Support NeoGAF

[test_account]

Why?

Because it can lead to abuse, especially if the info on how to do the modification(s) is being being posted online. So if the developers shouldnt have the right to decide if modifications should be allowed to core parts of a software, i think that they should at least have the rights to decide if they want info on how to do these modifications should be posted online or not. If people do modification to the core parts of some software and does it only for their own sake, and using it offline, and if it doesnt affect the developers, then i think that this should be allowed

 

[Cheerilee]

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?

Logically and sensibly you hit the nail on the head, but thanks to lobbying groups (basically bribery) the American courts have decided that creators need more than just logic and sense. The American courts gave them the DMCA (and are in the process of arm-twisting every other nation in the free world to do the same).

Basically, if there is any protection in something that was put there by it's creators, no matter how weak it is, it is a legal barrier you, the supposed property owner, can not cross. If you buy a newly-built house and are surprised to find a lock on your basement door, it means that the builder owns your basement, and he can come and go as he pleases, and it's illegal for you to kick it down, fix it, and change the lock. If you try it, you are a thief and a home invader.

It's also apparently illegal to tell other people how to kick their own basement doors down.

Since this is really stupid, the courts seem to be going along and making exceptions, on a case-by-case basis. Jailbreaking the iPhone was recently made an exception, thanks to geohot. He wants the PS3 to be next.

 

[Dead Man]

Because it can lead to abuse, especially if the info on how to do the modification(s) is being being posted online. So if the developers shouldnt have the right to decide if modifications should be allowed to core parts of a software, i think that they should at least have the rights to decide if they want info on how to do these modifications should be posted online or not. If people do modification to the core parts of some software and does it only for their own sake, and using it offline, and if it doesnt affect the developers, then i think that this should be allowed

But then you get into the very dangerous ground of what constitutes harm to a developer, and what consequences should reasonably have been foreseen. One thing all the bad analogies had going for them was they illustrated how silly this is in every other product.

 

[Raist]

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

Er, no. It's governed by law. Copyright law to be precise.

 

[test_account]

But then you get into the very dangerous ground of what constitutes harm to a developer, and what consequences should reasonably have been foreseen. One thing all the bad analogies had going for them was they illustrated how silly this is in every other product.

That is true, so it is very important to have more specific mentioning of what should be allowed or not, not just a general thing like "if it doesnt harm the developer, then it's ok". Because what someone defines as harm might not be defined as harm by another person indeed

About the consequences, that is something that have to defined in each cause i guess. About the PS3 case, Geohot is a smart guy, he knows that abuse and piracy can happened if he exposed a whole security system publically online. Then i guess that it is up to the court to decide what his intention was, and if he could have forseen potentially abuse, and if he should have some responisbility or not when he posted the PS3 decryption keys online.

I dont know about all the analogies that has been made, but are anyone of them similar to where a security system is being exposed publically online?

 

[squatingyeti]

Er, no. It's governed by law. Copyright law to be precise.

If he's talking about when you purchase an actual item, then no, it's a scam instituted to say when you purchase a game/movie/cd/etc you don't own that which you purchased. You are "leasing" the right to play/watch/listen. Since you are leasing it, you have no consumer rights. Want to sell it? Sorry, we've decided that is not allowed under our lease agreement.

I really fear for our consumer rights if those willing to surrender them so easily also breed just as easily.

 

[Megadragon15]

I dont know about all the analogies that has been made, but are anyone of them similar to where a security system is being exposed publically online?

Well why don't you read this post: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=25524622&postcount=3212 and this is Sony's legal team. lol

 

[jorma]

Er, no. It's governed by law. Copyright law to be precise.

Are you suggesting that the only difference between ownership rights and licensing rights are the associated distribution rights? Because that's what copyright law deals with. The right to copy.

Of course not, because copyright is a time limited exception to the ownership norms. Since i purchased my very own copy of Assassins Creed, when the time limited copyright runs out i get to do all the things normally associated with ownership - i can copy it and sell the copy as many times as i want to.

For now. I would not be surprised if they tried to make copyrights infinite the next time Disney and Beatles copyrights are in danger.

 

[Cheerilee]

I dont know about all the analogies that has been made, but are anyone of them similar to where a security system is being exposed publically online?

Here's a fun one. Bump keys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ack59UfD9mk

 

[squatingyeti]

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.

Not only is that wrong, he's not compromising ANYONE'S system but his own, but it is STILL the choice of other users, not him, to go online.

Furthermore, Sony's argument about geohot not specifically stating he doesn't have a PSN account is ridiculous. Of course, the way some of you feel about your consumer rights, I can only imagine you would surrender the right of innocent until PROVEN guilty.

 

[test_account]

If he's talking about when you purchase an actual item, then no, it's a scam instituted to say when you purchase a game/movie/cd/etc you don't own that which you purchased. You are "leasing" the right to play/watch/listen. Since you are leasing it, you have no consumer rights. Want to sell it? Sorry, we've decided that is not allowed under our lease agreement.

I really fear for our consumer rights if those willing to surrender them so easily also breed just as easily.

Luckily this is not how it works If you buy a game, you are then allowed to sell it or give it away, no problem =) But you do not own the right to the source code and copyrights etc. of the game. So what do you own when you buy a game? You own the box, manual and dics (if you buy a physical copy of the game), and you have the right to play the game, or some sort of license to play the game. Is there anything else that you own when you buy a game? Honest question.

Well why don't you read this post: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=25524622&postcount=3212 and this is Sony's legal team. lol

Thanks for the link, but i dont see any analogies being made to other products? Unless those documents contains the decryption keys to the Wii and iPhone and if these documents are publically available online?

 

[Raist]

If he's talking about when you purchase an actual item, then no, it's a scam instituted to say when you purchase a game/movie/cd/etc you don't own that which you purchased. You are "leasing" the right to play/watch/listen. Since you are leasing it, you have no consumer rights. Want to sell it? Sorry, we've decided that is not allowed under our lease agreement.

I really fear for our consumer rights if those willing to surrender them so easily also breed just as easily.

Some aspects of copyright law are overriden by other laws (e.g first-sale doctrine). It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with your copy of a software.

 

[test_account]

Here's a fun one. Bump keys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ack59UfD9mk

Thanks for the link. That is one way to show how a security system can be broken indeed They also show a solution how to fix it though (by buying a high security lock) =)

 

[jcm]

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.

Why?

You didn't ask me, but I feel the same way. The console business model depends on that right. I like the console business model. Thus, I'm interested in seeing that right protected.

It's selfish, obviously, but no more selfish than the other side. In the US the law, which is at least in theory the will of the people, agrees with me.

 

[iapetus]

You didn't ask me, but I feel the same way. The console business model depends on that right. I like the console business model. Thus, I'm interested in seeing that right protected.

In what way does the console business model depend on that right?

Clue:

Spoiler

It doesn't.

 

[Pureauthor]

You didn't ask me, but I feel the same way. The console business model depends on that right. I like the console business model. Thus, I'm interested in seeing that right protected.

The current console business model is hopelessly fucked up anyway. Jailbreaking and bypasses do not rank anywhere high on the list of things the companies involved should be worried about.

 

[jcm]

In what way does the console business model depend on that right?

Clue:

Spoiler

It doesn't.

The console business is built on software royalties. It's the reason they can sell hardware at or below cost. It works because there's no way to run game software without going through the console maker.

The console business has unobtrusive DRM at the user level, because the entire system is designed to be locked down.

I like those two things about consoles, and the work geohot and failoverflow did subverts this. I'm aware there are people like you who care much more about having the ability to tinker with open hardware, but I don't care about that when it comes to my video games. I'm perfectly happy with a subsidized walled garden.

 

[jorma]

Subsidised? In what way? Console games are more expensive than PC games, so you get less for more - how is that a subsidy?

 

[iapetus]

The console business is built on software royalties. It's the reason they can sell hardware at or below cost. It works because there's no way to run game software without going through the console maker.

The console business has unobtrusive DRM at the user level, because the entire system is designed to be locked down.

I like those two things about consoles, and the work geohot and failoverflow did subverts this. I'm aware there are people like you who care much more about having the ability to tinker with open hardware, but I don't care about that when it comes to my video games. I'm perfectly happy with a subsidized walled garden.

That's not what was being discussed, though. That has nothing to do with whether the developer has the right to prevent you from modifying the binary copy of the software you bought. The things that break that model are already covered by law. Draconian extensions to that to remove more rights from the law-abiding in order to protect companies against the less honest are wrong.

Of course console devs should have the right to protect their IP, and not have it copied. They shouldn't get to take my rights away in order to do that, though.

 

[iapetus]

Subsidised? In what way? Console games are more expensive than PC games, so you get less for more - how is that a subsidy?

The subsidy is on the hardware. Hardware is sold under cost on the assumption that the money will be made back on the software.

 

[jorma]

The subsidy is on the hardware. Hardware is sold under cost on the assumption that the money will be made back on the software.

Oh i thought that was just for the first years to get the ball rolling. The PS3/wii/360 is still sold at loss?

 

[kitch9]

Oh i thought that was just for the first years to get the ball rolling. The PS3/wii/360 is still sold at loss?

Whilst the hardware should now be selling for a profit I think Sony will be a long way of from recouping initial losses on the PS3.

 

[Pureauthor]

Whilst the hardware should now be selling for a profit I think Sony will be a long way of from recouping initial losses on the PS3.

'Never' certainly does take a while to arrive.

 

[Vorador]

The ps3 just began to have profits last year.

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/06/29/sony-finally-making-profit-ps3-hardware

According to this, 360 with the hardware revision in 2006 was profiting already

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20061120132150.html

The Wii was never sold at a loss.

 

[squatingyeti]

Luckily this is not how it works If you buy a game, you are then allowed to sell it or give it away, no problem =) But you do not own the right to the source code and copyrights etc. of the game. So what do you own when you buy a game? You own the box, manual and dics (if you buy a physical copy of the game), and you have the right to play the game, or some sort of license to play the game. Is there anything else that you own when you buy a game? Honest question.

Actually, they ARE trying to make it so you can't sell or give it away. Thus, the idea that you are only leasing it. They could decide that reselling is not allowed under their lease. Even worse is the way we are moving with digital distribution of things. Ever try to sell the album you purchased off of iTunes? I mean, if you're done with it and won't listen again, why can't you sell it? You did purchase it, right? How about the steam game you're done playing? You did actually spend money on it and purchase it? Tell me how selling that when you're doing playing it works out for you.

 

[test_account]

Actually, they ARE trying to make it so you can't sell or give it away. Thus, the idea that you are only leasing it. They could decide that reselling is not allowed under their lease. Even worse is the way we are moving with digital distribution of things. Ever try to sell the album you purchased off of iTunes? I mean, if you're done with it and won't listen again, why can't you sell it? You did purchase it, right? How about the steam game you're done playing? You did actually spend money on it and purchase it? Tell me how selling that when you're doing playing it works out for you.

I guess that many developers and publishers would like to ban used software sales (or at least to a certain degree), unless there is some system that gives the developers and publishers some share of the money of the used software sales as well. But in what way are they trying to ban used software sales?

I know that some console games have included a code that you need to play online, in an attempt to make it a bit less lucurative to buy used games (in some cases, like with Medal of Honor, it is possible to buy an online code seperately though, so you can still play online if you have a used copy). But in what way are they trying to ban used software sales? I'm curious about this. Or do you mean regarding digital download stuff only and not physical copies?


I actually think that most people are fine with "licensing" software. I can only speak for myself, but personally i cant remember to have felt let down if i wasnt able to do modification to a game's source code. If modding is possible, that is something that can be very cool of course, but i cant remember that i have exactly felt let down if modding in a certain game wasnt possible (either if it was due to copy protection or due to techincally difficulties to apply the modding). I think that as long as people can use the software whenever they want, and if the software works like it's intented to do by the developers, that this is what most people care most about


What you say about digital distrubution, i agree. As a game collector, one of my "fears" is that more and more games (especially bigger-titled games) will become available through digital distrubition only. I like to have my games in physical form. If games excist in both physical and digital download forms, then i'm fine with that, the most important thing for me is that the game also excist in physical form

I really fear for our consumer rights if those willing to surrender them so easily also breed just as easily.

I'm quoting this again since i didnt get around to answer to it earlier, sorry.

I dont think that anyone here is giving up their consumer rights. Again i can only speak for myself, but when i say that i can understand that companies doesnt want people to do modifications to their non open source software, especially when it comes to doing heavy modifying by adding unofficially features etc., it doesnt mean that i am giving up my consumer rights If some company tries to say to me that i only have 1 day of warranty on a product or that i am not allowed to resell i.e a physical game that i have bought, of course i will not accept this.

But if a company gives reasons that i find to be legitmate for not modifying and publish the info publically online on how to do the modification, then i might have acceptance and understanding for this. But that doesnt mean that i give up all my consumer rights. I just wanted to mention that


By the way, i dont think that the Geohot lawsuit is mostly about being able to modify something for personal use offline. If it was, then Sony would probably have sued him months ago when he showed that OtherOS was running of firmware 3.21 (which was done through modification by Geohot). It might take some time to prepare a case, but i dont think that it is a coincidence that the lawsuit against him came shortly after he posted the PS3 decryption keys online.

So as consumers i dont think that we have much to worry about really when it comes to being able to modify some products that we own I can see some of the concerns, but every console has been hacked by now, so i dont think that this will change much in the nearer future. No matter what the outcome of this Geohot lawsuit will be, i guess that it is probably only a question about time before the 3DS and the PSP2 gets hacked. So i do think that feature systems will be hacked anyway (if someone finds a way to hack the system that is).

EDIT: This post became a bit longer than i first though, sorry.

 

[phosphor112]

Sharing what you know, does NOT make you responsible for someone doing something with THEIR machine. I think that's absolutely ridiculous. I for one, don't see how this is any different than jailbreaking an Ipod/pad/phone. Those guys would also be "fully aware of [what] would happen" when they shared what they learned. However, the courts agree that thinking like that is not only stupid, but people have the right to jailbreak if they choose.
...

Jailbreaking an Ipad or Ipod has not been ruled as being legal. The DMCA added an exception to hacking phones (including the iphone) to remove monopolized services, like ATT had with the iPhone.

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.

The example you gave was, frankly, poor. In order to install 3rd party software on the PS3, it must be licensed by Sony. On Windows, Microsoft created an "open platform" (to an extent) to allow the use of any program compatible with the platform on a device they did not create. Keep that in mind. MS has no say in that hardware. The thing is, because Microsoft isn't reliant on the sales of software for that platform (but instead on the OS alone) they have no need to implement a deep security system that must cover their asses, in terms of hardware, software, and other companies software. Though, they have implemented DRM in the form of GFWL, so developers will continue to develop games for the platform, as they do gain revenue from the licensing.

Sony, on the other hand, pay hundreds of dollars for the hardware, and lots of money on the security to ensure developers will continue to develop games, safely, on their platform. Removing the closed platform Sony had for the PS3 removes any efficient method of anti piracy attempts, and as a platform holder, Sony must keep it's licensee's happy to keep business for themselves, and those companies. Since the security breach, not only did that demolish the PS3's anti piracy circumvention, but also exposed the PSP's to a greater extent. This is a disaster for Sony in EVERY way possible.

Of course you, the consumer, can do anything you want with what ever you buy. It doesn't mean it's legal. As it holds right now, there is no distinct line of where the legality holds in modifying closed platforms like this. The closest thing to this was the exception made in the DMCA for closed platform cell phones. This is what the court needs to decide. I can buy an AR-15, but I do not have a legal right to make it fully automatic, or place a silencer on it even though it "adds functionality." I can buy a car, but I can't tune it beyond a street legal car and use it for normal (street) use. You simply aren't allowed to, even with consumer protection laws. These rules and laws of not being allowed to do certain things with what YOU own has to do with safety and security. If that security, in the future, covers closed platforms, like consoles (wii, xbox, ps) then the government has a right to do that. It's all about protecting ones rights, and in this case, it will probably be the rights of ones investments in their Intellectual Properties.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

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.

Surely the burden of proof here is on Sony to prove that he has a PSN account, and more specifically that it was the account that they have determined as belonging to him, than on him and his lawyers to prove that he hasn't?

Because it's pretty much impossible to prove that somebody has never done something

 

[jcm]

That's not what was being discussed, though. That has nothing to do with whether the developer has the right to prevent you from modifying the binary copy of the software you bought. The things that break that model are already covered by law. Draconian extensions to that to remove more rights from the law-abiding in order to protect companies against the less honest are wrong.

Of course console devs should have the right to protect their IP, and not have it copied. They shouldn't get to take my rights away in order to do that, though.

Well, maybe we're talking about two different things? I'm talking about circumventing access controls to allow unlicensed and/or pirated software to run on the machine. Those circumvention efforts require modifying the system software and/or the firmware, don't they?

The ps3 just began to have profits last year.

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/06/29/sony-finally-making-profit-ps3-hardware

According to this, 360 with the hardware revision in 2006 was profiting already

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20061120132150.html

The Wii was never sold at a loss.

Whether the hardware is profitable at any given time doesn't much matter. It's still heavily subsidized, at least in the case of Sony and Microsoft. Think of it this way. If Sony and MS didn't receive platform royalties, would the margins on the hardware throughout its lifespan be worthwhile to any company?

 

[XiaNaphryz]

As it holds right now, there is no distinct line of where the legality holds in modifying closed platforms like this. The closest thing to this was the exception made in the DMCA for closed platform cell phones. This is what the court needs to decide.

Well, there's always the reverse engineering clause they can try. Whether or not the PS3 firmware/OS counts as "a computer program" and if so, if simply purchasing the console makes it something lawful obtained would be the argument.

(f) Reverse Engineering. -

* (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
* (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

* (3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.

* (4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

 

[squatingyeti]

Jailbreaking an Ipad or Ipod has not been ruled as being legal. The DMCA added an exception to hacking phones (including the iphone) to remove monopolized services, like ATT had with the iPhone.

I clarified that later in saying I personally don't understand how it can be differentiated. Sony has monopolized what can and cannot be done on the PS3, a device you OWN. If they choose to sell it at a loss, I cannot be held responsible for their business decisions.

Of course you, the consumer, can do anything you want with what ever you buy. It doesn't mean it's legal. As it holds right now, there is no distinct line of where the legality holds in modifying closed platforms like this. The closest thing to this was the exception made in the DMCA for closed platform cell phones. This is what the court needs to decide. I can buy an AR-15, but I do not have a legal right to make it fully automatic, or place a silencer on it even though it "adds functionality." I can buy a car, but I can't tune it beyond a street legal car and use it for normal (street) use. You simply aren't allowed to, even with consumer protection laws. These rules and laws of not being allowed to do certain things with what YOU own has to do with safety and security. If that security, in the future, covers closed platforms, like consoles (wii, xbox, ps) then the government has a right to do that. It's all about protecting ones rights, and in this case, it will probably be the rights of ones investments in their Intellectual Properties.

How the hell can one tie things that put the physical safety of both you and others into danger with modding a PS3???

Surely the burden of proof here is on Sony to prove that he has a PSN account, and more specifically that it was the account that they have determined as belonging to him, than on him and his lawyers to prove that he hasn't?

Because it's pretty much impossible to prove that somebody has never done something

Hell no, Sony is just trying to set another precedence so they can trample people. After this case, it will be guilty until proven innocent. Have fun consumers.

 

[TOAO_Cyrus]

Jailbreaking an Ipad or Ipod has not been ruled as being legal. The DMCA added an exception to hacking phones (including the iphone) to remove monopolized services, like ATT had with the iPhone.



The example you gave was, frankly, poor. In order to install 3rd party software on the PS3, it must be licensed by Sony. On Windows, Microsoft created an "open platform" (to an extent) to allow the use of any program compatible with the platform on a device they did not create. Keep that in mind. MS has no say in that hardware. The thing is, because Microsoft isn't reliant on the sales of software for that platform (but instead on the OS alone) they have no need to implement a deep security system that must cover their asses, in terms of hardware, software, and other companies software. Though, they have implemented DRM in the form of GFWL, so developers will continue to develop games for the platform, as they do gain revenue from the licensing.

Sony, on the other hand, pay hundreds of dollars for the hardware, and lots of money on the security to ensure developers will continue to develop games, safely, on their platform. Removing the closed platform Sony had for the PS3 removes any efficient method of anti piracy attempts, and as a platform holder, Sony must keep it's licensee's happy to keep business for themselves, and those companies. Since the security breach, not only did that demolish the PS3's anti piracy circumvention, but also exposed the PSP's to a greater extent. This is a disaster for Sony in EVERY way possible.

Of course you, the consumer, can do anything you want with what ever you buy. It doesn't mean it's legal. As it holds right now, there is no distinct line of where the legality holds in modifying closed platforms like this. The closest thing to this was the exception made in the DMCA for closed platform cell phones. This is what the court needs to decide. I can buy an AR-15, but I do not have a legal right to make it fully automatic, or place a silencer on it even though it "adds functionality." I can buy a car, but I can't tune it beyond a street legal car and use it for normal (street) use. You simply aren't allowed to, even with consumer protection laws. These rules and laws of not being allowed to do certain things with what YOU own has to do with safety and security. If that security, in the future, covers closed platforms, like consoles (wii, xbox, ps) then the government has a right to do that. It's all about protecting ones rights, and in this case, it will probably be the rights of ones investments in their Intellectual Properties.

All your examples are creating illegal items out of legal ones. Its not the act of modifying that is against the law its the end product. A jailbroken PS3 isn't any different then a PC and is perfectly legal.

 

[phosphor112]

Well, there's always the reverse engineering clause they can try. Whether or not the PS3 firmware/OS counts as "a computer program" and if so, if simply purchasing the console makes it something lawful obtained would be the argument.

"a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention."

I'm not all knowing about the DMCA, but maybe the "particular portion" card can be pulled by Sony. What geohot and failoverflow did allows access to, well, the whole portion. All I know about the exemption for circumvention is specifically for cell phones.

All your examples are creating illegal items out of legal ones. Its not the act of modifying that is against the law its the end product. A jailbroken PS3 isn't any different then a PC and is perfectly legal.

None of those things I listed were illegal, it's the unathorized use which is illegal. I can can own a fully automatic weapon, only if I have a DOJ permit. I can use a non street legal vehicle, just not on... well the streets. It's not the item that becomes illegal, it's the illegal functionality, use or access without proper permission. Anyway, everything isn't so cut and dry obviously, and this court case will give an interpretation of the DMCA, and we'll have a more concrete idea of what geohot did and if it is illegal.

 

[phosphor112]

double post

 

[squatingyeti]

Anyway, everything isn't so cut and dry obviously, and this court case will give an interpretation of the DMCA, and we'll have a more concrete idea of what geohot did and if it is illegal.

If what he has done is illegal, then our laws fucking suck. Furthermore, it would not be this way if consumers pushed back.

 

[Jobiensis]

If what he has done is illegal, then our laws fucking suck. Furthermore, it would not be this way if consumers pushed back.

You are absolutely correct that our laws suck. I don't see consumers pushing back, just look at this thread.

Right now there is too much IP protection. Software should not be patentable. User interfaces should not be able to be copyrighted. Software copyrights and technology patents should expire very quickly. Patents should go void if they aren't implemented and licensed in some manner. These laws should be pushing forward progress, but they are stifling innovation more than anything else.

Add DMCA to the mix and now you no longer have any rights to items you purchased.

 

[epmode]

You are absolutely correct that our laws suck. I don't see consumers pushing back, just look at this thread.

If people aren't arguing against their best interests in favor of mega-corporations, it just isn't America.

 

[phosphor112]

If people aren't arguing against their best interests in favor of mega-corporations, it just isn't America.

My personal standpoint is from not only as a consumer, who has an interest in keeping the cost of games down, but as someone going into the industry. The "mega-corporations" you speak of are the least to feel the pressure of piracy. It's always the small companies that don't make up revenue on their investments. If people like Sony, MS, or Nintendo don't stick up for them, all we will have left is shit like Activision, and no, fuck that.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

My personal standpoint is from not only as a consumer, who has an interest in keeping the cost of games down, but as someone going into the industry. The "mega-corporations" you speak of are the least to feel the pressure of piracy. It's always the small companies that don't make up revenue on their investments. If people like Sony, MS, or Nintendo don't stick up for them, all we will have left is shit like Activision, and no, fuck that.

Maybe Sony would be best served against the people advocating and enabling piracy rather than homebrew then.

EDIT:

I also find it pretty amusing you somehow consider Sony / MS / Nintendo the 'good guys' and Activision 'the bad guys' for some entirely arbitrary reason.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Well those three own console systems, and actually try to prevent piracy on them. Activision is big and are into buying and killing dev groups. Maybe the others 3 had to kill the groups they bought but it don't seem as bad as what Activision does. Maybe Microsoft PC stuff.

 

[Remfin]

My personal standpoint is from not only as a consumer, who has an interest in keeping the cost of games down, but as someone going into the industry. The "mega-corporations" you speak of are the least to feel the pressure of piracy. It's always the small companies that don't make up revenue on their investments. If people like Sony, MS, or Nintendo don't stick up for them, all we will have left is shit like Activision, and no, fuck that.

Except the thing at the base of this is the ability for someone to unlock a system/platform legally.

How much different would the economics be for your "small companies" if they were legally allowed to develop for these systems without paying for dev kits and without having to go through Sony/MS/Nintendo for disc manufacturing and QA/feature requirements?

 

[XiaNaphryz]

My personal standpoint is from not only as a consumer, who has an interest in keeping the cost of games down, but as someone going into the industry.

You don't have to be in the industry to see that there are ways of trying to combat piracy and still protecting consumer rights. It doesn't have to be one way or the other. Going down a route that primarily caters to one side or the other isn't going to help.

Yes, there are issues with how small developers get funding, how publishers work, yadda yadda. But a lot of those issues aren't really affected or driven by the piracy issue. Work a couple projects in this industry, and you'll see there's bigger fish to fry.

 

[Zoe]

How much different would the economics be for your "small companies" if they were legally allowed to develop for these systems without paying for dev kits and without having to go through Sony/MS/Nintendo for disc manufacturing and QA/feature requirements?

They have the PC for that. Developing for a system designed to be closed is a privilege, and it's up to the maker to decide who has the right.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

They have the PC for that. Developing for a system designed to be closed is a privilege, and it's up to the maker to decide who has the right.

If you're going to sell software for that system, sure.

Freely developed stuff you see in homebrew/freeware circles? That's where things start to get fuzzy.

Of course, game developers aren't going to go that route since they want to make money. But that's where the hackers and CFW and all this come in, and hence this entire thread.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

They have the PC for that. Developing for a system designed to be closed is a privilege, and it's up to the maker to decide who has the right.

Are you also against homebrew alternatives to Flash development (Flash being a closed and proprietary virtual system of Adobes, that if they had their way everybody would be required to purchase very expensive software licences for)?

Are you against Ben Hecks console modding projects? They are also unauthorised (or, if you will, 'illegal') modifications of hardware for unsanctioned use.

 

[Zoe]

Are you also against homebrew alternatives to Flash development (Flash being a closed and proprietary virtual system of Adobes, that if they had their way everybody would be required to purchase very expensive software licences for)?

Are you against Ben Hecks console modding projects? They are also unauthorised (or, if you will, 'illegal') modifications of hardware for unsanctioned use.

Neither of those are the situation that Remfin was postulating.

I believe the web would be a better place without Flash, so sure! If you want to use their format, play by their rules. There are alternatives.

Looks like the Ben Hecks thing has nothing to do with software, so it's irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[phosphor112]

Except the thing at the base of this is the ability for someone to unlock a system/platform legally.

How much different would the economics be for your "small companies" if they were legally allowed to develop for these systems without paying for dev kits and without having to go through Sony/MS/Nintendo for disc manufacturing and QA/feature requirements?

All those are required to make sure that not only is there quality control (something the Atari lacked, causing a crash in vg's) but it makes sure people don't make what ever programs they want, or have full access to the console.

You don't have to be in the industry to see that there are ways of trying to combat piracy and still protecting consumer rights. It doesn't have to be one way or the other. Going down a route that primarily caters to one side or the other isn't going to help.

Yes, there are issues with how small developers get funding, how publishers work, yadda yadda. But a lot of those issues aren't really affected or driven by the piracy issue. Work a couple projects in this industry, and you'll see there's bigger fish to fry.

While piracy alone isn't a huge factor, it's all the small issues that add up.

 

[jcm]

When I updated my firmware today, I decided to pay attention to what I was actually agreeing to. You are forced to accept the System Software Agreement. You are not, however, forced to accept the PSN TOS. The System Software Agreement does not have the forum selection clause that the PSN TOS has, so unless Sony can prove that Geohot has a PSN user, the forum selection clause will not come into play. This makes me think their jurisdiction argument is even weaker than I thought. I believe they're gong to wind up having to refile in NJ.

This may be old news to some. If so, sorry.

 

[iapetus]

This makes me think their jurisdiction argument is even weaker than I thought.

And when you find yourself saying that about an argument that circulates around "He was soliciting money in this state because we sent some unsolicited money to his account" and "This PSN account that matches none of his details but has a name similar to his proves he agreed to let us sue his ass off here" you know it's really weak.

 

[N.A]

Temporary Restraining Order Issued in Sony vs. Geohot

The judge has granted Sony's request for a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) in the case against Geohot (George Hotz) and the other named defendants. It has also been ruled that Sony has shown sufficient cause to keep the case in San Francisco.

http://psx-scene.com/forums/f6/temporary-restraining-order-issued-sony-vs-geohot-78810/

Gotta love the American legal system & the DMCA :'(