-
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.
Sony given power to seize Geroge Hotz's computer, Twitter and Youtube request denied
- Thread starter Mama Robotnik
- Start date
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Allow me to express my deep skepticism about yours and Sony's main claims above.FLEABttn said:
Firstly, breaking compatibility with the hypervisor implies breaking quite a few fundamental things in the platform - the hypervisor is not there for OtherOS sake alone - it provides protection against game exploits too. It's not like the hypervisor could be fundamentally altered or dropped altogether without severely jeopardizing the platform.
Secondly, breaking hw compatibility with the hypervisor implies new silicon revisions that differ substantially from the original silicon. Now that could be a costly move by Sony, particularly given they did not use an in-house CPU design. So the whole argument of breaking hw compatibility on a fundamental level such as the hypervisor for the sake of cost reductions is dubious, at best - the QA expenses from such a move could far outweigh the QA expenses from continuing to maintain the original hypervisor through the projected lifespan of the platform.
The only thing that stands solid in these arguments is that Sony can save from further R&D and QA costs associated with OtherOS. All other claims can be subject to Discovery motions in court.
Massa said:
And as others have pointed out, the sharing of information - in and of itself - is not often considered a crime, especially in cases in which the sharing of said information is not isolated to inflicting harm. Would you like to know how to build a bomb? I'm sure I can find plenty of websites that explain how.
Ploid 3.0
Member
Vinci said:
So you want people looking up how to make bombs? You think that's cool? You'd like them to practice making them in your neighborhood? You're totally ok with that? I mean this is how you're thinking right now correct?
Now that is what people not cool with homebrew on PSN is feeling. Sure there are people that want to just study explosives for legit use (fireworks, mining, toothpaste spy stuff), but a few bad apples give bombs a bad name.
This is funz.
Ploid 3.0 said:
Not at all. But to give up consumer rights for the sake of possible harm to a corporation's bottom line is insane when I don't see people making a similar argument about information being shared that is almost unquestionably harmful.
Again: I have no problem with Sony hunting down and ripping to hell and back pirates, or shutting off PSN access from cheaters. That's well within their rights. But they should not have the right to go after people for sharing information that is neither innately positive nor negative, especially at the expense of consumer rights. That's giving them a level of power they don't deserve.
BritBloke916
Member
mclem said:
Forget those douches in Egypt, the real revolution is happening right here! Give me Linux or give me death!
iapetus said:
Exactly, if (when) Sony wins this case, its going to set one hell of a legal precedence. I can guarentee you that if (when) Sony wins, the following will happen
Apple (and probably Motorola) will use this case as a legal precedence to try to get the jailbreaking DMCA exception overturned.
Mithos
Member
Well, if Sony Microsoft, Nintendo charges me sub $99 for their next generation consoles, then MAYBE, just maybe they can decide what i can and can not do on the console ^^
Neah not really, but you get the point, the less power i get over my console the less cash they deserve for it.
BritBloke916
Member
FLEABttn said:
Fair point, surely? Region free gaming, non-proprietary HDD upgrades, support for all USB controllers via generic HID driver and use of Bluetooth for wireless controllers... these are not measures designed to bring "complete control".
Lonewolf_92
Member
polyh3dron said:
Funny thing about Tengen, EA(?), Color Dreams, and Wisdom Tree, not a single one of them were sued into oblivion by Nintendo and/or Sega (although Tengen did have some court battles with Nintendo, first over copyright and patent infringement, which they settled out of court, and over Tengen Tetris, which Tengen were forced to recall) . In fact, Wisdom Tree recently released a new game on PC called Heaven Bound. Hell, even the creator of that abysmal pile of dreck Action 52 was still in existance in some form last I checked.
FLEABttn said:
It's foolish to suggest that this case coming down on Sony's side isn't at least heading in that direction. When they're saying you can't use the hardware as you see fit, that they have the right to remove functionality they sold you, and that they have the right to arbitrarily execute code that does anything they like on your device, how much more do you want?
CadetMahoney
Member
hmmm. . . i'm not feeling it.fart town usa said:
I never put any hopes in the potential of the PS3 either as blowing the competition out off the water or as the new xbox 1 with the firmware updates and so forth from Sony. In theory I guess the PS3 was blown wide open, but there wasn't enough time for any good software to make use of it.
I liked all the claims of "resigning apps to think whatever they are, Sony are fucked and can't do anything about it", but I didn't get my hopes up for that either.
phosphor112
Banned
But we let things like the Patriot Act get passed through the House...again. (happened yesterday IIRC).iapetus said:
Priorities are great.
Vinci said:
Of course sharing information is often not a crime - it's called free speech.
It's sometimes considered a crime, such as when it comes to information about circumventing copyright protections in ways that allow for copyright violations. The law that made that a crime is that DMCA.
iapetus said:
Complete control. As in 100%, fully encompassing.
I don't have a problem with what you're getting at, but they have and want "significant" or "overwhelming" control. They literally don't have "complete" control, nor are they still likely to from this ruling if it goes their way.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
A closed platform is not exempt from fair use principles. A closed platform means you cannot sell content/use the orthodox distribution channels without preathorisation from the platform holder, not that you cannot get your homebrew on the device.Safe Bet said:
BritBloke916
Member
iapetus said:
I'm under the impression that this particular case is about consumers not having the right to reverse-engineer private encryption keys and post them on the internet under the provisions of the DMCA (I think that they will probably win). There is another case concerning whether or not they have the right to remove OtherOS (I think they will probably lose). As for the right to "arbitrarily execute code that does anything they like on your device", if they ever actually used their remote console killswitch capability I would expect them to be hauled back into court again (I think they would lose that one too).
squatingyeti
non-sanctioned troll
Which does not take away the consumer's right to fair use, which is using things the manufacturer did not approve.Safe Bet said:
The DMCA also allows for fair use. As long as something is fair use, telling others how to get their fair use is free speech.Massa said:
Sony will probably win against Hotz only because there is no fair use exemption for consoles as there is for phones. For example, had Apple completed a court case before the exemption was created for phones, they would have won. Not because jailbreaking isn't fair use as we understand it now, but because courts do not rule on right or wrong, merely what the law says at that time. One would have to directly challenge the law at hand and whether the law itself does not overreach, is too broad, or downright illegal itself.BritBloke916 said:
My point of argument remains, the DMCA has shown to be flawed and step on rights several times now. Just because it technically says what Hotz has done might be wrong, does not mean it should be that way. It also said jailbreaking phones was wrong. In order for people to jailbreak phones, not only did they have to circumvent protections, but they even disclosed what they found and how they did it (no different than fail0verflow has done or Hotz).
test_account
XP-39C²
Out of curiousity, who decides what fair use is or not when it comes to exceptions in the DMCA? Couldnt even piracy be concidered as fair use if you only download the movie/game/music etc. if you own the original (especially if the original disc get scratched up so it does no longer work)? Or making key generators for programs and tell people only to use it if they have lost their original key? Who decides these things and how do they make such a decition?
Ploid 3.0 said:
Yes.
I'm much less worried about people learning how to make bombs than the government deciding what information is appropriate for me to have access to.
(FWIW, I'm a game developer and my games have been pirated, and I still think Sony is in the wrong here.)
test_account said:
In America, it is a balance between the three branches. Congress drafts the laws that define fair use. The executive branch sets regulations that provide guidance and clarification on how to abide by Congress' laws. The judiciary then (1) rules on the constitutionality of the laws and regulations and (2) ultimately rules if a specific use should be considered a fair use under those laws and regulations. If Congress disagrees with a particular result reached by the judiciary (or with a regulation issued by the executive), the process starts again at the top.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
"saves post"komojo said:
For those who ask us to think about the developers regarding homebrew and jailbreaking, here is one person among many who thinks it should be allowed.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
squatingyeti said:
That's actually exactly what courts rule on.
Laws don't actually exist until they have been tested in court and precedents have been set, and the reason lawyers exist is to interpret laws and precedents to create the social contract that we think of as laws.
The 'letter of the law' might be clearcut, but nobody respects the letter of the law - it is the 'spirit of the law' that courts dwell on, and judges can (and do) amend laws through their findings all the time.
Even pretty universally obvious and socially accepted laws (you shouldn't kill people, you shouldn't steal) can be ignored if mitigating circumstances are found to be sufficient.
test_account
XP-39C²
Ok, i see, thanksmre said:
So basically it comes down to what the personal opinions of the people who make these laws regarding how they feel about if something should be defined as fair use or not? Like some of them might say "some of the usage is fair use, but by allowing it, it can lead to much abuse, so we wont make an exception to fair use" while others might say "some of the usage is fair use, so we will allow it"?squatingyeti
non-sanctioned troll
MrNyarlathotep said:
Like I said in what you quoted, they must challenge the portion of the law or the law itself. Also, it seems the Library of Congress sort of agrees that the DMCA will crush anyone in court, even if they challenge it, without the LoC providing an exemption. They explained this in the smartphone exemption.
Actually, they've created 4 pillars (iirc) on what constitutes fair use. The LoC went through each one with the phone exemption and explained how jailbreaking phones, despite circumventing protections and despite telling others how to do it, was fair use.test_account said:Ok, i see, thanks
test_account said:Ok, i see, thanks
In theory, yes. In actuality you run into issues with vagueness, ambiguity, and the inherent restriction of using language to completely express an idea. These issues (and others) allow wiggle room for different interpretations of the written laws,regulations, and judicial opinions, which leads to litigation and the cycle beginning again.
squatingyeti said:
Out of interest, what is the wording of the 'smartphone exemption', anyway? Is the requirement to make phone calls (which, let's be honest, doesn't seem particularly relevant to the issue of the exemption itself) part of it?
It strikes me that the only reason the 'smartphone exemption' shouldn't apply is because a PS3 is not a smartphone. Which raises the question of *why* the exemption was written to be so specific.
Zoe
Member
mclem said:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34898232/2010-DMCA-Exemption-Announcement
The exemptions are always written to be very specific.
Zoe said:
I've only skimmed it, but it does read like the same EFF arguments would apply to this situation. Indeed, through skimming, I didn't see anything there where the actual *phone* behaviour was relevant to the argument. It reads for all the world that the only reason it applies to smartphones alone is that they wrote that it applies to smartphones.
Not, I'm sure, that that's all that helpful, but it does look rather short-sighted when they originally wrote it.
squatingyeti
non-sanctioned troll
mclem said:
The actual *phone* behavior wasn't really the issue the EFF brought up at all. This is the best statement from the exemption that can be compared to what we have here:
DMCA Exemption said:
Simply replace Apple with Sony and there is absolutely no fundamental difference between jailbreaking a phone and jailbreaking a PS3. As much as people try to argue, BOTH systems are closed systems.
While this is true, the fact is that what the law says says 'phone', and unless you can convince the judge that the PS3 is a phone, that might be a problem
(I'm assuming that, strictly speaking, merely convincing the judge that the PS3 is *equivalent* to a phone as far as the law is concerned is insufficient)
(I'm assuming that, strictly speaking, merely convincing the judge that the PS3 is *equivalent* to a phone as far as the law is concerned is insufficient)