Support NeoGAF

[HDgaming42]

It's not the same.

I'm not equating them--if they were equal of course he'd agree with it and I wouldn't have to ask. I'm wondering how far his(?) defense of Sony's actions go.

Either way the legit consumer is fucked.

I agree.

 

[Pandaman]

I'm struggling for some pony-based analogy that would make the argument for keeping what you pay for clear to you, but I'm starting to suspect you would defend corporate rights over those of consumers regardless.

i think you're struggling because you're having trouble realizing that if you don't update your OS, you do keep what you paid for.

I'd be curious if you supported Sony putting rootkits on your PC lest they risk losing control of their music delivery service. Any anti-consumer action is justified in the greater scheme of keeping the company profitable?

If sony came out and said that from now on all their new songs would come with a rootkit i would stop buying their songs.
just like if they came out and said all their new ps3 games would require firmware X and i did not want firmware X, i would stop buying ps3 games.

*shakes head*

*cries for the future*

It's very bemusing on my end, one wonders where this feeling of entitlement ends.

 

[HDgaming42]

It's very bemusing on my end, one wonders where this feeling of entitlement ends.

I'm Gen X man. The only entitlement I feel is for what should be rightfully coming my way.

Cheers.

 

[Pandaman]

Yes, but in this case wouldn't you consider that these expectations were quite reasonable? I mean OtherOS was a feature Sony touted about the PS3 and being able to play PS3 games is also something that was definitely an advertised feature. Having people decide between the two could potentially be considered misleading, bordering in the realm of false advertising. There are probably people that did pay to have both features.

I would say that yes they are reasonable but not legally binding. Taking another sony product as an example: the pspGO was DOA, is sony responsible for supporting the go forever and having every new psp game be available through the psn forever even if the market does not support the cost of maintaining a digital marketplace containing every single new psp game?

Its easier to sympathize with sony in the go's case because we can all identify with how bleeding money into a market that just doesn't exist is bad for sony, but in principle it shouldn't matter what the motivation is.

I'm Gen X man. The only entitlement I feel is for what should be rightfully coming my way.

Cheers.

and the ability to play new games are not yours by right, Each game sale is an island. Meet each games term at the point you purchase them and then and only then do you have a right to play them on your system.

there, problem solved!

 

[HDgaming42]

and the ability to play new games are not yours by right, Each game sale is an island. Meet each games term at the point you purchase them and then and only then do you have a right to play them on your system.

This seems like a fascinating legal fantasy. Is this from the judgement or just your personal credo?

I can understand that concept for PC sales--but not closed system consoles...

you know what--i don't care to argue this any longer--we're not going to see eye to eye on this.

i'm joining the duck...

 

[Pandaman]

This seems like a fascinating legal fantasy. Is this from the judgement or just your personal credo?

I can understand that concept for PC sales--but not closed system consoles...

you know what--i don't care to argue this any longer--we're not going to see eye to eye on this.

i'm joining the duck...

I don't really see much progress in arguing with someone who refuses to stay grounded in reality, so yeah its probably for the best.

 

[Slavik81]

Ugh sad people are applauding this. This is what a generation of "System Warz WarriorZ!" turns into I guess.

You're projecting. I hate that Sony removed OtherOS. I want to see the console market become more open, and right now it's regressing.

But I also don't think there should be any legal obligation for optional software updates to support every feature they had in the past. Nor do I think game companies are obligated to indefinitely support new games on old hardware/firmware. I think those sorts of obligations would result in us not getting featues like OtherOS in the first place.

Wrong. The only thing lost was access to PSN, a service which exists outside the box you bought and subject to its own independent terms and conditions. And that wasn't "lost" per se, access rights were simply suspended until the user complied with its terms of service.

The important thing is to consider what the implications would have been had the judgement gone the other way, essentially setting a precedent that once a software feature has been implemented, it cannot ever be removed without risking legal action by an outraged section of the userbase, no matter how small and unrepresentative they are of the whole.

This would be an unbelievably oppressive millstone around the necks of all software and hardware vendors, most likely resulting in hugely accelerated rates of obsolescence due to providers abandoning existing products in order to get a "clean slate" for their next iteration and taking the opportunity to charge consumers again for the next version.

Most importantly though, if you look at the situation rationally there are only a select few circumstances where a provider would ever consider removing existing functionality. Why weaken your value proposition unless the risk of keeping it outweighs it in your business plan? Especially when the far simpler option of simply dropping support and allowing the feature to simply fall into obscurity exists.

The logic of the argument that this decision offers a threat to consumer rights only works if you have a paranoid belief that the "corporations are out to get us". This is nonsense. They want to SELL us things, and removing popular features is not conducive to that goal.

The whole premise that this is some kind of gateway to calamity makes no sense; the removal of OtherOS was not an act of malice, it was done out of fear and a desire to protect the viability of the product and its associated services.

An unviable product is no good for anyone. And as that determination can only be made by the vendor, its up to them to make tough decisions.

The plain truth is that the removal of OtherOS was a non-issue for most users. Its loss doesn't seem to have had an adverse affect on PS3 sales, so maybe killing it was the right decision for their business. I guess we'll never know for sure.

What I am certain of though is that its a feature that they'll never implement again on one of their consoles. And that's a change of policy you can thank Hotz and co for.

Well said.

 

[Whogie]

I was upset for a long time over this BS, but I'm (somewhat) over it. I did use the feature -- it's how I learned Linux. Having a setup that needs extra attention like that is a great crash course to learning the OS, rather than installing to have everything work off the bat. But as someone else mentioned, and I saw myself, community support was fading. I had my uses for the OS (which included a far superior browser,) but they were pretty limited.

I'm struggling for some pony-based analogy that would make the argument for keeping what you pay for clear to you...

Oh that's easy!
It's like you buy a season pass on iTunes, but halfway through the season, they change it to the Applejack show. All the other main characters are removed, and Applejack is the star. You can stop downloading episodes and just stick with the old ones, but you did pay for the whole season.

 

[Kyon]

I don't think anyone really used OtherOS except a small amount of ppl. Then when it was removed all of a sudden "everyone used it" lol I always assumed people would try to hack the PS3 with it so i say good riddance. If i was at Sony i would've never released OtherOS because of that reason alone

 

[Louis Cyphre]

This was expected. The software attached to the product is still owned by Sony.

 

[squatingyeti]

i think you're struggling because you're having trouble realizing that if you don't update your OS, you do keep what you paid for.



If sony came out and said that from now on all their new songs would come with a rootkit i would stop buying their songs.
just like if they came out and said all their new ps3 games would require firmware X and i did not want firmware X, i would stop buying ps3 games.


It's very bemusing on my end, one wonders where this feeling of entitlement ends.

These are the very same arguments people were using when saying you don't have the right to "jailbreak" a PS3. Do you also believe there is no parallel between the EFF fought for and now legally allowed jailbreaking of phones and what should be legally allowed jailbreaking of videogame consoles?

This was expected. The software attached to the product is still owned by Sony.

True, but the "copy" of the software attached to the product may very well be owned by the purchaser. The LoC found compelling arguments, and a court case, that this idea leans towards the consumer. The EFF has already fired the shots at console manufacturers with their appeal to the EFF to add consoles as a class with the argument being almost exactly the same as the one they won with phones.

What I am certain of though is that its a feature that they'll never implement again on one of their consoles. And that's a change of policy you can thank Hotz and co for.

Yes, god forbid Hotz and co want to do as they choose with a device they own. I guess we should all be mad that Hotz and co also felt the same way about the iPhone, right? It's not like Apple "borrowed" any ideas from jailbreakers and obviously the only thing they wanted to do was steal apps /sarcasm.

Why can't more companies think like Valve and CD Projekt/RED? (and while I'm wishing, why was jailbreaking made legal only for smartphones and not for all systems!).

This is the huge point people miss. It's not because they're not similar, but merely because the EFF was only requesting a class for smartphones. Some people think that the LoC just decides these things by thinking about it themselves. The reality is that someone has to propose a class. However, the EFF is seeking to renew the smartphone class and expand it to consoles as well now: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=454133

 

[tranciful]

These are the very same arguments people were using when saying you don't have the right to "jailbreak" a PS3. Do you also believe there is no parallel between the EFF fought for and now legally allowed jailbreaking of phones and what should be legally allowed jailbreaking of videogame consoles?

The right to legally jailbreak has almost nothing to do with this. The product maker has no obligation to make it easy or openly allow you to jailbreak -- they do, and should, have every right to defend their product against it with firmware updates and the like.

Yes, god forbid Hotz and co want to do as they choose with a device they own. I guess we should all be mad that Hotz and co also felt the same way about the iPhone, right? It's not like Apple "borrowed" any ideas from jailbreakers and obviously the only thing they wanted to do was steal apps /sarcasm.

..what? Sony allowed Linux on PS3, Geohotz and others exploited the feature to break through PS3's security effectively jeopardizing Sony's ability to defend against piracy. Why the hell would Sony or anybody else leave a gaping hole like that open? What the hell did you expect?

Common sense, people.

 

[DangerousDave]

This is the huge point people miss. It's not because they're not similar, but merely because the EFF was only requesting a class for smartphones. Some people think that the LoC just decides these things by thinking about it themselves. The reality is that someone has to propose a class. However, the EFF is seeking to renew the smartphone class and expand it to consoles as well now: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=454133

Well, at least each time that I bought something in the HumbleBundle i was giving all my cash to the developers, so I'm not promoting the legality of hacking consoles with my money.

 

[squatingyeti]

The right to legally jailbreak has almost nothing to do with this. The product maker has no obligation to make it easy or openly allow you to jailbreak -- they do, and should, have every right to defend their product against it with firmware updates and the like.

No, the poster was using the same arguments people in those threads were. In each instance, I don't think those arguments hold up. The judge didn't even dismiss the case because there was no merit. The judge dismissed the case because they plaintiffs did not present a claim.

..what? Sony allowed Linux on PS3, Geohotz and others exploited the feature to break through PS3's security effectively jeopardizing Sony's ability to defend against piracy. Why the hell would Sony or anybody else leave a gaping hole like that open? What the hell did you expect?
Common sense, people.

Common sense says you might not have understood what I was saying. First of all, the gaping hole was Sony's broken security algorithm. Secondly, restoring an iPhone has been the common way to jailbreak them. Obviously a gaping hole that Apple is exposed to. Does that mean the ability to restore phones should be removed? Clear argued that, because Hotz and co wished to do as they choose with a device they own, we should blame them for Sony's current and likely future actions. I completely disagree with that. I blame Sony for their current and future actions. In fact, better security (you know, like not screwing up something so basic as a random number usage) would mean they wouldn't have to deny users the ability to run linux now and on future playstations. What you both are arguing is that anything which can be exploited to hack a system, we the users should realize needs to be removed and blame the exploiter for that. Again, the viewing of PDF files on the iPhone was exploited to jailbreak them. I guess we should blame Comex if PDF viewing was removed from iDevices as well.

Well, at least each time that I bought something in the HumbleBundle i was giving all my cash to the developers, so I'm not promoting the legality of hacking consoles with my money.

Do you think it's perfectly ok to jailbreak a phone? If so, I'm not sure why you're seemingly against the same for consoles? The argument for is exactly that of the argument the EFF presented for phones. People need to understand, there is no difference in them. Closed devices in which the maker restricts what can and cannot operate on them, purely for the protection of a business model, should not be protected from fair use.

 

[DangerousDave]

Do you think it's perfectly ok to jailbreak a phone? If so, I'm not sure why you're seemingly against the same for consoles?

There are some restrictions in carrier's exclusivities or contracts that make the situation slightly different. So if I buy a phone with hone company A and, after I finish their permanency contract, I change to phone company B (or I left after finishing the contract and I pay the penalty), I can't continue using the phone with my new phone company.

Last time that I checked, I was able to run my consoles with any internet company.

Is not that I'm a great supporter of phone jailbreaking, but at least I see that there are a lot of legitimate reasons to do it (and iPhone scene, for example, are tons of other stuff aside from installous, with tons of modifications in the OS to allow a lot of unexistant features). But when I see people saying that is ok to lose online, downloadable games, newest games, updates and tons of other things only to be able to play the games that they totally already have, but from a hard drive, to avoid the annoyiness of waking up to change the disc, or to emulate old games that they totally bought in cartridges through ebay, i totally believe that their motivations are 100% legit. Yes, not all the people that hacks are pirates, but there are so many that making hacking consoles something legal will create much more problems than benefits.

 

[davepoobond]

the difference between jailbreaking an iphone and ps3 are tantamount.


the iphone NEVER had the ability to install another OS on it. the PS3 did.

therein lies the differences.

 

[Brofist]

There are some restrictions in carrier's exclusivities or contracts that make the situation slightly different. So if I buy a phone with hone company A and, after I finish their permanency contract, I change to phone company B (or I left after finishing the contract and I pay the penalty), I can't continue using the phone with my new phone company.

Last time that I checked, I was able to run my consoles with any internet company.

Is not that I'm a great supporter of phone jailbreaking, but at least I see that there are a lot of legitimate reasons to do it (and iPhone scene, for example, are tons of other stuff aside from installous, with tons of modifications in the OS to allow a lot of unexistant features). But when I see people saying that is ok to lose online, downloadable games, newest games, updates and tons of other things only to be able to play the games that they totally already have, but from a hard drive, to avoid the annoyiness of waking up to change the disc, or to emulate old games that they totally bought in cartridges through ebay, i totally believe that their motivations are 100% legit. Yes, not all the people that hacks are pirates, but there are so many that making hacking consoles something legal will create much more problems than benefits.

So basically you support jailbreaking a device if it offers you personal convenience otherwise you don't believe in it. Gotcha.

 

[squatingyeti]

There are some restrictions in carrier's exclusivities or contracts that make the situation slightly different. So if I buy a phone with hone company A and, after I finish their permanency contract, I change to phone company B (or I left after finishing the contract and I pay the penalty), I can't continue using the phone with my new phone company.

Another one of the completely false assertions by those in previous threads refusing to believe there was any parallel in smartphones and consoles. What you speak of is unlocking a phone. Unlocking phones is a completely separate exemption which was granted years before. Jailbreaking phones is it's own exemption with different arguments. The "phones were locked to carriers, thus the jailbreaking exemption was granted mainly to move between carriers" is completely incorrect. Jailbreaking was argued for so that an owner can make any legally obtained software function on their device. The purpose to deny such was deemed merely an attempt to protect a business model.

Last time that I checked, I was able to run my consoles with any internet company.

Were you able to install a completely homebrew game, which did not require any of the income from sales of that game to go to the console manufacturer? Where you able to run legally obtained software with the full power of the system without the manufacturer's approval? Those are two reasons why jailbreaking exist.

Is not that I'm a great supporter of phone jailbreaking, but at least I see that there are a lot of legitimate reasons to do it (and iPhone scene, for example, are tons of other stuff aside from installous, with tons of modifications in the OS to allow a lot of unexistant features). But when I see people saying that is ok to lose online, downloadable games, newest games, updates and tons of other things only to be able to play the games that they totally already have, but from a hard drive, to avoid the annoyiness of waking up to change the disc, or to emulate old games that they totally bought in cartridges through ebay, i totally believe that their motivations are 100% legit. Yes, not all the people that hacks are pirates, but there are so many that making hacking consoles something legal will create much more problems than benefits.

Why should you lose access to the marketplace because you jailbreak a console? I never lost access to the appstore? Are they wishing you do not purchase anything from them? Furthermore, you act as if jailbreaking a console would not allow non-existent features to be created. I imagine you've never heard of XBMC? Completely non-existent and developed only by and for jailbroken console. Just as with phones, the fact that there could be potential problems with jailbreaking does not negate the right. There are already laws meant to punish those that pirate.

the difference between jailbreaking an iphone and ps3 are tantamount.

the iphone NEVER had the ability to install another OS on it. the PS3 did.

therein lies the differences.

Ummm...the 360 NEVER had the ability to install another OS on it. The Wii NEVER had the ability to install another OS on it. The class would be any (past, present, and future) videogame console. In fact, on iPhones, they don't install another OS. They use virtually every line of code written by Apple, merely changing a few parts to allow jailbreaking. They are using the same OS any other iPhone user is, but with very slight modifications. So, you're argument and suggested differences are not in existence. In fact, if you read the EFF's argument for continuing the smartphone class and the addition of the several new classes they propose, you will see the EFF specifically states videogame consoles and smartphones are so strikingly similar, that the EFF will not rehash the argument for the new class and instead would ask the LoC to reference the smartphone arguments. They only added arguments (aka more reasons it should be allowed) on top of the ones that already handily won smartphone exemption with

 

[tranciful]

Common sense says you might not have understood what I was saying. First of all, the gaping hole was Sony's broken security algorithm. Secondly, restoring an iPhone has been the common way to jailbreak them. Obviously a gaping hole that Apple is exposed to. Does that mean the ability to restore phones should be removed? Clear argued that, because Hotz and co wished to do as they choose with a device they own, we should blame them for Sony's current and likely future actions. I completely disagree with that. I blame Sony for their current and future actions. In fact, better security (you know, like not screwing up something so basic as a random number usage) would mean they wouldn't have to deny users the ability to run linux now and on future playstations. What you both are arguing is that anything which can be exploited to hack a system, we the users should realize needs to be removed and blame the exploiter for that. Again, the viewing of PDF files on the iPhone was exploited to jailbreak them. I guess we should blame Comex if PDF viewing was removed from iDevices as well.

Wow, you're totally misrepresenting my arguments and conflating the issues.

I referred to the specific OtherOS vulnerability that Geohotz originally found as 'a gaping hole' -- that was a legitimate security hole and has nothing to do with the entirely separate security holes later found, like what later lead to rampant piracy. OtherOS was clearly a security threat. You can presume that they should have simply had 'better security' but I have a feeling you greatly underestimate the difficulty involved with allowing various open source operating systems to be installed on your hardware without letting anything slip through. Geohotz' exploit for OtherOS involved sending raw voltage to trick certain hardware components -- it goes beyond software security. They can't exactly release a patch to fix the hardware vulnerability, but they can cut off access to OtherOS in future firmwares to mitigate potential damage.

Don't characterize my statements -- I'm obviously not advocating that cutting features is the first line of defense. I'm simply acknowledging the fact that there can exist circumstances that warrant it. Clear articulated it well:

Most importantly though, if you look at the situation rationally there are only a select few circumstances where a provider would ever consider removing existing functionality. Why weaken your value proposition unless the risk of keeping it outweighs it in your business plan? Especially when the far simpler option of simply dropping support and allowing the feature to simply fall into obscurity exists.

The logic of the argument that this decision offers a threat to consumer rights only works if you have a paranoid belief that the "corporations are out to get us". This is nonsense. They want to SELL us things, and removing popular features is not conducive to that goal.

The whole premise that this is some kind of gateway to calamity makes no sense; the removal of OtherOS was not an act of malice, it was done out of fear and a desire to protect the viability of the product and its associated services.

An unviable product is no good for anyone. And as that determination can only be made by the vendor, its up to them to make tough decisions.

You have a very simplistic way of viewing this situation and you seem to believe in some fantasy where jailbreaking can only be a good thing and that hardware developers should invest all their money into a product just to give up all control over it. I think people should have every legal right to hack their own hardware and write their own homebrew software for whatever hardware they wish, but I also accept the fact that unfortunately piracy always finds its way into the picture and I think these companies have every right to defend against piracy, even if that means homebrew gets caught in the crossfire -- piracy defeats viability, and without viability you don't get the cool products to play with. You're expecting these companies to support open features even if it kills them -- that's just unrealistic. With the PS3, Sony did more in the name of open hardware than anyone else in the console industry, but it bit them in the ass because people like Hotz used OtherOS to compromise the PS3 and they catch bad PR when they defended their product's viability. Unfortunately, because of Hotz and people like you, the lesson they learned was "play it safe, stick with closed systems like the other companies are doing."

 

[Special J]

I could've told you this would happen like half a year ago.

In fact, I did.

And they deserved to lose.

wait what?! holy shit.

 

[sonikokaruto]

I know it doesn't have anything to do with the ps vita, but of Sony is doing this right now, I don't have hope for the vita and it's shaenigangs (mainly the multiple account fiasco)

Not getting a vita until knowing what's the plan really gonna be

 

[wutwutwut]

If you want more open platforms, you have to make it more attractive to these companies. This backlash, these policies many of you adopt, are counter-productive. From now on, they'll look at what happened here and think "why would we want to risk putting ourselves through that? No way!"

You're acting as if the PS3 being relatively open was a privilege to customers. Why should people bend over for Sony? There are successful, important open platforms for gaming (PC, Android). People who want open platforms to game on can simply stick to them without any sort of compromise.

 

[IrishNinja]

First they came for PS2 backwards compatibility,
and I didn't speak out because I still had a PS2.

Then they came for linux,
and I didn't speak out because I don't even know what that does.

Then they came for gamesharing,
and I didn't speak out because I don't have any friends who bought RE4.

Then they came for my credit card information,
and there was no one left to speak out for me, also because the network was down.

 

[squatingyeti]

Wow, you're totally misrepresenting my arguments and conflating the issues.

I referred to the specific OtherOS vulnerability that Geohotz originally found as 'a gaping hole' -- that was a legitimate security hole and has nothing to do with the entirely separate security holes later found, like what later lead to rampant piracy. OtherOS was clearly a security threat. You can presume that they should have simply had 'better security' but I have a feeling you greatly underestimate the difficulty involved with allowing various open source operating systems to be installed on your hardware without letting anything slip through. Geohotz' exploit for OtherOS involved sending raw voltage to trick certain hardware components -- it goes beyond software security. They can't exactly release a patch to fix the hardware vulnerability, but they can cut off access to OtherOS in future firmwares to mitigate potential damage.

Ok, you say all this and it attempts to negate the fact that the ultimate hole in their security was a completely flawed algorithm which was supposed to involve a random number. Their security was broken in a major way. Regardless of what Hotz (I guess we'll just ignore fail0verflow, the ones that actually figured out the real security hole) did or the fact he was using voltage attacks, none of that got him the goal of jailbreaking the system. That allowed him to see some things and try to work with them, but ultimately, the system was still controlled. Now, he may have one day figured out a way in, but none of that is what got CFW. It's a plain and simple fact that the flawed security algorithm was the only way that happened. If it was anything else, then I'd have to ask where the CFW is for over 3.55 FW (after the problem was fixed). Again, they will eventually figure it out, but that is owed FAR more to how much they've learned by being let in to begin with.

You have a very simplistic way of viewing this situation and you seem to believe in some fantasy where jailbreaking can only be a good thing and that hardware developers should invest all their money into a product just to give up all control over it.

Speaking of characterizing someone's statements... Anyway, I never said it was only a good thing, but the idea that bad things can come from it does not negate the right to fair use. Again, this is a flawed argument. There are already laws protecting against piracy. I do believe they should give up control to me for a device I own. See below because I wanted to split your comment up and my response applies to both this portion and the next.

I think people should have every legal right to hack their own hardware and write their own homebrew software for whatever hardware they wish, but I also accept the fact that unfortunately piracy always finds its way into the picture and I think these companies have every right to defend against piracy, even if that means homebrew gets caught in the crossfire -- piracy defeats viability, and without viability you don't get the cool products to play with.

Once you've sold a computer to me, I can do whatever I'd like (within the law) to it. If I want to drop windows and run linux, that's my choice because I own it and you don't have control. If you paid for that windows license as a company, it wasn't necessary for me and that cost you some money, that's too bad. Now, no one is claiming these companies don't have a right to defend against piracy. However, that does NOT mean my rights as a consumer should be pushed aside. I think we can all agree the DS suffered from rampant piracy (a HUGE order of magnitude worse than the "rampant" piracy the PS3 was opened up to). The DS did not have its viability defeated. What you are actually arguing for is legal protection of business models. The LoC agrees with me here and the fact that piracy may happen is beyond the scope. The LoC clearly saw that the argument against jailbreaking was to protect a business model.

Printer manufacturers used to sell many printers at a loss, expecting to recover, and profit greatly, when the owner needed ink. They put chips on the ink cartridges and stopped the printers from using any other cartridges except those approved by the manufacturer. Closed system, just like consoles and phones before. Someone hacked those chips and made compatible ink cartridges for less. Now the printer manufacturer is pissed. You're buying something that was not approved and required a hack to work. They sought protection via the system because you can now make the printer do something it was never intended and you're hurting the viability of future printers. Fortunately, there's sane people in this world that understand protecting a printer manufacturer was legally protecting a business model. What the people actually got was competition in ink costs. There are parallels in the business model from that story and consoles. If I don't buy the Sony/MS/Nintendo approved games because I found others I like (whether they be free or cost) that were developed for my system, that's competition. If I use my console for something like XBMC instead of buying games, that's competition. The manufacturer did not have anything that compelled me to spend my money on what was being offered. The argument of piracy is null and void because it is beyond the scope. There are already laws with regards to piracy.

You're expecting these companies to support open features even if it kills them -- that's just unrealistic. With the PS3, Sony did more in the name of open hardware than anyone else in the console industry, but it bit them in the ass because people like Hotz used OtherOS to compromise the PS3 and they catch bad PR when they defended their product's viability. Unfortunately, because of Hotz and people like you, the lesson they learned was "play it safe, stick with closed systems like the other companies are doing."

No, no one is expecting them to support open features. They don't have to run around helping everyone with linux or anything else. If they included a feature in their product that was advertised (yes, saying it's going to be included and talking about it is advertising! Not sure when advertising required something to be written down in an ad) I expect to be able to enjoy all the advertised features going forward (it is expressly implied that owning a system allows you to play ALL approved games, past, present and future). BTW, Sony received most of the bad PR when they became the big bad bully on the block by suing anyone that would dare work on jailbreaks for the console. Hopefully, the lesson the EFF and the LoC will teach them is "you can close your system, but that doesn't deny someone the right to open it and the law does not protect your business model".

I will point out one more time with regards to this case, the judge didn't dismiss because there was no legal standing against Sony. The case was dismissed because the plaintiffs did not state a claim:

While it cannot be concluded as a matter of law at this juncture that Sony could, without legal consequence, force its customers to choose either to forego installing the software update or to lose access to the other OS feature, the present allegations of the complaint largely fail to state a claim

 

[tranciful]

This'll be my last post in this thread

squatingyeti, they don't need laws to protect business models. I hope you'll eventually realize that your stance gives companies more incentive to move toward closed systems and cloud-based models like OnLive's, where the hardware is effectively removed from your hands all-together.

Ok, you say all this and it attempts to negate the fact that the ultimate hole in their security was a completely flawed algorithm which was supposed to involve a random number. Their security was broken in a major way. Regardless of what Hotz (I guess we'll just ignore fail0verflow, the ones that actually figured out the real security hole) did or the fact he was using voltage attacks, none of that got him the goal of jailbreaking the system. That allowed him to see some things and try to work with them, but ultimately, the system was still controlled. Now, he may have one day figured out a way in, but none of that is what got CFW. It's a plain and simple fact that the flawed security algorithm was the only way that happened. If it was anything else, then I'd have to ask where the CFW is for over 3.55 FW (after the problem was fixed). Again, they will eventually figure it out, but that is owed FAR more to how much they've learned by being let in to begin with.

Nope. I said all that because this thread is about the removal of OtherOS, which was a direct response to Hotz' OtherOS exploit, and obviously not caused the fail0overflow exploit that didn't involve OtherOS and happened after the fact. You keep going off topic, inventing strawman arguments, and generally failing at simple logic.

What you are actually arguing for is legal protection of business models.

Oh, is that what I meant when I said "I think people should have every legal right to hack their own hardware and write their own homebrew software for whatever hardware they wish"? smh

Now, no one is claiming these companies don't have a right to defend against piracy

I do believe they should give up control to me for a device I own.

 

[Pandaman]

These are the very same arguments people were using when saying you don't have the right to "jailbreak" a PS3.

I don't really see how. If the arguments are similar they should be easily refuted in that instance but that wouldn't reflect on this instance, since they're completely different issues. [consumers right to use the hardware as he sees fit and companies right to control access to their network respectively].

Do you also believe there is no parallel between the EFF fought for and now legally allowed jailbreaking of phones and what should be legally allowed jailbreaking of videogame consoles?

I... don't know? You certainly should be allowed to jailbreak phones and consoles.

 

[squatingyeti]

This'll be my last post in this thread

squatingyeti, they don't need laws to protect business models. I hope you'll eventually realize that your stance gives companies more incentive to move toward closed systems and cloud-based models like OnLive's, where the hardware is effectively removed from your hands all-together.

The whole reason to push for adding the exemption to consoles is they already use closed systems. You're absolutely right that they do not need laws to protect business models. Thus, owners of consoles should have every right to jailbreak them, just as owners of phones.

Nope. I said all that because this thread is about the removal of OtherOS, which was a direct response to Hotz' OtherOS exploit, and obviously not caused the fail0overflow exploit that didn't involve OtherOS and happened after the fact.

So, this disconnect here is you believe they simply removed an advertised feature because they didn't believe the security they developed would prevent that feature from compromising the rest of the system. OtherOS was costing Sony money to maintain. Whenever a new FW update was coming along, it had to play nicely with OtherOS. This was time and money spent that they were no longer interested in committing. OtherOS was removed from slims before Hotz had done anything. Furthermore, you're brushing off fail0verflow, which without them, it is unlikely any CFW would have been created in the first place. Hotz was able to poke around using OtherOS, but otherwise the security was bending and not breaking by not allowing a CFW. Fail0verflow found the problem and OtherOS, as you admit, had nothing to do with it. Fail0verflow is the reason for CFW. Because Hotz was the one who actually created a working CFW does not negate they found the hole.

Oh, is that what I meant when I said "I think people should have every legal right to hack their own hardware and write their own homebrew software for whatever hardware they wish"? smh

No, when you said that homebrew, jailbreaking basically, could be allowed to be denied, "caught in the crossfire" in order to protect a business from piracy. They have the right to protect against piracy, just as I have a right to open the system up. You know, ProtectIP may catch some legit uses in the crossfire, but overall they (companies and industry representatives like MPAA) say they need it to stop piracy.

BTW, stating that no one believes companies don't have the right to defend against piracy is not counter to also believing I have the right to control the device I own. That is failing simple logic. They have the right to create whatever security they claim will protect them from piracy. I have the right to defeat that security (which you must realize is designed to close the system and protect their business model) to do as I wish with the device I own. Thus, I control the device, not them. If you think that is a failure of logic, then you should address the LoC for believing the absolute same with exemptions of other closed systems. Piracy is beyond the scope. It has nothing to do with jailbreaking, short of manufacturer's desires to claim piracy will kill them, which is again, beyond the scope of a jailbreaking exemption.

I don't really see how. If the arguments are similar they should be easily refuted in that instance but that wouldn't reflect on this instance, since they're completely different issues. [consumers right to use the hardware as he sees fit and companies right to control access to their network respectively].

I was specifically speaking of how you tied it all back to entitlement. I should always feel entitled to do as I wish with a device I've purchased. If that means jailbreaking it because I want to make it the greatest media center type device ever, so be it. The sense of entitlement comes from ownership, which implies all sorts of entitlement.

Now, this issue with OtherOS being removed doesn't have anything to do with the right to control access to their network. This was an advertised feature which was removed. The "choice" is also not a choice, but a poison pill. Picking one causes the loss of the other advertised feature. Actually, not just one advertised feature, but a couple since you lose the ability to play new Blu-Ray movies as well if you stay with OtherOS. So now, you cannot play new Blu-Ray movies or new PS3 games designed for the PS3 console. Again, the plaintiffs failed to state a claim. This case was not dismissed because there was no legal ground the judge could see the plaintiffs standing on.

 

[Pandaman]

I was specifically speaking of how you tied it all back to entitlement. I should always feel entitled to do as I wish with a device I've purchased. If that means jailbreaking it because I want to make it the greatest media center type device ever, so be it. The sense of entitlement comes from ownership, which implies all sorts of entitlement.

sometimes people are entitled to the things they want, sometimes they are not. all accusations of entitlement are not equal, so im unsure what your point was with the comparison.

Now, this issue with OtherOS being removed doesn't have anything to do with the right to control access to their network.

Correct, its just the carrot they're using.

This was an advertised feature which was removed. The "choice" is also not a choice, but a poison pill. Picking one causes the loss of the other advertised feature. Actually, not just one advertised feature, but a couple since you lose the ability to play new Blu-Ray movies as well if you stay with OtherOS. So now, you cannot play new Blu-Ray movies or new PS3 games designed for the PS3 console. Again, the plaintiffs failed to state a claim. This case was not dismissed because there was no legal ground the judge could see the plaintiffs standing on.

There's no rule saying you have to like either choice. You're being threatened wih the removal of a service that in the long term may be essential to running software you haven't purchased yet. that sucks yeah, but there's nothing legally wrong there.

And who knows; maybe if you could jailbreak your ps3 through otherOS you could spoof the firmware requirements of games and movies that otherwise would have been able to run without changes to the OS, That would be perfectly fine too.

 

[staticneuron]

Wrong. The only thing lost was access to PSN, a service which exists outside the box you bought and subject to its own independent terms and conditions. And that wasn't "lost" per se, access rights were simply suspended until the user complied with its terms of service.

The important thing is to consider what the implications would have been had the judgement gone the other way, essentially setting a precedent that once a software feature has been implemented, it cannot ever be removed without risking legal action by an outraged section of the userbase, no matter how small and unrepresentative they are of the whole.

This would be an unbelievably oppressive millstone around the necks of all software and hardware vendors, most likely resulting in hugely accelerated rates of obsolescence due to providers abandoning existing products in order to get a "clean slate" for their next iteration and taking the opportunity to charge consumers again for the next version.

Most importantly though, if you look at the situation rationally there are only a select few circumstances where a provider would ever consider removing existing functionality. Why weaken your value proposition unless the risk of keeping it outweighs it in your business plan? Especially when the far simpler option of simply dropping support and allowing the feature to simply fall into obscurity exists.

The logic of the argument that this decision offers a threat to consumer rights only works if you have a paranoid belief that the "corporations are out to get us". This is nonsense. They want to SELL us things, and removing popular features is not conducive to that goal.

The whole premise that this is some kind of gateway to calamity makes no sense; the removal of OtherOS was not an act of malice, it was done out of fear and a desire to protect the viability of the product and its associated services.

An unviable product is no good for anyone. And as that determination can only be made by the vendor, its up to them to make tough decisions.

The plain truth is that the removal of OtherOS was a non-issue for most users. Its loss doesn't seem to have had an adverse affect on PS3 sales, so maybe killing it was the right decision for their business. I guess we'll never know for sure.

What I am certain of though is that its a feature that they'll never implement again on one of their consoles. And that's a change of policy you can thank Hotz and co for.

Wow, you're totally misrepresenting my arguments and conflating the issues.

I referred to the specific OtherOS vulnerability that Geohotz originally found as 'a gaping hole' -- that was a legitimate security hole and has nothing to do with the entirely separate security holes later found, like what later lead to rampant piracy. OtherOS was clearly a security threat. You can presume that they should have simply had 'better security' but I have a feeling you greatly underestimate the difficulty involved with allowing various open source operating systems to be installed on your hardware without letting anything slip through. Geohotz' exploit for OtherOS involved sending raw voltage to trick certain hardware components -- it goes beyond software security. They can't exactly release a patch to fix the hardware vulnerability, but they can cut off access to OtherOS in future firmwares to mitigate potential damage.

Don't characterize my statements -- I'm obviously not advocating that cutting features is the first line of defense. I'm simply acknowledging the fact that there can exist circumstances that warrant it. Clear articulated it well:



You have a very simplistic way of viewing this situation and you seem to believe in some fantasy where jailbreaking can only be a good thing and that hardware developers should invest all their money into a product just to give up all control over it. I think people should have every legal right to hack their own hardware and write their own homebrew software for whatever hardware they wish, but I also accept the fact that unfortunately piracy always finds its way into the picture and I think these companies have every right to defend against piracy, even if that means homebrew gets caught in the crossfire -- piracy defeats viability, and without viability you don't get the cool products to play with. You're expecting these companies to support open features even if it kills them -- that's just unrealistic. With the PS3, Sony did more in the name of open hardware than anyone else in the console industry, but it bit them in the ass because people like Hotz used OtherOS to compromise the PS3 and they catch bad PR when they defended their product's viability. Unfortunately, because of Hotz and people like you, the lesson they learned was "play it safe, stick with closed systems like the other companies are doing."

I think these are the best statements that sum up the concerns of everyone against this case.

 

[squatingyeti]

There's no rule saying you have to like either choice. You're being threatened wih the removal of a service that in the long term may be essential to running software you haven't purchased yet. that sucks yeah, but there's nothing legally wrong there.

Well, we're not sure there is nothing legally wrong there. The case was not dismissed because there were no legal grounds. The case was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to make a claim. The judge made that very clear.

I think these are the best statements that sum up the concerns of everyone against this case.

Except both of those statements are based around the red herring of piracy and "viability" of the platform (aka protect our business model). I will state this again, OtherOS was NOT the downfall of the PS3 security. Hotz was able to poke around, but he was not able to create a CFW or anything along those lines. Fail0verflow found the security hole and it was completely based around a seriously flawed algorithm. Without this huge security hole, CFW would not have been created at the time. Eventually, someone may have figured out how. However, even with all the knowledge they've gained from completely controlling the system, it's very telling how little has been accomplished once the actual security hole was plugged...the algorithm.

Let's be clear, Sony caught bad PR when they sought to legally destroy anyone that dared work on jailbreaking the PS3. The claims of piracy and viability are no more than red herring nonsense in order to seek protection for business models. The DS is easily jailbroken and, by all accounts doing such is very rampant. The DS remained a viable product. So viable the manufacturer knew, "Itprintsmoney.jpg". The claim that jailbreaking should be stopped because piracy can be created is completely beyond the scope. There are already laws protecting against piracy. This was the argument Apple used against jailbreaking phones and was summarily shot down by the LoC. Once piracy cannot be used as a defense, the only defense left is the protection of a business model.

 

[Clear]

Except both of those statements are based around the red herring of piracy and "viability" of the platform (aka protect our business model). I will state this again, OtherOS was NOT the downfall of the PS3 security.

This is totally wrong.

OtherOS was always intended as a constrained sandbox for hobbyists to play in, whilst insulating the official system software from being tampered with.

The latter is especially important due to the way the system interacts with the PSN network, which is a closed, controlled environment in order to maintain a uniform quality of service.

What the hackers achieved was to gain access keys to areas beyond what the makers intended, suddenly turning OtherOS into a perfect launch-pad for all kinds of unauthorized and potentially destructive applications.

The situation at hand was the removal of the partition between GameOS and OtherOS functionality, which in turn threatened the security of PSN as the system was architected based on the principle of each client machine only interacting with network in a controlled, predictable way.

It had to go.

 

[squatingyeti]

This is totally wrong.

OtherOS was always intended as a constrained sandbox for hobbyists to play in, whilst insulating the official system software from being tampered with.

Exactly why I, the owner, should be allowed to break those constraints that are limiting the potential of the system.

The latter is especially important due to the way the system interacts with the PSN network, which is a closed, controlled environment in order to maintain a uniform quality of service.

PSN has nothing to do with OtherOS. PSN is a private service in which people can be removed.

What the hackers achieved was to gain access keys to areas beyond what the makers intended, suddenly turning OtherOS into a perfect launch-pad for all kinds of unauthorized and potentially destructive applications.

Which was possible because of a flawed security algorithm. The continued denial that fail0verflow made CFW possible by discovering this flaw is why you can't understand that OtherOS wasn't the culprit here. Removing OtherOS didn't fix the problem. Again, it is very telling that, despite the complete access to the system and mounds of information gathered, once the security algorithm was fixed things have basically not moved forward.

The situation at hand was the removal of the partition between GameOS and OtherOS functionality, which in turn threatened the security of PSN as the system was architected based on the principle of each client machine only interacting with network in a controlled, predictable way.
It had to go.

Until very recently, that wall between GameOS and OtherOS still stood. You could not use OtherOS with the same functions of GameOS. The thing that allowed GameOS to be compromised was...the flawed security algorithm. Without that flaw, nothing would have been decrypted. The ability to sign a package would not have been done. The ability to create a CFW which allowed the installation of an unauthorized package would not have existed. The flawed algorithm had to go, removal of OtherOS did not and could not stop that flaw.

Then, you bring in the protection of PSN as a reason to remove OtherOS. Those are completely unrelated. Sony made another mistake of always trusting the client. The client cannot be trusted and that's as basic as not having what should be a random number always be the same number. Sony can ban people from PSN, so the only risk to that network would be refusing to ban those hurting the network.

 

[tranciful]

Just popping in and out to point out that as of recently on Xbox 360, you can no longer use the Party Watch feature in Netflix after the latest update. This is a feature removed from a product and also tied to two paid subscriptions that automatically renew for most people.

IGN contacted Microsoft:

"The new app platform on Xbox does not support the video party mode feature at this time, so will not be available in any existing app partners that have updated their app, like Netflix, or any of the new Xbox app partners. The feature is still available in some of our international video apps, like BSkyB in the UK and will likely be included in the next version of the app dev kit.

Netflix has also chimed in:

Netflix's Joris Evers, Dir. Communications, explains: "While the party feature on Xbox is great for gaming, it was very little used with Netflix and for this update we decided to focus more on the interface and other features that make browsing and viewing instantly easy."

I see plenty of disappointment and anger, but I'm not seeing the same arguments used against Sony removing OtherOS -- that Microsoft/Netflix are "illegally removing an advertised feature." Am I just not seeing it? Is it okay to do this for some reason? Is it because they didn't remove it for security reasons? Is it ok to remove something if you say it might come back later? Is it ok to remove a less important feature? Where would you draw the line? Honest questions to consider

Obviously I think it should be legal for Microsoft/Netflix to do it, but it's most likely not in their best interest (same goes for Sony removing OtherOS, though I'd say Sony had a more compelling reason to do what they did).