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:
Seeborg said:
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