Support NeoGAF

[spwolf]

Well, what kind of impact would that have?

Why would sony lose billions on r&d and subsidise cost of consoles then?

Because they are nice people?

In fact why would anyone invest any money into anything if they cant make it back?

 

[Hanmik]

hmmm... people are still discussing stuff..

but what is happening in the case..? who is winning..? or what is going on..?

 

[Dambrosi]

Hmm. Not really related, but... it seems that the Norwegian Consumer Council, an independent government agency, agrees with us pro-homebrewers on the OtherOS removal.

Sony can do as they like to your PlayStation 3 after you have bought it. The company’s terms of service leaves the consumer without any legal protection.

The Norwegian Consumer Council has gone through the terms of service for Sony PlayStation 3 and Playstation Network and decided to file a complaint to the Consumer Ombudsman regarding a breach of the Norwegian Marketing Control Act.

- Sony claims a universal right to change or remove functionality from the gaming console. In our opinion this is in clear violation of the Marketing Control Act, and not the least it’s a breach of trust between the consumer and Sony, says Head of Section Thomas Nortvedt in the Norwegian Consumer Council.

Removed functionality

The Consumer Council received several complaints following the software update to PlayStation 3 in April 2010, where Sony removed “OtherOS” and the possibility to install and use other operating systems than Sony’s own. As a consequence, the use of PlayStation 3 is limited to what is offered by Sony’s own OS, furthermore removing the option to install Linux which in turn would make the PlayStation 3 a regular PC.

- Digital services are not covered by consumer legislation, thus leaving the case outside the Consumer Council’s competence. The result is that the consumer is left with user agreements that give them very few rights and poor protection, says Thomas Nortvedt.

- When Sony, through the internet connection, removes functionality arguing that it is an update, it proves just how little protection the consumer has in the digital age.

The full complaint is here: http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2011/%20PlayStation_3_violates_the_Norwegian_Marketing_Control_Act

Problem, whingers?

Oh, btw, much more related: The Salon's Dan Gillmor doesn't think much of Sony's legal shenanigans

I go out of my way not to buy products from Sony. I occasionally regret this because some of Sony's hardware is best-of-breed. But there are alternatives, and I do my best to find them, because Sony is Exhibit A in the abuse of intellectual-property laws by corporations that believe they have all the rights -- including how products may be used after sale -- with users and purchasers having no rights at all.

In the latest case, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains, Sony has sued computer security researchers:

...for publishing information about security holes in Sony’s PlayStation 3. At first glance, it's hard to see why Sony is bothering — after all, the research was presented three weeks ago at the Chaos Communication Congress and promptly circulated around the world. The security flaws discovered by the researchers allow users to run Linux on their machines again — something Sony used to support but recently started trying to prevent. Paying lawyers to try to put the cat back in the bag is just throwing good money after bad. And even if they won — we'll save the legal analysis for another post — the defendants seem unlikely to be able to pay significant damages. So what's the point?

The real point, it appears, is to send a message to security researchers around the world: publish the details of our security flaws and we'll come after you with both barrels blazing. For example, Sony has asked the court to immediately impound all "circumvention devices" — which it defines to include not only the defendants' computers, but also all "instructions," i.e., their research and findings. Given that the research results Sony presumably cares about are available online, granting the order would mean that everyone except the researchers themselves would have access to their work.

Nice publicity you got yourselves there, Sony. Really made yourselves look good.

 

[jorma]

Why would sony lose billions on r&d and subsidise cost of consoles then?

Because they are nice people?

In fact why would anyone invest any money into anything if they cant make it back?

So consumers has to forfeit the right to their own hardware (sorry, i meant Sonys proprietary hardware) because Sony might not make a profit on their investment otherwise? And if Sony decides to make changes to and remove functionality from said proprietary hardware i should just suck it up and accept that Sonys roi is much more important than my consumer rights.

This right here is why you people are being called corporate apologists and DMCA fanboys.

Please know though that whatever happens with this lawsuit it will not change anything other than the fact that the next geohot probably won't be american.

 

[-Amon-]

This look clever, from the Salon Editorial just posted:

I go out of my way not to buy products from Sony. I occasionally regret this because some of Sony's hardware is best-of-breed. But there are alternatives, and I do my best to find them, because Sony is Exhibit A in the abuse of intellectual-property laws by corporations that believe they have all the rights -- including how products may be used after sale -- with users and purchasers having no rights at all.

 

[BritBloke916]

The Salon editorial seems a little disingenuous to me. In particular:

"The security flaws discovered by the researchers allow users to run Linux on their machines again — something Sony used to support but recently started trying to prevent. Paying lawyers to try to put the cat back in the bag is just throwing good money after bad. And even if they won — we'll save the legal analysis for another post — the defendants seem unlikely to be able to pay significant damages. So what's the point?"

No mention of any possible risk of game piracy (on PS3 or PSP) or game cheating on PSN. It is written as though Sony was so horrified by the prospect of Linux returning - and for no other reason at all - that they went after these guys through the courts.

EDIT: Ah, that part was written by the EFF lawyer. Fair enough, it's his job not to mention any of that stuff.

 

[Dambrosi]

No mention of any possible risk of game piracy (on PS3 or PSP) or game cheating on PSN. It is written as though Sony was so horrified by the prospect of Linux returning - and for no other reason at all - that they went after these guys through the courts.

EDIT: Ah, that part was written by the EFF lawyer. Fair enough, it's his job not to mention any of that stuff.

Oh, how quaint. You still think Sony cares about you.

In the big wide world where all the grown-ups live, I think you'll find that a bunch of video games fans whining about potential online cheating doesn't really amount to much.

Killzone ain't no e-Sports.

Oh, and what jorma said. Bravo.

 

[spwolf]

Oh, how quaint. You still think Sony cares about you.

In the big wide world where all the grown-ups live, I think you'll find that a bunch of video games fans whining about potential online cheating doesn't really amount to much.

Killzone ain't no e-Sports.

Oh, and what jorma said. Bravo.

well, you sure dont blay blops if it is "potential".

 

[BritBloke916]

In the big wide world where all the grown-ups live, I think you'll find that a bunch of video games fans whining about potential online cheating doesn't really amount to much.

Woah there buddy, keep it classy. Certainly neither my wife nor my son would ever accuse me of being a "grown-up", but they know me a lot better than you do.

As to your point, Sony's primary issue is the possibility of piracy and thus a potential loss of software revenues. I doubt that they care very much at all about cheats on PSN other than if it pushes people onto 360 for their on-line play. It just struck me as rather one-sided to suggest that Sony's only concern was the possibility of people installing Linux onto their PS3's and that no other concerns existed.

EDIT: Of course, it is ABSOLUTELY right and proper that the EFF lawyers would present a one-sided version of events, just as the Sony lawyers will certainly do likewise. Hence my edit on the end of my original point. What the Salon shouldn't do it suggest that either point of view is the only point of view.

 

[spwolf]

So consumers has to forfeit the right to their own hardware (sorry, i meant Sonys proprietary hardware) because Sony might not make a profit on their investment otherwise? And if Sony decides to make changes to and remove functionality from said proprietary hardware i should just suck it up and accept that Sonys roi is much more important than my consumer rights.

This right here is why you people are being called corporate apologists and DMCA fanboys.

Please know though that whatever happens with this lawsuit it will not change anything other than the fact that the next geohot probably won't be american.

no, but if you buy something for $300 instead of $600 because it is subsidized so that company can make money on selling software, expect them to protect their platform aggressively when faced with prospect of piracy.

As to OtherOS... I can see that all these hackers enabled it first after hacking the device? Right, right? Not really... Only features of jailbroken PS3 are ability to play "backed up" games and roms. So definitely they were fighting for OtherOS, but by mistake, we have 5 different backup managers on PS3 and no OtherOS in sight.

I think it is bullshit that a lot of people call Sony out on OtherOS, if they didnt ever use it... Which 99% of people didnt, and those 1% that did, are mostly companies and universities who bought it for Cell research and continue to use it now.

Now if you used OtherOS before, then complain and sue them and get your money back. It is certainly your right and you will probably win the case.

For me, who never used OtherOS since it was useless without optimized drivers, access to RSX and with only 256 MB of ram, it was a lot more useful when Sony kept adding all the new features to XMB after they released it back in 2007.

 

[iapetus]

As to OtherOS... I can see that all these hackers enabled it first after hacking the device? Right, right? Not really...

Remind me what fail0verflow's original demo was, again?

I think it is bullshit that a lot of people call Sony out on OtherOS, if they didnt ever use it... Which 99% of people didnt, and those 1% that did, are mostly companies and universities who bought it for Cell research and continue to use it now.

No. Will people never listen? This doesn't just hit people who used OtherOS, because it's a precedent being set.

Now if you used OtherOS before, then complain and sue them and get your money back. It is certainly your right and you will probably win the case.

You're funding the lawyers for this, right?

Didn't think so.

 

[Afrikan]

"Sony has sued computer security researchers"

is that what they are called? I never knew the correct term, apparently.

 

[butter_stick]

"Sony has sued computer security researchers"

is that what they are called? I never knew the correct term, apparently.

I don't use the word "hero" very often, but Geohot is the greatest hero in American history.

 

[Dambrosi]

well, you sure dont blay blops if it is "potential".

Well, neither do most of the cheaters, now that Treyarch are actually doing their job and policing the servers.

Besides, thankfully the backup manager obsession has died a death somewhat, with updates now down to one every few days (as opposed to two or three different revisions every day like last week), and it seems that most devs are moving on to much more interesting things, like a potential Homebrew Channel-style app/browser, and a media player that can play MKV files being announced, so there's hope. No word on universal region-free, unfortunately, but it will come...someday.

Also, are you accusing the Norwegian government of "bullshit" when their consumer watchdog calls Sony out for removing OtherOS? Okay.

butter_stick: :lol, nice one mate.

 

[snap0212]

I think it is bullshit that a lot of people call Sony out on OtherOS, if they didnt ever use it... Which 99% of people didnt, and those 1% that did, are mostly companies and universities who bought it for Cell research and continue to use it now.

I don't use at least three of the seats available in my car. So it would be cool if the car manufacturer just decided that I'm not entitled to have them anymore just because I don't use them? Despite the fact that I've paid for them, of course.

 

[test_account]

Nice publicity you got yourselves there, Sony. Really made yourselves look good.

Is security researcher the right term to use with these PS3 hackers? In some way we might say that they are security researchers since they look into how the security works indeed, i agree with that, but when they post the info online which compromise the security, especially with decryption keys that cant be revoked and makes the security much more weak/vulnerable, are they security researchers then? When i think of a security researcher, i then first think of someone who is interested in improving the security, not of someone who want to compromise the security system and make it less efficiant. If they wanted to improve the PS3 security, then i think that it would be best if they took this info directly to Sony without publishing the info publically online first. Maybe they would have gotten well payed jobs at Sony if they took their result to Sony to begin with

This look clever, from the Salon Editorial just posted:

I go out of my way not to buy products from Sony. I occasionally regret this because some of Sony's hardware is best-of-breed. But there are alternatives, and I do my best to find them, because Sony is Exhibit A in the abuse of intellectual-property laws by corporations that believe they have all the rights -- including how products may be used after sale -- with users and purchasers having no rights at all.

True, i wonder why someone thinks that when companies dont want people to hack their products and post all this info publically online, especially when it comes to decryption keys that cant be revoked, that this means that the consumers doesnt have any rights at all. Even if the law should say that the consumers arent allowed to publish such info online, then the consumers still have many other rights.

 

[Clear]

No. Will people never listen? This doesn't just hit people who used OtherOS, because it's a precedent being set.

Since we're talking precedents, has it not occurred to you that should Sony's actions be found illegal it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing?

Essentially your point is that an advertised OS feature can never be removed under any circumstances, as it supersedes all considerations including platform security.

From my perspective all that does is to make any significant feature a potential albatross around the neck of future improvements, it essentially nullifies the value of having an upgradable OS in firmware.

The thing that you seem unable to grasp is that there is basically no upside for a platform holder to remove a long-standing feature. Discontinuing support -which is always the platform/OS-holder's prerogative- has the same financial benefit and none of the negative PR consequences, wholesale removal is always going to be a last resort for obvious reasons.

Ergo, the precedent you seem so overly concerned about being set, is never going to be of any serious consequence because its a "right" that no corporation would elect to use in any but circumstances where it is deemed to be the lesser of two evils.

 

[iapetus]

Since we're talking precedents, has it not occurred to you that should Sony's actions be found illegal it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing?

Essentially your point is that an advertised OS feature can never be removed under any circumstances, as it supersedes all considerations including platform security.

I've not said under any circumstances, but yes, on consideration of your point I still disagree with it. If there are security issues, address the security issues, don't just remove the feature. If you need to remove the feature, then be prepared to compensate the people you're removing it from - that's the cost of suddenly deciding that you want to reduce the functionality of something that you've already sold.

Sorry if that seems overly harsh, but it isn't.

Ergo, the precedent you seem so overly concerned about being set, is never going to be of any serious consequence because its a "right" that no corporation would elect to use in any but circumstances where it is deemed to be the lesser of two evils.

The lesser of two evils to the company. Which could just be a matter of it being cheaper for them. The interests of the company are not the same as the interests of the consumer, and I'm advocating protecting the latter over the former.

 

[itxaka]

Well, neither do most of the cheaters, now that Treyarch are actually doing their job and policing the servers.

Besides, thankfully the backup manager obsession has died a death somewhat, with updates now down to one every few days (as opposed to two or three different revisions every day like last week), and it seems that most devs are moving on to much more interesting things, like a potential Homebrew Channel-style app/browser, and a media player that can play MKV files being announced, so there's hope. No word on universal region-free, unfortunately, but it will come...someday.

Also, are you accusing the Norwegian government of "bullshit" when their consumer watchdog calls Sony out for removing OtherOS? Okay.

butter_stick: :lol, nice one mate.

Holy shit, awesome lol

Took me a bit to get it. That is pretty intelligent.

 

[Massa]

If you believe a hardware manufacturer has the "right" to put limits on what its hardware is used for that's fine but stop with the whiny teenage angst bullshit.

You can do whatever you want with your hardware. Since day one there have been videos of people destroying PS3's for fun and needless to say Sony never really seemed to care about it.

The problem here is that people think the software installed on the PS3 belongs to them and they have the right to do whatever they want with it, which isn't the case.

 

[jorma]

You can do whatever you want with your hardware. Since day one there have been videos of people destroying PS3's for fun and needless to say Sony never really seemed to care about it.

The problem here is that people think the software installed on the PS3 belongs to them and they have the right to do whatever they want with it, which isn't the case.

From the OP:

We figured Sony would follow up last night's temporary restraining order against Geohot and fail0verflow for distribution of the PS3 jailbreak with a copyright infringement lawsuit, and well, here it is. It's actually pretty straightforward, as far as these things go -- Sony alleges that George Hotz, Hector Martin Cantero, Sven Peter, and the rest of fail0verflow are:

• Violating §1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which forbids bypassing access control measures;
• Violating the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which forbids accessing computers without authorization;
• Guilty of contributory copyright infringement for encouraging and helping others to crack PS3s as well;
• Violating the California Computer Crime Law, which is the state computer fraud act (think of this as a backup fraud claim);
• Violating the PlayStation Network's Terms of Service (which feels meaningless, really);
• Interfering with Sony's relationships with other PSN customers (also meaningless);
• Trespassing on Sony's ownership right to the PS3 (this one feels weak) and;
• Misappropriating Sony's intellectual property (another weak argument, but there in case the copyright argument fails).


Sony's asking the court to forbid Geohot and fail0verflow from distributing the jailbreak and turn over all computer hardware and software that contain the jailbreak code, as well as unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. Yep, these boys done got sued -- and we're sure there'll be some serious fireworks once they lawyer up and fight right back.

 

[test_account]

From the OP:

Does it mention anything specific about the hardware itself though? Couldnt stuff like "Sony's ownership right" be referring to the software part?

 

[Massa]

From the OP:

Yeah, looks like a solid win for Sony. :-/

 

[squatingyeti]

Enough will all the ridiculous "all you can do is play 'backups' and emulators" bs. First of all, the original demonstration involved linux. They haven't released anything in part because of the lawsuit. Secondly, there are homebrew applications and even a couple games already despite some people's best efforts to make you think otherwise. There's even a homebrew type channel like the wii being released: http://www.console-spot.com/2011/01/29/ps3-hpr-is-here/

There is also a media player in development that will be able to utilize ntfs and with mkv support. People seem to act like homebrew stuff is written overnight because they see simple things like a port of emulators done so fast.

 

[Clear]

Sorry if that seems overly harsh, but it isn't.

I absolutely agree that compensation should be made to users severely inconvenienced by the removal of a pre-existing feature. What I personally disagree with is the notion that the option to remove a feature should be forbidden outright, or require legal oversight as a prerequisite to implementation.

The lesser of two evils to the company. Which could just be a matter of it being cheaper for them. The interests of the company are not the same as the interests of the consumer, and I'm advocating protecting the latter over the former.

My point I believe still stands that abandonment is cheaper and carries less negative PR baggage than deliberate removal. You can't really positively spin cutting a feature, so my counterargument is simply that its never going to be the preferred option because although it is an unequivocal negative to the user, it also carries direct (implementation) and indirect expenses (public image and value proposition damage) to the company's bottom-line.

Honestly I cant think of another (hypothetical) situation/set-of-circumstances where the deliberate removal of a feature would be advantageous to the "company" in the way you claim.

 

[mclem]

Holy shit, awesome lol

Took me a bit to get it. That is pretty intelligent.

I haven't checked, but I suspect I might have an idea what it is. Although at first glance I thought it was one of those colour-encoded copy protection cards like Jet Set Willy had back in the day... which in a roundabout way, it could be

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

Norsk legal beatdown

I'm half Norwegian myself, so it's good to see fellow countrymen show some sense.

 

[iapetus]

I absolutely agree that compensation should be made to users severely inconvenienced by the removal of a pre-existing feature. What I personally disagree with is the notion that the option to remove a feature should be forbidden outright, or require legal oversight as a prerequisite to implementation.

No, compensation should be made to users who have a feature removed whether they used it or not, whether they're severely inconvenienced or not, because the fact remains that the device no longer functions as was advertised when you sold it, as a result of your deliberate decision.

My point I believe still stands that abandonment is cheaper and carries less negative PR baggage than deliberate removal. You can't really positively spin cutting a feature, so my counterargument is simply that its never going to be the preferred option because although it is an unequivocal negative to the user, it also carries direct (implementation) and indirect expenses (public image and value proposition damage) to the company's bottom-line.

If maintaining the feature across new firmware releases carries an expense (both in implementation and testing), and the company in question believes that they can hush up any negative reaction to it or just ride it out with a lesser cost, then obviously it does work out cheaper that way.

Your claim that "you can't really positively spin cutting a feature" is ridiculous, because that's exactly what Sony have done.

 

[Dunlop]

No, compensation should be made to users who have a feature removed whether they used it or not, whether they're severely inconvenienced or not, because the fact remains that the device no longer functions as was advertised when you sold it, as a result of your deliberate decision.

agreed, but this needs to be settled in the courts, just like Sony is doing now.

otherwise, if you have the right to do whatever you want with their propriety software (aka bypass security) then why should they not have the right to turn your PS3 into a paperweight? Physically it is your console.

I realize that arguing this is like arguing religion, there will be no general consensus ever

 

[mclem]

agreed, but this needs to be settled in the courts, just like Sony is doing now.

otherwise, if you have the right to do whatever you want with your copy of their propriety software (aka bypass security) then why should they not have the right to turn your PS3 into a paperweight? Physically it is your console.

I realize that arguing this is like arguing religion, there will be no general consensus ever

Added in some key words that were missing, there. Both the (specific copy of the) software and the hardware belong to you. You can do what you like to stuff you own; after they have sold it to you, they have no jurisdiction over the stuff you have purchased.

You could gut the PS3 and install a NES in there, they have no right to stop you. Why should they have the right to stop you merely modifying some bytes of the firmware?

(Random aside: I wonder how long before someone guts the NGP to install a NeoGeo Pocket in the shell?)

 

[jcm]

You're funding the lawyers for this, right?

Didn't think so.

There's already a class action filed in the US. The suit is called Ventura v. Sony Computer Entertainment America. The case number is 3:10-CV-01811-RS. Next hearing is February 9. Now, even if Sony loses or settles, we're not going to get much from it, but they could get spanked pretty good. That's the nature of class action suits.

Here's the Justitia link if you'd like to keep up with it.

 

[DonMigs85]

Added in some key words that were missing, there. Both the (specific copy of the) software and the hardware belong to you. You can do what you like to stuff you own; after they have sold it to you, they have no jurisdiction over the stuff you have purchased.

You could gut the PS3 and install a NES in there, they have no right to stop you. Why should they have the right to stop you merely modifying some bytes of the firmware?

I dunno, you own the physical machine but isn't the software just licensed? After all you'd get in trouble if you hacked and modified AutoCAD or Mac OS or something and distributed it, wouldn't you?

 

[Clear]

Your claim that "you can't really positively spin cutting a feature" is ridiculous, because that's exactly what Sony have done..

And I consider this thread to be a canonical example of why it was deeply undesirable for Sony to resort to removing OtherOS... I can't imagine any Sony representative feeling anything but deep dismay at what's been stirred up here.

 

[mclem]

I dunno, you own the physical machine but isn't the software just licensed? After all you'd get in trouble if you hacked and modified AutoCAD or Mac OS or something and distributed it, wouldn't you?

Distributed it, yes. I'm not sure if modifying your own copy for your own use is restricted. That's something that may well vary between countries.

There's an interesting parallel here with the whole Hot Coffee thing from ages ago; isn't the "install from USB stick" option one in the firmware that is just deactivated, and is reactivated in the patch? The GTA sex scenes were also just deactivated, and were reactivated via a 'patch' (actually a cheatdisc code, wasn't it?). I remember shortly after Hot Coffee we suddenly had to get extremely careful and comprehensive at work eradicating every part of the game that we didn't want consumers to ever get a chance to see, even though they were quite mundane things (actually, one was a cheat menu. So in some ways, we were better than Modern Warfare 2!)

 

[Raist]

Added in some key words that were missing, there. Both the (specific copy of the) software and the hardware belong to you. You can do what you like to stuff you own; after they have sold it to you, they have no jurisdiction over the stuff you have purchased.

You could gut the PS3 and install a NES in there, they have no right to stop you. Why should they have the right to stop you merely modifying some bytes of the firmware?

(Random aside: I wonder how long before someone guts the NGP to install a NeoGeo Pocket in the shell?)

Again, you can reverse engineer/hack (call it whatever you want) a piece of software to study how it works. You can modify it to allow interoperability, etc.

You CANNOT reverse engineer it to bypass security measures, and, even worse, certainly not distribute methods to bypass it. That's completely illegal pretty much everywhere.

 

[jorma]

I dunno, you own the physical machine but isn't the software just licensed? After all you'd get in trouble if you hacked and modified AutoCAD or Mac OS or something and distributed it, wouldn't you?

Yes, if you distributed the copyrighted data alongside with the modification. This is about modifying software and then distributing the modification patch only, meaning no copyright infringement has been commited.

 

[DonMigs85]

Yes, if you distributed the copyrighted data alongside with the modification. This is about modifying software and then distributing the modification patch only, meaning no copyright infringement has been commited.

But wouldn't the patch itself have to include some proprietary code/keys or something?
It's not quite like an IPS translation patch for a SNES game, for example.

 

[mclem]

Again, you can reverse engineer/hack (call it whatever you want) a piece of software to study how it works. You can modify it to allow interoperability, etc.

You CANNOT reverse engineer it to bypass security measures, and, even worse, certainly not distribute methods to bypass it. That's completely illegal pretty much everywhere.

Installing stuff on a hard disc isn't a security measure. The security measure is the signing.

 

[mclem]

But wouldn't the patch itself have to include some proprietary code/keys or something?
It's not quite like an IPS translation patch for a SNES game, for example.

All the patch does is enable the ability to install content from a USB drive - which, I believe, is buried in the firmware, and simply unearthed by the patch. Again, think of Hot Coffee for a parallel. The real breaking of security occurs independently of the PS3, where people sign packages elsewhere to run on the PS3.

 

[DangerousDave]

I've not said under any circumstances, but yes, on consideration of your point I still disagree with it. If there are security issues, address the security issues, don't just remove the feature. If you need to remove the feature, then be prepared to compensate the people you're removing it from - that's the cost of suddenly deciding that you want to reduce the functionality of something that you've already sold.

But they already done that. They removed OtherOS, but since the launch of PS3 they added a lot of new features that wasn't announced in the start.

Do you really want a list of all the features that has been added since fw 1.0? Some of them as important as official divx, 3D support, update of Bluray standars, Vidzone, trophies, movies on demand, etc?

 

[DonMigs85]

All the patch does is enable the ability to install content from a USB drive. The real breaking of security occurs independently of the PS3, where people sign packages elsewhere to run on the PS3.

Ah, I get it now. So technically I guess it's those signed homebrew packages that can be considered "illegal" since they use Sony's keys, not the patch itself?

 

[Raist]

Installing stuff on a hard disc isn't a security measure. The security measure is the signing.

And they cracked the FW open precisely for that. Signing prevents you from running any random shit on the system. Reverse engineering the FW to find out the keys and then use these keys (and distribute them) to sign stuff is pretty much this. Security bypass. It doesn't matter if it uses the official keys or not.

In addition, OFW patches or CFW are required to install stuff as well, again another way to curcumvent what disables it in the first place.

 

[jcm]

Yes, if you distributed the copyrighted data alongside with the modification. This is about modifying software and then distributing the modification patch only, meaning no copyright infringement has been commited.

That's not the way it works here. Circumventing an access control is itself illegal, with a few narrow exceptions.

 

[DonMigs85]

But they already done that. They removed OtherOS, but since the launch of PS3 they added a lot of new features that wasn't announced in the start.

Do you really want a list of all the features that has been added since fw 1.0? Some of them as important as official divx, 3D support, update of Bluray standars, Vidzone, trophies, movies on demand, etc?

3D support was a fairly big one - they didn't HAVE to implement it, it might've even helped boost sales of their standalone 3D players a bit.
If they could only add native MKV support, it would be one less reason for homebrew.

 

[mclem]

And they cracked the FW open precisely for that. Signing prevents you from running any random shit on the system. Reverse engineering the FW to find out the keys and then use these keys (and distribute them) to sign stuff is pretty much this. Security bypass. It doesn't matter if it uses the official keys or not.

But it doesn't belong in a discussion about whether it is legal for an *end user* to modify the firmware. That is the sole act I am debating.

In addition, OFW patches or CFW are required to install stuff as well, again another way to curcumvent what disables it in the first place.

Well, as I said, I don't believe that the ability to install content of your wish onto a hard disc should be regarded as a security measure, but I'm not a judge.

 

[Raist]

But it doesn't belong in a discussion about whether it is legal for an *end user* to modify the firmware. That is the sole act I am debating.

Well I don't know, but using stuff that is illegal in the first place is illegal as well, isn't it? It's not because you didn't DIY that's it's fine.

 

[jorma]

That's not the way it works here. Circumventing an access control is itself illegal, with a few narrow exceptions.

In DMCA land yes.

But this was in answer to a question about modifying "licensed" software in general.

 

[DonMigs85]

But it doesn't belong in a discussion about whether it is legal for an *end user* to modify the firmware. That is the sole act I am debating.



Well, as I said, I don't believe that the ability to install content of your wish onto a hard disc should be regarded as a security measure, but I'm not a judge.

Only if it actually has the potential to mess up the experience of other online users, I guess.

 

[Raist]

In DMCA land yes.

But this was in answer to a question about modifying "licensed" software in general.

Europe has similar laws. And they've been around for decades.

 

[jorma]

Europe has similar laws. And they've been around for decades.

So jailbreaking an iphone is illegal in europe?