• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Sony sues George 'geohot' Hotz and fail0verflow over PS3 jailbreak.

Status
Not open for further replies.
XiaNaphryz said:
What I don't understand most of all is why there's any sides at all - the core matter that a lot of us are concerned with isn't CFW or cheaters or any of that, it's the larger consumer rights questions and potential legal precedents that may be set here that end up hurting everyone in the long run. You may feel strongly one way or another on the PS3 specifically, but you may feel completely different if it's a different product.
Click to expand...
i don't. i have a PSP Go. i have previously owned a PSP-1000 and a PSP-2000. i don't see how the situations (with regards to PSN) is any different on PS3 to it is on the PSP.

i don't see people that want to install custom firmware saying it's unfair of Sony to lock them out (on the occasions and hardware where they can). it's always been a choice you've made. you know putting CFW on your PSP likely cuts you off from online features.

right now on my PSP Go that i'm running 6.20 HEN-B on, i can't download levels for Little Big Planet (that came with it). when HEN-C comes out, i'll probably be able to. but if i wanted to, i could give up the things i can only do on 6.20 HEN-B to go to 6.35 HEN-B.

i keep the choice of how to use my hardware. i can choose to go to the latest official firmware to get back onto the network... and i choose not to. when i got it, i chose not to get the latest official firmware knowing i wouldn't be able to get onto PSN, and hoping it might change.

Sony aren't preventing me from getting online, because if i wanted to, i could. i just couldn't get back to where i am now if i take that option... and i think that's perfectly fair.

so, yes, i look at the PS3 situation and i compare it to the PSP situation.

it's been very similar with the Wii. people using Homebrew Channel have at certain times been locked out of the store, and have at other times been able to get back in.

we're not talking about something new in regards to the notion of Sony locking people out of PSN features.

any legal precident set will effect all hardware. it won't effect my opinion of what i should and shouldn't be able to do, and what is and isn't reasonable behaviour for platform holders and consumers.

i don't care that the case is about the PS3 vs the Xbox or the PSP or the DS or the Wii because it's going to effect them all.

i very much hope that creation and use CFW doesn't become illegal. i believe consumers should have every right to try and modify their hardware to do whatever they want with it. i may balance that with my belief that platform holders should have every right to try and prevent them, but i would not like to see anything that limited a consumer's rights to the hardware they own.
 
sangreal said:
It doesn't matter what the reasoning is. That was not a "judgment." The DMCA gives the Librarian of Congress the authority to make exemptions to the anti-circumvention provision every 3 years. Last year the Librarian decided to make an exemption for jailbreaking mobile phones. I would agree with you if a court had read the DMCA and decided that it doesn't apply to mobile phone jailbreaking. In that case the same reasoning could be applied to videogame consoles. Otherwise that exemption isn't really relevant unless you want to convince the Library of Congress that they should give videogames a similar exemption using the same reasoning in 3 years.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Honestly, I don't think the DMCA question is even close. It seems obvious to me that he violated it. To me, the big question is whether the California jurisdiction holds up. Forum selection clauses in EULAs have been both upheld and stricken.
 
plagiarize said:
any legal precident set will effect all hardware. it won't effect my opinion of what i should and shouldn't be able to do, and what is and isn't reasonable behaviour for platform holders and consumers.

i don't care that the case is about the PS3 vs the Xbox or the PSP or the DS or the Wii because it's going to effect them all.
Click to expand...
Why are you limiting things to just game consoles? If it's a broad enough precedent that's set, it could extend well beyond consoles. Again, this isn't specifically about CFW at it's core when it comes to consumer rights concerns.
 
XiaNaphryz said:
Why are you limiting things to just game consoles? If it's a broad enough precedent that's set, it could extend well beyond consoles. Again, this isn't specifically about CFW at it's core when it comes to consumer rights concerns.
Click to expand...
i can't see any precedent going beyond data, and my opinions of what should and shouldn't be legal there are the same.

i should be able to hack my phone, or my blu-ray player. i should be able to install whatever i want on my pc. people that make copyrighted product or try to run specific services should be free to try and protect that product and police their services through whatever means necessary, but it shouldn't be law.

and i should be free to try and disable their protections so long as i am not stealing from them.

that's my belief, i know the DMCA puts the legal standard in a different place, and i'm very much against the notion that cracking a game i legally own = piracy, or disabling the copy protection on a Blu-Ray i imported so i can remove the region code and watch it on my PC = piracy.

i don't think we're in disagreement here.
 
XiaNaphryz said:
What I don't understand most of all is why there's any sides at all - the core matter that a lot of us are concerned with isn't CFW or cheaters or any of that, it's the larger consumer rights questions and potential legal precedents that may be set here that end up hurting everyone in the long run. You may feel strongly one way or another on the PS3 specifically, but you may feel completely different if it's a different product.
Click to expand...
but if we are to play the costume rights card, then just like some claim that Sony took things from them, others can also claim that the protection that Sony provided was also taken away from them...
 
jcm said:
Exactly. Honestly, I don't think the DMCA question is even close. It seems obvious to me that he violated it. To me, the big question is whether the California jurisdiction holds up. Forum selection clauses in EULAs have been both upheld and stricken.
Click to expand...
I keep forgetting what a cluster fuck the DMCA is.
 
plagiarize said:
i can't see any precedent going beyond data, and my opinions of what should and shouldn't be legal there are the same.
Click to expand...
So any possibility for a precedent that allows for the retroactive changing of a product's feature-set carte blanche that someone's already purchased and owns with no compensation doesn't concern you at all? Several of us have been bringing this up throughout the thread, which in of itself still baffles me. No matter what "side" of the CFW argument I'd be on, the bigger consumer rights question would always be my primary concern.
 
XiaNaphryz said:
So any possibility for a precedent that allows for the retroactive changing of a product's feature-set carte blanche that someone's already purchased and owns with no compensation doesn't concern you at all? Several of us have been bringing this up throughout the thread, which in of itself still baffles me.
Click to expand...

What? The DMCA has nothing to do with the removal of features. The only thing that can come of this is establishing whether it's legal to circumvent security measures in consoles.
 
XiaNaphryz said:
So any possibility for a precedent that allows for the retroactive changing of a product's feature-set carte blanche that someone's already purchased and owns with no compensation doesn't concern you at all? Several of us have been bringing this up throughout the thread, which in of itself still baffles me.
Click to expand...
its my understanding that that would be the status quo. companies are currently allowed to do this. any law that upheld that wouldn't change anything.

i might be wrong, but i understand that features have been getting patched out of software and hardware for ages and companies have been getting away with it.

i'm pretty sure that in the case of 'OtherOS', the update that removed it being optional ensures that it wouldn't set a precedent for that being legally ruled as okay.

yes, you lose access to a service by not updating. yes you won't be able to play the newest games by not updating... but i don't think there are any laws saying that Sony have to make every PS3 capable of playing every PS3 games, or that they have to continue to allow every PS3 to connect online.

so that wouldn't set a precident. if it was ruled that they couldn't get away with what they did, then yes, THAT would be precident.

if Sony had automated an update that wasn't opt in, that removed OtherOS, then i think we'd be talking precedent... but they didn't, so i don't believe that it is a precedent.

i do think it was shitty, and morally wrong, but i don't think it was illegal, and i don't think it should be and i don't think using a CFW to put the feature back in should be illegal.
 
Dead Man said:
I keep forgetting what a cluster fuck the DMCA is.
Click to expand...

I think that's something on which we can all agree. It's a truly nutty law, no matter what you think of copyright and circumvention.
 
plagiarize said:
its my understanding that that would be the status quo. companies are currently allowed to do this. any law that upheld that wouldn't change anything.
Click to expand...

This is certainly not the case in Europe - if goods cease to be fit for the function they were sold for and this is the fault of the manufacturer, the consumer has the right to have the goods fixed or replaced.
 
iapetus said:
This is certainly not the case in Europe - if goods cease to be fit for the function they were sold for and this is the fault of the manufacturer, the consumer has the right to have the goods fixed or replaced.
Click to expand...
You stupid Europeans and your laws being written by governments instead of corporations.
 
iapetus said:
This is certainly not the case in Europe - if goods cease to be fit for the function they were sold for and this is the fault of the manufacturer, the consumer has the right to have the goods fixed or replaced.
Click to expand...
but the PS3 didn't stop being capable of playing games and running Linux, it just reached a point where you had to choose between the newest games and linux.

i'm not saying that defence would work in a court of law mind, but i think it'd be a pretty solid defence.

when a game is sold in Europe with online gameplay, and the servers are turned off, you can't get it 'fixed or replaced' can you? even though a feature that you might have bought it for has been unquestionably removed.

it worked as advertised when you bought it and they can't be expected to support it forever.

when Sony make an optional update it takes them time and money to ensure that all the features still work, as such i don't think they're forced to keep every existing feature, just as a company is forced to keep a games online servers running forever.

where the person would make their case against Sony would be over whether or not those updates are optional as they are needed to play the latest games...

but nothing that you already owned stopped working if you chose not to update, not anything that Sony are expected to support indefinately anyway (cause obviously PSN would stop working).
 
plagiarize said:
but the PS3 didn't stop being capable of playing games and running Linux, it just reached a point where you had to choose between the newest games and linux.
Click to expand...

The fact that Sony allow you to choose which functionality they will remove does not change the fact that they're removing it.

plagiarize said:
when Sony make an optional update it takes them time and money to ensure that all the features still work, as such i don't think they're forced to keep every existing feature, just as a company is forced to keep a games online servers running forever.
Click to expand...

When they sold it on the basis that it was an integral feature of the device, even one of the most important features, they do.

plagiarize said:
but nothing that you already owned stopped working if you chose not to update, not anything that Sony are expected to support indefinately anyway (cause obviously PSN would stop working).
Click to expand...

Wrong. Anything that relies on PSN access would also stop working, including purchased media files.
 
Whether it's legal or not right now doesn't really matter in the current case.

Because of security concerns, Sony removed a feature set from PS3 that its customers had paid for, regardless of whether they used it or not. They also made the kindergarten mistake of confusing a variable number for a constant. That has led to the current situation, where a mere firmware patch has made PS3 ripe for exploitation by hackers and homebrewers alike, and the creators of said non-copyright-infringing patch are looking at a possibly lengthy restraining order and subsequent, entirely spurious lawsuit brought about due to Sony's duty of diligence to its shareholders and publishing partners. The results of that lawsuit, whatever they may be, will not be known for years, if it even concludes at all - and will have deep ramifications for consumer rights and electronic innovation in the United States for many years.

That's what matters. Everything else is just rubbish that bored internet message board members argue about while waiting for more news to trickle down from the real world.

Oh, and living in Europe rocks. Laws that protect the people they serve? Incredible! :D
 
iapetus said:
Wrong. Anything that relies on PSN access would also stop working, including purchased media files.
Click to expand...
Sony do not have to keep PSN running indefinately. so anything that relies on it is something that you cannot expect to keep working indefinately.

When they sold it on the basis that it was an integral feature of the device, even one of the most important features, they do.
Click to expand...
a racing game with online features is sold with that online support as being an integral feature of the game, and the company making it do not have to continue providing that feature indefinately.

The fact that Sony allow you to choose which functionality they will remove does not change the fact that they're removing it.
Click to expand...
Sony are not obliged to keep making games for the PS3. they are not obliged to keep making firmware updates for the PS3.

if they had gone out of business the day before that firmware update was released, shut down PSN and stopped licensing games for the PS3, all the PS3s out there would be doing exactly what a PS3 that wasn't updated is now doing.

i think that is enough of a technicality to make what they did legal even in Europe.

it is shitty, but they are not under any contract to provide you with the option of buying new games that have yet to be released, they are not under any contract to provide you with an online service and they are not under any contract to provide you with firmware updates.

and the EU isn't all roses and candy. isn't that the market where software providers are forced to cut features from their products? that doesn't sound like something aimed at consumers to me.
 
Zoe said:
I'm having trouble seeing how this would resolve the legality of it. Wouldn't geohot have to sue/counter-sue for there to be any kind of ruling?
Click to expand...
"Turnabout is fair play"?

...

Photoshop dudes, make it so.
 
Zoe said:
What? The DMCA has nothing to do with the removal of features. The only thing that can come of this is establishing whether it's legal to circumvent security measures in consoles.
Click to expand...
I thought the removal of OtherOS is part of this case?

EDIT: Beaten...this thread moves too fast at times.
 
plagiarize said:
Sony do not have to keep PSN running indefinately. so anything that relies on it is something that you cannot expect to keep working indefinately.
Click to expand...

Yes, but this is a case of them selectively disabling it for some people and not for others. Do you not see the distinction? The same applies to the rest of your arguments as well.
 
Dambrosi said:
"Turnabout is fair play"?

...

Photoshop dudes, make it so.
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the question.

XiaNaphryz said:
I thought the removal of OtherOS is part of this case?

EDIT: Beaten...this thread moves too fast at times.
Click to expand...

Sony is the one taking geohot (and others) to court. Why would they argue the legality of that action?
 
Zoe said:
I'm having trouble seeing how this would resolve the legality of it. Wouldn't geohot have to sue/counter-sue for there to be any kind of ruling?
Click to expand...

Yes, I would imagine so. I just meant that the issue isn't entirely irrelevant as it is being used in some manner by the defense (unfortunately we don't have a record of the oral arguments being made, just the evidence entered)
 
Zoe said:
Sony is the one taking geohot (and others) to court. Why would they argue the legality of that action?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they're arguing its legality.

Sony are trying to establish that the sole reason for hacking the firmware is to allow piracy. This is, of course, patently untrue, and the defence is trying to show this by claiming that the motivation is to reinstate functionality that Sony chose to remove after claiming it was an integral part of the console's capabilities.
 
plagiarize said:
a racing game with online features is sold with that online support as being an integral feature of the game, and the company making it do not have to continue providing that feature indefinately.
Click to expand...

The game still has online support. What it doesn't have is anything to connect to. Semantics, perhaps, but it's the important distinction between a *product* (the game) and a *service* (the servers).

Unless the company actually strongly implied the servers would be up permanently at the time you purchased the game - and if they did, they're fools, because anything could happen regarding bankruptcy or similar - then they're within their rights.

In the OtherOS context, if we exclude the PSN side of things, we are dealing entirely with a product, not a service
 
iapetus said:
I'm not sure they're arguing its legality.

Sony are trying to establish that the sole reason for hacking the firmware is to allow piracy. This is, of course, patently untrue, and the defence is trying to show this by claiming that the motivation is to reinstate functionality that Sony chose to remove after claiming it was an integral part of the console's capabilities.
Click to expand...

Then Sony could use last night's interview as evidence that he started his work before the removal.
 
iapetus said:
Still doesn't help with their claim that it's to allow piracy, though.
Click to expand...

Unless something's changed, the original TRO claim was that it facilitated piracy not that it was designed for the purpose of it.
 
iapetus said:
I'm not sure they're arguing its legality.

Sony are trying to establish that the sole reason for hacking the firmware is to allow piracy. This is, of course, patently untrue, and the defence is trying to show this by claiming that the motivation is to reinstate functionality that Sony chose to remove after claiming it was an integral part of the console's capabilities.
Click to expand...

Yes, which could be the likely reason behind statements in the pdf file sangreal just posted
 
Zoe said:
Then Sony could use last night's interview as evidence that he started his work before the removal.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but he wasn't working on anything to do with piracy before the OtherOS removal so how would it help Sony's case?
 
Billychu said:
Maybe, but he wasn't working on anything to do with piracy before the OtherOS removal so how would it help Sony's case?
Click to expand...

Zoe said:
Unless something's changed, the original TRO claim was that it facilitated piracy not that it was designed for the purpose of it.
Click to expand...

.
 
mclem said:
The game still has online support. What it doesn't have is anything to connect to. Semantics, perhaps, but it's the important distinction between a *product* (the game) and a *service* (the servers).

Unless the company actually strongly implied the servers would be up permanently at the time you purchased the game - and if they did, they're fools, because anything could happen regarding bankruptcy or similar - then they're within their rights.

In the OtherOS context, if we exclude the PSN side of things, we are dealing entirely with a product, not a service
Click to expand...
right but they didn't force you to update, by any legal standard of 'force' i don't think. you couldn't continue using the service if you opted out (that they don't have to legally provide every PS3 owner if XBL system bannings aren't themselves already illegal). you opted in to the removal in order to gain access to 'new' things (games) or in order to continue using a service that they aren't obliged to provide you.

and again because i think it's important to keep saying this, i think that Sony were shitty to do this, and i think that geohot was justified in trying to put OtherOS back in.
 
Zoe said:
Then Sony could use last night's interview as evidence that he started his work before the removal.
Click to expand...

I think one thing most of us can agree on is that Geohot should keep his mouth shut while he is the subject of litigation.
 
plagiarize said:
right but they didn't force you to update, by any legal standard of 'force' i don't think. you couldn't continue using the service if you opted out (that they don't have to legally provide every PS3 owner if XBL system bannings aren't themselves already illegal). you opted in to the removal in order to gain access to 'new' things (games) or in order to continue using a service that they aren't obliged to provide you.
Click to expand...

These kind of statements make me nerd rage. Seriously, how the fuck do you defend the blatant abuse of consumer rights.
 
sangreal said:
I think one thing most of us can agree on is that Geohot should keep his mouth shut while he is the subject of litigation.
Click to expand...

His comment about PSP2 was unnecessary. Better, he should have not taken the interview request. Seems to like the attention.
 
From Groklaw:

Orin Kerr writes at The Volokh Conspiracy that he has nominated Sony's lawyers for "Today’s Award for the Silliest Theory of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act":
The argument: You’re guilty of felony computer hacking crimes if you access your own computer in a way that violates a contractual restriction found in the fine print of the licensing restriction of the product imposed by the manufacturer.

I realize the complaint characterizes the defendants as hackers, and the CFAA is supposed to be about hacking. But think for a moment about the nature of this claim. You bought the computer. You own it. You can sell it. You can light it on fire. You can bring it to the ocean, put it on a life raft, and push it out to sea. But if you dare do anything that violates the fine print of the license that the manufacturer is trying to impose, then you’re guilty of trespassing onto your own property. And it’s not just a civil wrong, it’s a crime. And according to the motion for a TRO, it’s not just a crime, it’s a serious felony crime.

I’ve seen a lot of civil cases trying to use the vague language of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in creative ways. But this is the first case I know of claiming that you can commit an unauthorized access of your own computer. And that claim justifies today’s award for the Silliest Theory of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
railGUN said:
These kind of statements make me nerd rage. Seriously, how the fuck do you defend the blatant abuse of consumer rights.
Click to expand...
i don't defend it, i just don't go so far as to think it should be illegal. there's lots of things that i think are shitty that i don't think need laws in place to police.

Sony want to be able to do whatever they want to your system with a firmware update. they also don't want you to be able to do whatever you want to your system... and that is the point on which i disagree with them emphatically.

love that Groklaw quote.
 
NullPointer said:
He's certainly not defending it, he's putting it into context.
Click to expand...

No doubt ... but look at it this way. They gave you the option of updating. However they didn't leave you much of an option when it came to playing games that required firmware 3.55. Therefore a removal of a feature that was previously advertised was removed (whatever the reason may be) leaving me, the user, with the inability to enjoy other features that were advertised. Basically, playing on a PS3 is like a service. Unless you agree to the service, you can't play on the PS3 .. which is ridiculous.
 
Companies add and remove features with firmware updates all the time. I think what is significant about OtherOS is that it was a major feature and marketed as such. People bought the PS3 specifically for the OtherOS feature. If you bought a blu-ray player and the manufacturer later told you they were going to disable HDMI with a firmware update and if you don't update you can't play new blu-ray titles I think people would be upset.
 
sangreal said:
Companies add and remove features with firmware updates all the time. I think what is significant about OtherOS is that it was a major feature and marketed as such. People bought the PS3 specifically for the OtherOS feature. If you bought a blu-ray player and the manufacturer later told you they were going to disable HDMI with a firmware update and if you don't update you can't play new blu-ray titles I think people would be upset.
Click to expand...

And the fact that companies think they can get away with doing things like this is why we do need to make it illegal.
 
iapetus said:
And the fact that companies think they can get away with doing things like this is why we do need to make it illegal.
Click to expand...

Somebody in the US needs to take Sony to court then. This case isn't going to make that determination.
 
sajj316 said:
No doubt ... but look at it this way. They gave you the option of updating. However they didn't leave you much of an option when it came to playing games that required firmware 3.55. Therefore a removal of a feature that was previously advertised was removed (whatever the reason may be) leaving me, the user, with the inability to enjoy other features that were advertised. Basically, playing on a PS3 is like a service. Unless you agree to the service, you can't play on the PS3 .. which is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Oh I think its pretty ridiculous myself. Both the removal of OtherOS without compensation, along with even hairier propositions like turning off online servers for games only a year after release.

But I'm still personally torn on the issue of ownership of the software on a console you purchase. And this particular issue of ownership has nothing to do with OtherOS imo.
(see the question I posed last night here)

I agree that the hardware is the property of the owner, absolutely. When it comes to some of the software on the machine it gets a lot fuzzier, especially when reverse engineering the protection to that software has other negative effects. I'm having a hard time finding an equitable middle ground here that doesn't screw somebody over.
 
plagiarize said:
i do not agree with you here. it will make online gaming worse, the only question is whether or not it will make it noticeably worse.

cheats will be easier to implement, and the cheats themselves will be much further reaching.

making cheating easier will lead to more cheats, just as making cheating harder will lead to less cheats. it won't make everyone a cheat if you make it easier, just as it won't stop everyone cheating to make it harder... but if you made it more difficult for men to rape women (like, say, security guards posted in every dark alley) then less women would get raped.

that doesn't mean that the expense of hiring all those guards would be worth it of course...

but of everyone that wants to cheat, some are put off by the current amount of effort required or the amount of reward available for the amount of effort. if less effort is required, or the same effort brings with it more reward, of the people that consider cheating, more of them will go through with it.
Click to expand...

Not to be sexist, but are they female guards?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Nintendo sues the US government over Tariffs.
16
380
S0ULZB0URNE replied
New York sues Valve over loot boxes
2 3 4 5
201
1K
BlitzerRadic replied
  • Locked
Nintendo sues U.S Government over Trump Tariffs
News 
24
408
Fermbiz replied
Sony sued for £1.97 billion over PSN monopoly
2 3 4 5 6
294
1K
AmuroChan replied
Sony Removes Over 700 Low-Quality Titles From the PlayStation Store
Platform  2
78
680
awwr999999 replied
Top Bottom