be.
and look at all the BS they put up with!!!
and here comes someone trying to talk down
"what was wrriten at QJ"
Im tired of you all complaining all the dame time about qj this and qj that.
I say your lucky QJ is even here to help
bring all this info, {weather ligit, or whatever)
They can post their oppions,
and ofcorse the story was written by 1 person,
their for it will lean to one side.
I do agree they should look at their keywords and try to get them ads off. But again thats on QJ and not any of you.
|
by sovram (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
Is homebrew illegal? because i thought qj was hot on illegal stuff!
|
Re: ipsp (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
Ok I'm not sure if it is illegal.
This site on the other hand DOES support illegal homebrew no doubting that. Look at the Mario homebrew, that characters and artwork are trademarks. Hence they are supporting the copying of trademarks, this is illegal.
A good example of the trademark issue is the Simpsons. I remember a few years ago (mid 90's) that Fox tried to stop everybody on the internet using pictures of the Simpsons. But what Fox came to realise it that it was free advertisement and as long as these sites were NOT profitting from it then no harm done.
Typically this site is nothing more than supporting homebrew/isos they just don't say it.
If you want proof have a look at the number of jumps on the software that allows firmware/isos to be emulated or played.
This site seems to think if no one says anything it will not be true, but is obviously is.
|
Re: sovram (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
hmm... interesting. But qj doesnt post iso loaders...
|
Re: ipsp (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
Sorry but qj does post the most significant iso loader. DevHook, I don't know anybody that does use it for that reason.
|
Re: Granvatar_OfME (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
Homebrew itself is legal in theory as FREEWARE!! but it becomes ilegal when is used for activities likie EMULATORS,the thing is that Emulators have been called Homebrew so everyone thinks Emu's are HB where are 2 different from each other.
Homebrew:Original Apps,games and stuff (mostly crap)created by 1 or more designers that produce them as "Freeware" for not apparent reason.While this creations remain as original content they are legal.
Emulated games and apps:Also piracy since emulators are for running games that have "RIGHTS" on them that specify the use of them also they have clear that their reproduccion is ilegal.
|
Re: Floxnard (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
What Granvatar_OfME said is 100% wrong. Emulators are homebrew and are 100% legal and do not violate any laws what-so-ever. However in order for them to work it requires the rom (the game). You can either buy the game and rip the rom from the cartidge/cd/dvd/umd/whatever, which is borderline, or you can download it online from someone who has done that. Downloading it online is 100% illegal if you do not own a copy of the game. And most people do not. Most sites will say something like "If you do not own a copy of the game, you must delete this within 24hours" and thus avoid legalities. Game companies of retro games really have no reason to care since they don't sell the games and this simply increases their fan base. But current companies have everyting to fear since they pour time and money into a game, just to have it downloaded without any payment to them. Thus I believe it is really bad to download current games illegally, since it could theoretically drive current manufacturers under. In short Retro+ O.K. in my opinion, but Currnet stuff (like ISOs)+ bad.
|
Re: jrfhoutx - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
Actually, it is illegal; When you start and setup your PSP, or install a firmware update you agreed to the terms of the EULA, which to quote Sony's EULA says:
"You may not (i) rent, lease or sublicense the Application, (ii) modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the Application, (iii) attempt to create the source code from the object code for the Application, or (iv) download game content for any purpose other than game play.
You may, however, transfer all your rights to use the Application to another person provided that you transfer the original product unmodified and in its entirety. The terms of this User Agreement shall apply to transferred Applications."
So, you see technically some homebrew is illegal.
As far as QJ not posting illegal content that's a bunch of BS because I seem to recall QJ frontpaging such things as DAX, harleyg, and others' custom firmwares, those would fall under 'modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble' and that would include Devhook Firmware emulation, and you are breaking that EULA term everytime you and I dump anything from our firmware, flash anything, run unsigned homebrew programs, use PBPUnpacker and the like... Would you like me to go on, or have I made my point?
Personally, I think that the hacking scene is wonderful and so should Sony (It's a free way to find flaws in your code and it's security).
|
by waaaa (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
ipsp said it perfectly, nothing more to add.
|
by 300 (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
Too bad, all this ***** happening to DAX all at the same time :(
|
by pj1115 (Unregistered) - 2006-11-30 |
|
|
Okay, I've read the article, and I think you've hit the nail on the head (or thereabouts).
Whether it's illegal or legal to sell free software on the web or not, these people need to be fought.
And to anyone who would like to call me a 'N00B', I'd like to point out that I'm advising people who are liable to fall for these rip-off's. Do you think I have NO experience when it comes to the web? A sad 13-year-old who believes he is superior because he's too good to help people out cam go home and play with your toys, if he's going to try and show people down.
Sorry about the bit where I said the author claimed to have written the software. I'll update my post with the alternative information.