-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PS3 Firmware Update 3.21 of preventing piracy by removing Linux.
- Thread starter Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
- Start date
wsippel said:
The cases you either:
Were decided against, appealed, decided in favor, etc. until it was no longer pursued by the plaintiff.
Hinged on the fact that though a DMCA violation had occurred, no copyright infringement had occurred.
Skylink? No copyright infringement.
Lexmark? They didn't seek appeal within 90 days. (Tried to go en banc later and was denied, and never sought further action).
Connectix? No copyright infringement, and then Sony just bought it and killed it off.
DVD Jon? The Xing DVD player he got the keys from had them basically out in the open.
Adobe vs. Dmitri Skljarow? You mean, the guy who was arrested and had the charges dropped without ever going to trial? Or do you mean Elcomsoft? - The foreign (Russian) company who was simply ruled to not have knowingly violated US law.
It's cool to just list shit from Wikipedia, but it's a lot better if you know what you're talking about.
Afrikan said:
Wasn't the whole reason they included it to keep costs down, since they'd pay some extra taxes if it couldn't be considered a "computer"? Imagine how much they would've charged without OtherOS at launch. Or better yet, you could say OtherOS was able to float the expensive productions costs of the PS3 until they could make a profit on the units. Since they now have done that, the OtherOS feature is irrelevant to them.
toxicgonzo
Taxes?! Isn't this the line for Metallica?
I just read through my state's code of laws. This is all I could find with regard to this issue.
Article (27) is more of a gray-area that would be harder to defend because of its vagueness.
Articles (5) and (9) are things Sony could get away with because at the time I purchased the PS3, the OtherOS feature was advertised and it did work as advertised.
Article (27) is more of a gray-area that would be harder to defend because of its vagueness.
JesseZao said:
no that was for Europe tax stuff, and it didn't work for the PS2 and it didn't work for the PS3....so they didn't save anything.
I'm sure that had a big part in their decision to add it though, but at the same time for the PS3 they have been very flexible with lots of add-ons and features.......so the Linux thing could have been genuinely from the heart.
test_account
XP-39C²
There is one thing that i thought of earlier tonight that i wondered about. If Sony didnt remove the OtherOS at this time like they did, and then later on the PS3 would be hacked more so it would be possible to play pirated games, and the only way to use this hack was to go through the OtherOS feature. Would people have had more acceptance/understanding if Sony removed the OtherOS feature at that point to stop (or at least try) piracy on the PS3, or would people still have had the pretty much the same opinions that they have now?
The law would probably have been the same though, so from a legal point of view things probably would have been the same as they are right now, but would it have been more acceptance/understanding if Sony removed the OtherOS feature if piracy became a reality on the PS3 no matter what the law says about removing a feature from a product? Or should there be zero tolerance when it comes to removing features or should companies have some kind of chance to fix an exploit on their products if the removal of a feature is the only way to fix (or at least try to fix) the exploit? I just thought that this was an interesting question, so i wanted to ask here
The law would probably have been the same though, so from a legal point of view things probably would have been the same as they are right now, but would it have been more acceptance/understanding if Sony removed the OtherOS feature if piracy became a reality on the PS3 no matter what the law says about removing a feature from a product? Or should there be zero tolerance when it comes to removing features or should companies have some kind of chance to fix an exploit on their products if the removal of a feature is the only way to fix (or at least try to fix) the exploit? I just thought that this was an interesting question, so i wanted to ask here
Interesting to see how laws can different from country to country regarding the removal of a feature from a product, thanks for posting thistoxicgonzo said:
A lot of people both over there and in this thread seem to come to the conclusion that:jepjepjep said:
1. They don't need it, so they don't give a shit.
2. Not many other people need it or use it.
Except that they do give a shit and go about berating those who do need it or want it and making sure Sony never goes back on this decision.
CadetMahoney
Member
jepjepjep said:
exactly, they will defend and downplay any criticism for their corp overlords, even something as ridiculous as this. I don't even think they themselves believe the security argument.hirokazu said:
Ok tried this with amazon germany,
they said "we are not responsible for things sony removes blabla"
i said: "yeha but a uk customer got a refund i thought every amazon customer is the same "
they called me ( :lol ) saying "yeha everyone is the same but different amazons handle this diferently i could send them my system and they would check for the missing option, talk back to sony and then might give me a refund :/ I said "nah thx"
to bad
they said "we are not responsible for things sony removes blabla"
i said: "yeha but a uk customer got a refund i thought every amazon customer is the same "
they called me ( :lol ) saying "yeha everyone is the same but different amazons handle this diferently i could send them my system and they would check for the missing option, talk back to sony and then might give me a refund :/ I said "nah thx"
to bad
test_account said:The law would probably have been the same though, so from a legal point of view things probably would have been the same as they are right now, but would it have been more acceptance/understanding if Sony removed the OtherOS feature if piracy became a reality on the PS3 no matter what the law says about removing a feature from a product? Or should there be zero tolerance when it comes to removing features or should companies have some kind of chance to fix an exploit on their products if the removal of a feature is the only way to fix (or at least try to fix) the exploit? I just thought that this was an interesting question, so i wanted to ask here
Zero tolerance for me. If you're building a device where security is that important, you do not *add* a component with a potential vulnerability in it. OtherOS should never have existed in the first place. Now it *does* exist, you can't take it away. It's on a completely different scale, but after Twilight Hack was introduced, Nintendo didn't make future firmwares unable to run Twilight Princess (Admittedly, the measures they did take were pretty rubbish!). Same argument could apply to Agent Under Fire with the original Xbox.
Here's a thought, and it's quite a chilling one: What if Sony *always* knew there was a potential vulnerability through OtherOS, always planned to remove it if it came into the open enough to be a security risk, but offered the option to fool a few more people into making early-adopter purchases, and when they feel it's served its purpose adequately, they pull the plug.
It's pretty unlikely, I'll grant you. But it sounds like it's not impossible in the US, and that bothers me a lot.
grumble said:
I think that's technically not a scam; it's still a feature of the system, it still has some 'worth' whether or not you use it.
I *think* it would be fraud if you then went on to install Geohot's firmware (should it actually exist) to enable contiuned OtherOS usage, however.
I keep on seeing everyone referring to PSN access when considering the impact of staying with the firmware version that allows 'Other OS' use. What about BluRay updates? BD-J constantly updates to fight piracy (failing spectacularly but still...) so either the whole BD consortium stops updating BD-J on new releases or you'll have to forfait BD compatibility as well as PSN access to keep on using 'Other OS'.
Am I wrong?
Am I wrong?
SolidusDave
Member
cedric69 said:
imo BD-J is 100% separated from PSN, similar to the PS3 web browser working w/o PSN or firmware updates as well.
yurinka
Member
Yes, BD-J is for BlueRay movie disk menus, but at least some time ago also worked from pendrives. There were some homebrew for PS3 in BD-J, without needing OtherOs or custom firmware.SolidusDave said:
I did a little game to test it for my own use(crappy quality old video, sorry): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ngq9w-tWEk
The bad thing is that you had a limited access to the console, and that pressing some buttons like triangle you saw some video related menus or messages. And when the game starts appears like if you were starting a video.
I know BDJ has internet access (I suppouse to download trailers, websites of the movies etc), I think it doesn't have PSN access.
frontieruk
Member
iapetus said:It was mentioned in the (full) online manual, and was billed as one of the most powerful features of the PS3 by Sony at major events. This probably counts.
I'm fairly sure most listings for the ps3 phat listed it as a computer system not a games system... Which reminds me iapetus wouldn't a template of your letter to amazon be apt for euro users to put the pressure on??
I went to Fnac (French eletronics retailer) with this, in the store where I bought my phat PS3. They were quite puzzled by my request, explaining that they sold me a console with all advertised capacities working, and that since the update had nothing to do with them, and I had agreed to the EULA, they were in the clear... They didn't give a shit about the European directive, laughing and wishing me lcuk with the European Court of Justice. I'll still write to their customer service, and Sony's too.
When I mentioned the refund iapetus got from Amazon, the guy in charge started spinning tales about Amazon's consoles not being new, not coming straight from Sony, having possibly been updated before they got in their hands, being in fact sold by third parties on Marketplace, etc. It was quite funny, but in the end they said it was a matter of corporate policy for Amazon, Sony and Fnac... We'll see where that goes, since I don't have the means to take them to court
When I mentioned the refund iapetus got from Amazon, the guy in charge started spinning tales about Amazon's consoles not being new, not coming straight from Sony, having possibly been updated before they got in their hands, being in fact sold by third parties on Marketplace, etc. It was quite funny, but in the end they said it was a matter of corporate policy for Amazon, Sony and Fnac... We'll see where that goes, since I don't have the means to take them to court
Yes please!frontieruk said:
Sony says sorry for Other OS take-down
Where do we go from here?
[Ref]www.thinq.co.uk:Stewart Meagher said:
Sony has apologised for the row surrounding the removal of the Install Other OS function from older PlayStation 3 consoles.
We asked Sony UK to respond to reports that at least one user had received a partial refund from Amazon UK in compensation for the fact that part of the device's advertised functionality had been removed.
A Sony spokesman told us:
"We are sorry if users of Linux or other operating systems are disappointed by our decision to issue a firmware upgrade which when installed disables this operating system feature. We have made the decision to protect the integrity of the console and whilst mindful of the impact on Linux or other operating system users we nevertheless felt it would be in the best interests of the majority of users to pursue this course of action.
As you will be aware we have upgraded and enhanced functionality and features of the console by numerous firmware upgrades over time and this is a very rare instance where a feature will be disabled. Further enhancements are in the pipeline.
Users do have the choice whether to install the firmware upgrade and this is clearly explained to them at the time the firmware upgrade is made available for installation. Furthermore our terms and conditions clearly state that we have the right to revise the PS3's settings and features in order to prevent access to unauthorised or pirated content."
Whilst we fully understand why Sony has decided to remove this function from the PS3 OS, and that users are free not to install the firmware upgrade, we also understand that not installing the latest firmware will prevent users from accessing a number of online services including the Playstation Network.
We're also not quite clear how Sony's EULA can be used to contravene European Directive 1999/44/EC which quite clearly states that goods must be be "fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase".
We're pretty sure the proportion of users who bought a PS3 for its ability to run Linux is tiny compared to the many millions in circulation, but they are a vocal minority to say the least.
Our readers are asking us why Sony can, despite EU law, remove an advertised and documented part of the system to protect its own interests.
We'd also like to know whether Sony will be reimbursing Amazon and other retailers for any further refunds they are forced to offer under the law.
We've put these questions to Sony UK and await a response.
We have also spoken to the Office of Fair Trading and Consumer Direct who tell us they cannot comment until an official complaint has been made.
Where do we go from here?
test_account
XP-39C²
Tha is true, i agree to that adding a component with a potential vulnerability isnt that smart if security is important as you say, but what if there is a little chance to know that a feature could be used for exploiting? I am pretty sure that every console maker wants to make a console that is as secure as possible, and that they design their consoles in a way that they think is secure enoughmclem said:
I guess that Sony knew that there was a potential that the OtherOS feature could be used for exploting though, because after all pretty much everything can be hacked, but how big of a chance was it to know that the OtherOS feature could be used for hacking the PS3? And is it always possible for the manufacturers of a hardware device to know in advance which features that can be used for exploits?
But i guess that the question is if Sony should have known that it was a fairly big security risk (when it comes to hacking) to include the OtherOS feature in the PS3. It seems that it took about 3 years before someone manage to use the OtherOS feature to hack the PS3, so it seemed fairly secure to me at least
I also guess that Sony is kind of regreting now that they included the OtherOS feature though. And in theory, the less things things there are that can go wrong.What did Nintendo do regarding the Twilight Princess hack by the way?
Interesting thought, but i think that is pretty unlikely indeed. I think this because i am pretty sure that Sony knew that removing the OtherOS would make some consumers angry (and this happend). When some consumers (and non-consumers as well) are angry at a company, this isnt really good PR, and i think that most companies will do as much as they can to not make any of their consumers angry.mclem said:
Also, people dont have to upgrade their PS3 firmware if they dont want to. Sony is pretty much saying that if you choose not to upgrade the PS3 firmware to 3.21, then you wont be able to use PSN and you wont be able to play games that require firmware 3.21 or higher. If a consumer wants to keep the OtherOS, then there is a risk for Sony that this consumer will say: "ok, then i wont buy anymore PS3 games etc.". This means less sales for Sony, which then means less profit for Sony.
I also think that the OtherOS feature wasnt really that big of a selling point to people in general. I mean, i am sure that someone bought a PS3 because of the OtherOS feature, but i dont know how many extra consumers that Sony made by including the OtherOS feature on the PS3. Itseems to me that there would be a bigger risk for Sony to lose something rather than gaining something by doing this at least. But this is just my guess though.
Sony also removed the OtherOS support from the PS3 Slim and this was before anyone had published a legimate hack for the PS3, at least from what i know.
I guess that we can never know 100% for sure though, that is true, but i think it is pretty unlikely indeed at least
By the way, i have read that someone have speculated in that Sony included the OtherOS feature as an attempt to prevent hacking, because sometimes hackers tries to get Linux to run on "everything". But when the PS3 already had Linux support, then there were no need to hack the PS3 to be able to run Linux. I am not sure if this is true though, but i think it seems plausible at least
EDIT: I added some text.
I've been seeing the headlines at Gizmodo and Engadget and I just wanted to say congrats to iapetus and others for exercising their consumer rights. It's always nice to see the consumer gain some ground against the corporations.
The money given back is peanuts compared to the negative publicity Sony is getting. And you can be certain that Amazon is giving Sony an earful for the money.
The money given back is peanuts compared to the negative publicity Sony is getting. And you can be certain that Amazon is giving Sony an earful for the money.
test_account
XP-39C²
I think this is an interesting point, if the store itself that sold the PS3 didnt advertise the OtherOS feature, is the store (not just the Fnac store where you bought your phat PS3, but every store in general that sells or sold the phat PS3crispyben said:I went to Fnac (French eletronics retailer) with this, in the store where I bought my phat PS3. They were quite puzzled by my request, explaining that they sold me a console with all advertised capacities working, and that since the update had nothing to do with them, and I had agreed to the EULA, they were in the clear... They didn't give a shit about the European directive, laughing and wishing me lcuk with the European Court of Justice. I'll still write to their customer service, and Sony's too.
When I mentioned the refund iapetus got from Amazon, the guy in charge started spinning tales about Amazon's consoles not being new, not coming straight from Sony, having possibly been updated before they got in their hands, being in fact sold by third parties on Marketplace, etc. It was quite funny, but in the end they said it was a matter of corporate policy for Amazon, Sony and Fnac... We'll see where that goes, since I don't have the means to take them to court
) responsible then or is only Sony responisble?I wonder if Amazon sends the bill to Sony or if Amazon is covering the refund themself.jedimike said:
test_account
XP-39C²
Ah ok, i see. So i guess that it wasnt very hard to just change the ID on the saved game? Thanks for the info!itxaka said:
Dreamgazer
Member
Sony really should just add back the OtherOS feature now.
That way all the hacking would stop, and people would stop demanding money. Win win.
That way all the hacking would stop, and people would stop demanding money. Win win.
Naked Snake
Member
Eternal Sleeper said:
Fat chance.
test_account
XP-39C²
Ye, it might look like users would be happy with the "best interests of the majority of users" comment indeed, i agree. But maybe this comment is more aimed at that people will be happy if there doesnt excist any piracy etc. on the PS3? But i dont know.RandomVince said:
I wonder if the PS3 hacking would stop if they brought back the OtherOS feature or if people would still try to get homebrew and/or piracy to work on the PS3 anyway. I think that someone would try to hack the PS3 anyway, but who knows. But i think that it would be interesting to see what happend to the PS3 hacking if Sony brought back the OtherOS featureEternal Sleeper said:
Version 3.0
Member
Teetris said:
No, it's not a "dick move". I paid $600 for the thing, and the reason it cost so much is because of all its features. The PS3 has other features I don't or rarely use, too, like mp3, DVD and Blu-Ray movie playback, but that doesn't mean I didn't pay for them.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Leondexter said:
The reason it cost so much was because the hardware components were expensive. It would be fairly absurd to try to assign individual dollar values to each discrete feature the software/hardware provides. And even if you did, the Linux feature couldn't possibly be worth 1/6 of the total cost, could it?
When Sony adds features do you also assign a dollar amount to each one and re-assess the value of your original purchase? Or is it only when they take something away?
So you wouldn't complain if they removed the ability to play games?hey_it's_that_dog said:
Just because they removed a feature that you don't use doesn't mean it's irrelevant, nor of less importance than any other feature advertised as part of the system.
To the people who factored in OtherOS when they made their purchase, it is, quite literally either lose OtherOS, or lose the ability to play new games and Blu-ray.
J Tourettes
Banned
sohois said:
Let me know if you have any joy with Game.
test_account
XP-39C²
I guess that people can choose to accept the appoligy from Sony or not regarding the removal of the OtherOS feature. But other than that, i dont think that what Sony wrote there changes much about what the laws says regarding removing features from a products after that the product has been sold to the consumers. So people who bought a PS3 Phat model could probably still try to get some refund back.missile said: