Support NeoGAF

[squatingyeti]

The jailbreak is, unfortunately, irrelevant.



DMCA should die in a fire, it is a horrible piece of legislation.

I understand it's irrelevant, I just personally do not see how a court can make a distinction between devices you own as a consumer. Here you are trying to execute software applications and circumvention is enabling the interoperability of such applications. It should ALWAYS come down to the idea that if you get stuff legally, you should not be treated like a dirty thief.

 

[Jobiensis]

I understand it's irrelevant, I just personally do not see how a court can make a distinction between devices you own as a consumer. Here you are trying to execute software applications and circumvention is enabling the interoperability of such applications. It should ALWAYS come down to the idea that if you get stuff legally, you should not be treated like a dirty thief.

I agree, it's just that the DMCA explicitly disagrees. What the court believes doesn't even matter, they are there to interpret the laws. I'd love for the DMCA to be shot down as unconstitutional, but I don't think it is, or will be.

 

[Metalmurphy]

http://geohot.com/
http://geohot.com/old_index.html

Wrong.

www.facebook.com/GeohotUS

Twitter & Facebook are probably not really his (right?) But pretty sure his old PS3 blog that is now private was capital as well in the titles. One website that barely has any capitalization at all even when it should doesn't really prove that he never uses capital letters in his handle.



This is becoming quite silly tbh.

 

[spons]

The entire 'unauthorized access to the PS3 system' stuff is baffling. Come to think of it, I still need to place laminate flooring in one of my rooms. I guess I'll have to phone the DIY store to ask permission to cut it to size. Don't want to end up in court for it if someone figures out.

 

[test_account]

And the worst thing ever for consumers. I cannot fathom how any court, after the jailbreak ruling, can differentiate the consumer's ownership of products they purchased.

Personally i dont think that it really matters that much to consumers in general. I mean, a lot of people know what the device does when they buy it, and many people are happy with this. For those who want to modify the device, people have been modifying their consoles pretty much since the first console out there (as long as there was any benefit of modifying it), so i dont think that this lawsuit would really change much when it comes to if people will be able to modify their consoles or not.

If Sony wins this case, then i guess that it might be easier to win against people who publically goes out and announce their hacks, giving out their full names etc. But many hackers will probably be annonymous, so it might be almost impossible to track them down.


EDIT:

The entire 'unauthorized access to the PS3 system' stuff is baffling. Come to think of it, I still need to place laminate flooring in one of my rooms. I guess I'll have to phone the DIY store to ask permission to cut it to size. Don't want to end up in court for it if someone figures out.

Out of curiousity, what else would it be called, other than 'unauthorized access to the PS3 system'?

But this lawsuit is probably mostly because this could lead to much abuse of the PS3. If Geohot (or anyone else for that matter) had hacked the PS3 and kept all the findings to himself, and perhaps only posted some videos on YouTube showing that he managed to hack the PS3 without giving out any info on how he did it, then i doubt that Sony would have sued him. But when tools and decryption keys etc. are posted freely online so that everyone can do hack a devide and abuse it if they want, then that is a big scale, which can potentially lead to much more abuse. I guess that this is the main case of why this lawsuit happened. Not just because he modified his own PS3, but for releasing all the info freely online so "everyone" can do it.

 

[Harteex]

www.facebook.com/GeohotUS

Twitter & Facebook are probably not really his (right?) But pretty sure his old PS3 blog that is now private was capital as well in the titles. One website that barely has any capitalization at all even when it should doesn't really prove that he never uses capital letters in his handle.



This is becoming quite silly tbh.

geohot.us is not his afaik and neither the twitter nor the facebook is his.
I'm not sure but I'm guessing blogspot doesn't allow you to write the title without capital letters.

 

[Emitan]

Out of curiousity, what else would it be called, other than 'unauthorized access to the PS3 system'?

I installed VLC on my Windows desktop because I like it better than VLC, guess I better turn myself in to Microsoft, huh? I don't see how this is unauthorized access. He wasn't breaking into other people's systems or the PSN servers or anything. He was running software on his own legally purchased computer.

 

[test_account]

I installed VLC on my Windows desktop because I like it better than VLC, guess I better turn myself in to Microsoft, huh? I don't see how this is unauthorized access. He wasn't breaking into other people's systems or the PSN servers or anything. He was running software on his own legally purchased computer.

I dont think that Microsoft has any rules that says that you arent allowed to install VLC on Windows OS. Windows is also built in the way that you should be able to install programs like VLC without having to do any modifications to Windows OS. The PS3 isnt built like this and Sony dont want people to install programs that hasnt been approved by Sony.

You are indeed right that Geohot didnt break into other people's systems or the PSN servers. But when we buy a PS3, we then dont own the software on it. We just own a license to use it. This goes for Windows as well and also actually pretty much every non open source software out there. So if the creator(s) of the software doesnt want people to modify it, i guess that is why it is called 'unauthorized access' if someone modifies it anyway. But if it isnt unauthorized access, what should it be called instead? I'm just wondering

But i guess that the question is if we should be allowed to modify the devices that we have bought even if the creators doesnt want us to do it. And also if we modify it, should we be allowed to publish this info to everyone, especially if we know that it can lead to abuse of the system? Or should be just keep the findings to ourselfs?


EDIT: Just to clearify, when i said "the PS3 isnt build like this", i ment the PS3 Game OS. If you have a PS3 with OtherOS still on it, i think that you are allowed to install programs that arent approved by Sony on the PS3 if it's done under the OtherOS

EDIT 2: I added some text.

 

[Raist]

I installed VLC on my Windows desktop because I like it better than VLC, guess I better turn myself in to Microsoft, huh? I don't see how this is unauthorized access. He wasn't breaking into other people's systems or the PSN servers or anything. He was running software on his own legally purchased computer.

Doing whatever you want with your hardware is one thing (and again, it's not because you bought a piece of hardware that you can do whatever you want with the software running on it).
Publishing private keys and a patch that modofies the OFW to circumvent security measures is a whole different thing.

 

[PSGames]

Doing whatever you want with your hardware is one thing (and again, it's not because you bought a piece of hardware that you can do whatever you want with the software running on it).
Publishing private keys and a patch that modofies the OFW to circumvent security measures is a whole different thing.

It's the same as Jail breaking a phone which was deemed legal.

 

[Zoe]

It's the same as Jail breaking a phone which was deemed legal.

It's not the same until the law deems it so.

 

[Scalemail Ted]

It's not the same until the law deems it so.

Is it different in principle?

 

[Zoe]

Is it different in principle?

Doesn't matter. DMCA still says breaking the encryption is illegal.

 

[Tenkei]

Zoe, I don't think I have ever seen your personal opinion on the matter. Regardless of what the DMCA or TOS or other abbreviations say, what do YOU as a consumer think about jailbreaking the PS3, or the principle of modification of personal property? I have a hard time phrasing my posts civilly because you always seem to be touting the company line.

 

[iapetus]

One website that barely has any capitalization at all even when it should doesn't really prove that he never uses capital letters in his handle.

Why not? You're arguing in favour of the laughable claim that one PSN account that doesn't use his name in the form he always does and doesn't match any of his personal data is proof that he has a PSN account.

And it's certainly enough to prove that the claim:

He's websites all had capital G.

is bullshit.

 

[iapetus]

Which he was fully aware would happen when he "shared" what he had learned with the world.

Except it hasn't. You're falling for Sony's cunning conflation ploy again. Unfortunately, it won't work on lawyers or judges. What he's done isn't compromise everyone else's PS3. He's allowed everyone to compromise their own PS3s. And again, if that's illegal under US law then US law is fucked.

 

[PSGames]

Doesn't matter. DMCA still says breaking the encryption is illegal.

It does matter. A precedent has been set. There is nothing special about a PS3 compared to an iPhone.

 

[Jobiensis]

It does matter. A precedent has been set. There is nothing special about a PS3 compared to an iPhone.

Legally it doesn't matter, there was no precedent it was a specific exception by the Library of Congress that was allowed for in the DMCA. There is no such exception for consoles.

How does this

Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.

apply to game consoles. The Library of Congress would have to make another exception for them.

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

 

[Metalmurphy]

Why not? You're arguing in favour of the laughable claim that one PSN account that doesn't use his name in the form he always does and doesn't match any of his personal data is proof that he has a PSN account.

Yeah... except I never said that.

Maybe because Geohot isn't him, it was taken, instead he chose Geo1Hotz. I dunno, at this point we're all guessing. But makes no sense to take it for granted that he did not have a PSN account.

Just trying to show that's equally laughable to assume that he doesn't have a PSN account. As for not his data... already shown you that really doesn't mean anything.

is bullshit.

So the "all" word was the problem. Ok then.

He still used his name tag with capital G though. It only takes one to show that he doesn't always use lowercase.

 

[Thetallywacker]

Tons of things we own have laws that specify how we use a product. From medical supplies to cleaning equipment, and products. Failure to follow the intended use can result in fine or jail. Buying a cat to feed it to a snake wasn't the intent of the sale. You wanna buy something and lie to the original owner about it's use. Anything that involves cheating, stealing, cutting corners, or manipulating to get what you want should all be illegal.

 

[Dead Man]

Tons of things we own have laws that specify how we use a product. From medical supplies to cleaning equipment, and products. Failure to follow the intended use can result in fine or jail. Buying a cat to feed it to a snake wasn't the intent of the sale. You wanna buy something and lie to the original owner about it's use. Anything that involves cheating, stealing, cutting corners, or manipulating to get what you want should all be illegal.

Um... really? How does your last sentence even apply here?

 

[Freyjadour]

Tons of things we own have laws that specify how we use a product. From medical supplies to cleaning equipment, and products. Failure to follow the intended use can result in fine or jail. Buying a cat to feed it to a snake wasn't the intent of the sale. You wanna buy something and lie to the original owner about it's use. Anything that involves cheating, stealing, cutting corners, or manipulating to get what you want should all be illegal.

*Something about throwing irrelevant analogies and metaphors around being nonsensical*

 

[Rebel Leader]

I do want OtherOS back.

But I want sony to bring it back.

I only have 1 ps3 and I do use psn.

 

[Slightly Live]

Tons of things we own have laws that specify how we use a product. From medical supplies to cleaning equipment, and products. Failure to follow the intended use can result in fine or jail. Buying a cat to feed it to a snake wasn't the intent of the sale. You wanna buy something and lie to the original owner about it's use. Anything that involves cheating, stealing, cutting corners, or manipulating to get what you want should all be illegal.

Joke post?

 

[iapetus]

Just trying to show that's equally laughable to assume that he doesn't have a PSN account. As for not his data... already shown you that really doesn't mean anything.

From the fact that you've turned up a number of sites using his name that aren't him, you've already shown that the user tag doesn't mean everything, if that's what you mean. Or even if it isn't.

So the "all" word was the problem. Ok then.

Well, the 'all' word made it very easy to disprove.

He still used his name tag with capital G though. It only takes one to show that he doesn't always use lowercase.

I'm not sure you've shown that - the only cases I've seen have been where blog software might have auto-capitalised (as a fellow fan of initial minuscules I find that annoying as hell at times). Since so much of his previous work is currently offline, I can't find anything that is definitely him and capitalises.

 

[PataHikari]

But when we buy a PS3, we then dont own the software on it. We just own a license to use it.

Congratulations! You've fallen for the biggest lie in the software industry

 

[slider]

Congratulations! You've fallen for the biggest lie in the software industry

I'm really clueless on this but your response is very interesting. I'm off to Google (and hopefully find out what FW updates mean).

 

[PataHikari]

I'm really clueless on this but your response is very interesting. I'm off to Google (and hopefully find out what FW updates mean).

The idea of "licensing" software is a scam created by corporations to trick you into giving up your rights.

 

[Metalmurphy]

From the fact that you've turned up a number of sites using his name that aren't him, you've already shown that the user tag doesn't mean everything, if that's what you mean. Or even if it isn't.

What I've been trying to mean was a couple of things.
That I (personal opinion) find it unlikely that he never made a PSN account.
Geo1Hotzwtv could be someone else, also could be his, makes no sense to assume as fact that it isn't.
The fact that he usually doesn't capitalize his tag doesn't mean much.
Incorrect data doesn't mean much either as all my accounts have fake info for example.

Well, the 'all' word made it very easy to disprove.

Gotta live up to the tag.

I'm not sure you've shown that - the only cases I've seen have been where blog software might have auto-capitalised (as a fellow fan of initial minuscules I find that annoying as hell at times). Since so much of his previous work is currently offline, I can't find anything that is definitely him and capitalises.

I have no idea how these blogsites work, but if it's the website that provides the templates and not the user doing them in his PC with some software, then there's quite a few blogspot.com examples with lower cased titles.

 

[The Faceless Master]

seriously, allegedly using a capital G in a blog title vs using it when referring to himself are totally different.

 

[Metalmurphy]

seriously, allegedly using a capital G in a blog title vs using it when referring to himself are totally different.

Not that it matters anyway but... if the blog title is referring to himself how is it different?

 

[Psychotext]

I can't speak for TFM, but I tend to type titles in Title Case (Start Case?), no-matter what the content.

 

[slider]

The idea of "licensing" software is a scam created by corporations to trick you into giving up your rights.

Fuckers! It's extremely commonplace though (afaik) - which makes it all the more abominable.

EDIT: The Wiki entry on software licensing is interesting]/i] but limited. Any suggestions for further reading?

 

[Tenkei]

Why is it so hard to believe that geohot doesn't have a PSN account? My brother uses my 60GB PS3 much more than I do, and he has not touched the online component, nor is he interested in the store. PSN is nowhere near as integrated into the UI as XBL, and first-time PSN setup is an involved process; I can understand why people may not have accounts.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Not that it matters anyway but... if the blog title is referring to himself how is it different?

it's a blog title, people routinely capitalize the first letter in every word in blog titles. it's completely normal.

 

[PSGames]

More likely than not I'm sure geohot has a PSN account but that doesn't matter. Sony has to prove it and the evidence they've provided is in no way proof that this is him. Unless they have an IP address associated with it anyone could have made that account.

 

[PSGames]

geohot's lawyers move for dismissal (via PSX-Scene)

Sony's response:

Hotz again fails to unequivocally deny that he has, or has ever had, a PSN account.
In his supplemental declaration, Hotz merely – and carefully – denies that he has ever
accessed the PSN to install a firmware update. See Hotz Decl., ¶¶11-13.4 Hotz also claims
to have accessed the PS3 System firmware not through the proper channels of the SCEA
website, but instead “via direct download links available on the internet.” Hotz Decl., ¶11.
Though he disavows association with various email addresses in SCEA’s database, he
pointedly does not state that he has not now, nor has he ever, maintained a PSN account.
His failure to unequivocally deny that he has held a PSN account is telling.

So because he hasn't specifically stated "I have not maintained a PSN account" means he must have one? They have no better evidence than that? :lol

Haven't read through their whole response yet.

 

[Drkirby]

What does it matter if he had a PSN account?

 

[okenny]

I'm not a very smart man so any help I can get to clarify or better well-express this idea will greatly be appreciated. Here it is:

If the goal of encryption is to protect the content being encrypted from unauthorized access then isn't the burden of protection from access on the encrypter and not the person who accesses the data regardless of whether they're authorized or not?

For example, wire-tapping someone in an unauthorized manner is doing so without a court authority since the wire is a private domain where as if you overheard someone then it's perfectly legal to do so because air is not a private domain. If one wants to encrypt the data in the wire then they can do so but accessing that wire to get the encrypted information is unauthorized not because of the encryption but because of the wire. Now, is it illegal to pull data out of the air simply because someone who put it there didn't want you accessing it?

If a PS3 is a private domain than doesn't the owner of the hardware have legal access to that domain? If so, doesn't a user have access to the encrypted data? If I can gain access to the information in the encryption, isn't it a burden on Sony to make sure the encryption is such that I can't gain access?

 

[jorma]

What does it matter if he had a PSN account?

Exactly what i was thinking. It's a jurisdiction thingy, but i just cannot grasp the idea that by signing on to PSN you agree that if Sony sues you for whatever reason (since the lawsuit has nothing to do with PSN), you have already agreed that the case should be heard in California. Shit's unreal.

Also: was the iphone on the list of excepted technologies that was ok to jailbreak when geohot hacked it? If it only became excepted after the fact, i think it works just fine as a precedent.

 

[test_account]

Congratulations! You've fallen for the biggest lie in the software industry

What is a lie about it? If i buy a game or i.e Windows OS, do i own the source code, the copyright and all the other rights to this software? If i dont own these things when i buy the software, then what do i own? I know that i own the right to use that particular copy, which can be defined as a "license to use" in my opinion. But what other stuff do i own when i buy the software? Now you made me curious

I am only talking about software modification to non open source software here by the way, not about using the hardware itself for different stuff.

Fuckers! It's extremely commonplace though (afaik) - which makes it all the more abominable.

EDIT: The Wiki entry on software licensing is interesting]/i] but limited. Any suggestions for further reading?

It's not about giving up your rights When you buy i.e a game, you simply dont buy the copyright etc. to that game. If i buy i.e Halo 3, then i dont own the Halo franchise, i dont own the right to make Halo game and i dont own the right to copy the game and sell the copies. So what i'm actually buying is more of a license to use the game. That shouldnt affect my other consumer rights

So the question is that we should be allowed to modify non open source software if the creator(s) doesnt want us to do it.

EDIT: I fixed a typo.

 

[mclem]

So the question is that we should be allowed to modify non open source software if the creator(s) doesnt want us to do it.

And the answer is yes. Or at least, should be.

If you then use it to access an external creator-owned network, *that* is reasonable to dispute; the owner of the network has the right to dictate what is allowed to connect to their network.

A random thought springs to mind: If modifying your own copy of data you purchased becomes illegal, that then logically makes it illegal to modify the MAC address of a network interface, and that's broken on so many levels.

 

[test_account]

And the answer is yes. Or at least, should be.

If you then use it to access an external creator-owned network, *that* is reasonable to dispute; the owner of the network has the right to dictate what is allowed to connect to their network.

A random thought springs to mind: If modifying your own copy of data you purchased becomes illegal, that then logically makes it illegal to modify the MAC address of a network interface, and that's broken on so many levels.

I guess that there would have to be some specific rules/mentioning to what that cant be modified and for what type of software this applies to. For example, it would be kinda silly if it was illegal to change the icon to an .exe file on your own PC, in my opinion. Some developers does allow changes to be done to specific parts of their software (like you can modifiy certain files on Counter Strike as long as you dont modify some .exe and .dll files if i'm not mistaken).

But i guess that another question is: where should the line go between whats allowed to modify and whats not allowed to modify?

 

[Dead Man]

I guess that there would have to be some specific rules/mentioning to what that cant be modified and for what type of software this applies to. For example, it would be kinda silly if it was illegal to change the icon to an .exe file on your own PC, in my opinion. Some developers does allow changes to be done to specific parts of their software (like you can modifiy certain files on Counter Strike as long as you dont modify some .exe and .dll files if i'm not mistaken).

So where should the line go between whats allowed to modify and whats not allowed to modify?

No line should be needed. Modify what you want on the understanding other software or networks may no longer be accessible.

 

[test_account]

No line should be needed. Modify what you want on the understanding other software or networks may no longer be accessible.

What if the developers doesnt want people to modify certain parts of the software if this could lead to abuse? And then people post this info online so that it can lead to much abuse. Should the developers have some rights to decide this?

 

[Noshino]

Except it hasn't. You're falling for Sony's cunning conflation ploy again. Unfortunately, it won't work on lawyers or judges. What he's done isn't compromise everyone else's PS3. He's allowed everyone to compromise their own PS3s. And again, if that's illegal under US law then US law is fucked.

the problem is that unfortunately that isn't true. unless the ps3s are offline the whole time, the network (and other ps3s connected to it) is compromised.

 

[Dead Man]

What if the developers doesnt want people to modify certain parts of the software if this could lead to abuse? And then people post this info online so that it can lead to much abuse. Should the developers have some rights to decide this?

No. They should have the right to stop people connecting to their networks, but other than that, there is no practical means to stop it anyway.

 

[jorma]

the problem is that unfortunately that isn't true. unless the ps3s are offline the whole time, the network (and other ps3s connected to it) is compromised.

How is your ps3 compromised simply by me running cfw on my ps3?

 

[test_account]

No. They should have the right to stop people connecting to their networks, but other than that, there is no practical means to stop it anyway.

When it come to offline modification, i agree that it wont really be much use to stop it indeed. If i want to change the icon on some files, or perhaps change the music in a game etc., then this wont really affect anyone else but myself

But i do think that the developers should have some rights to decide if they dont want some parts of their software to be modified without permission, especially when it comes to core/important parts of the software. Or at least, that they should be able to decide if they dont want people to post info online how to do these modifications.

About the PS3 modifications, i dont really mind this that much as long as it doesnt lead to online cheating etc.. But i do think that Sony should be able to decide if it should be allowed or not to post the PS3 decryption keys freely online, because even if this could lead to much cool and legal stuff, we also know that this could lead to much abuse as well. So personally i feel that the developers should be able to decide stuff like this.

 

[Dead Man]

When it come to offline modification, i agree that it wont really be much use to stop it indeed. If i want to change the icon on some files, or perhaps change the music in a game etc., then this wont really affect anyone else but myself

But i do think that the developers should have some rights to decide if they dont want some parts of their software to be modified without permission, especially when it comes to core/important parts of the software. Or at least, that they should be able to decide if they dont want people to post info online how to do these modifications.

About the PS3 modifications, i dont really mind this that much as long as it doesnt lead to online cheating etc.. But i do think that Sony should be able to decide if it should be allowed or not to post the PS3 decryption keys freely online, because even if this could lead to much cool and legal stuff, we also know that this could lead to much abuse as well. So personally i feel that the developers should be able to decide stuff like this.

Why?