Topic: PSN = Privacy? Security? Never!

[TJ Spyke]

The DMCA basically took treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (which almost every country in the world is a member of) and ratified it into US law. Europe has something similar in the Copyright Directive, which appears to be even more restrictive when it comes to copyrights since it has fewer exceptions.

[Chozo Ghost]

Under that logic, publishers of MMO's could get in trouble when they shut down the games because consumers are left with nothing more than coasters.

But here's the thing: if you buy an MMO you don't own the intellectual property of it, but you DO own the physical CD, right? So you can use it as a coaster or frisbee or whatever if you want to, right? Because you own it. Now, I look at the PS3 thing the same way. You don't own the intellectual property of it, but you DO own the hardware which you bought. So if you want to use it as a paperweight or doorstop you can, even though its not designed for that purpose. But there are people who want to use the hardware as Linux computers. So why can't they? You can hook a keyboard and mouse on it, install Linux, and you have a powerful and inexpensive personal computer which you can use to do anything you would on any other computer. That was feature actually promoted and supported by Sony with Other OS.

Sony may removed Other OS, but some people found a way to bring it back. I don't see the problem with it unless its being done for piracy, which isn't always the case because being able to use your PS3 as a computer has a really strong appeal and there's nothing malicious about that in and of itself.

Like I said you don't own the IP, but you own the physical hardware. You can do whatever you want with it....

[Guitar Smasher]

Sony hasn't done anything wrong

Actually, they did. They took away a feature (Other OS) which was advertised, promised, and paid for by consumers. By taking it away they committed theft. The E.U. seems to care a good deal about consumer rights, so...

Under that logic, publishers of MMO's could get in trouble when they shut down the games because consumers are left with nothing more than coasters. Should EA get in trouble when they shut down servers for their games? The online play was advertised, promised, and the main reason some people buy the game. All features for systems and games are subject to be removed at any time.

Morari, people can be punished for possessing and giving out info that is not theirs. Chozo, they go after people when they have knowledge of them breaking the law (like this guy did). Sony will not get in trouble for anything in this.

That's entirely different.  Online games are service-based - they require the publisher to maintain a server.  When you buy a game featuring an online component, it's implied that at some future date the service will be discontinued.

Conversely, the OtherOS feature is not service-based.  Once you purchase the hardware, there is no dependence on the manufacturer to maintain a service.  The functionality is implied to be permanent.  A more reasonable comparison would be something like if Nintendo suddenly decided to cutoff one of your controller ports.

[BranDonk Kong]

Some of the arguments in here are so ridiculous it's not even funny, and it really is scary the way some people are willing to bend over for corporations. Imagine how ripped off the people that paid $600 for their console at launch, that was designed to play PS3 games (all of them) and run Linux (without letting Sony take it away, that was never advertised), and then a couple years later, they're forced to choose between the two. Again, as I pointed it, it seems more like Sony is trying to cover their ass, which is why no charged have been filed. All their doing is sending the internet police (and the real police) to shut people down that they are afraid of, because they can get Sony into some big trouble. Look at all the of the legal battles Sony has been in recently (and lost, or settled), it's pathetic. They lost to Bleem! but sued them out of existence so they still got to put a notch on their bedpost for that one. They lost to Connectix, but then bought the company and disintegrated it (actually, I've read that they ported CVGS to the PS3, and that's how PS1 games run, could be BS though), so they got to put another notch. They had to stop putting rootkits on their CDs, etc (which is a crime), and now they're (allegedly, basically proven to be) putting rootkits on the PS3 (among the other questionable-to-illegal things mentioned in the post I linked to before). It's ridiculous, but people are sitting here saying they have every right to do what they want with YOUR bought and paid for hardware.

[TJ Spyke]

And you have made it clear you support hackers and other shady people, but I will leave it at that because everyone knows you will never change your mind.
This just happened, so it's very likely charges will be filed.

[UncleBob]

Brandogg - don't forget Sony shutting down LikSang...

[lolmonade]

Sony hasn't done anything wrong

Actually, they did. They took away a feature (Other OS) which was advertised, promised, and paid for by consumers. By taking it away they committed theft. The E.U. seems to care a good deal about consumer rights, so...

Under that logic, publishers of MMO's could get in trouble when they shut down the games because consumers are left with nothing more than coasters. Should EA get in trouble when they shut down servers for their games? The online play was advertised, promised, and the main reason some people buy the game. All features for systems and games are subject to be removed at any time.

I'm not sure if the MMO analogy is really a proper way of looking at it.  For MMOs (and online functions of video games), it is generally assumed that the plug will eventually be pulled due to the financial resources required to maintain them, especially if the game no longer becomes profitable to maintain.

Pulling the plug on OtherOS is different, because at the time it was a feature of the console.  One that does not have an overhead cost other than the initial investment to create the option of using it.  I believe a better analogy would be disabling PS1 Playback via firmware update if they found there was an exploit in the PS1 emulation that allowed hacking of their consoles.  They are taking away core features of the device that no longer costs them any more after the initial investment.

I honestly don't think there is any proper analogy to what is happening right now.

It's interesting how Sony is using the reverse model of what the music industry has historically done when suing people.  I've read countless articles on the lawsuits that actually went to court against people who downloaded and got sued by RIAA, and the general consensus of the comments section was "Why are they suing the people downloading?  Shouldn't they be suing the person who is uploading the songs on torrents and seeding the file?"

Sony decides to use this specific approach by suing the guy that is the source of what empowers the people to pirate games, and they get lambasted with bad press and a negative perception.  I guess there's no go way for a company to pursue legal options without looking like a monster picking on the little guy.  I'm more concerned about the implications of this case, and the possibility of setting a precedent in courts regarding how much you actually own the console you purchase. 

I'm not completely privy to the source of who started what, but I thought I read somewhere that OtherOS was disabled by Sony when GeoHot had just released videos of him playing around with the PS3 back-end stuff (don't know the specifics), but had said he would not be releasing info on how he hacked the PS3.  I wonder if Sony would have grounds to take him to court if he had just posted videos of the new hack instead of releasing a how-to.

[Chozo Ghost]

Other OS is a feature I would make use of if it were available, and for the record I'm absolutely not a pirate. The people who are pirates don't give a **** about Other OS. All they want to do is pirate games, period. They don't care about installing Linux or using the PS3 as a personal computer. It pisses me off that so many people refuse to accept that there is an appeal to using the Other OS feature for legal purposes. The PS3 is supposed to be a supercomputer, but what good is it if you can't make use of it? Having Linux installed allows for it to run computer software to do all sorts of things which have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with piracy or even gaming for that matter. NASA and the airforce were using clusters of them for advanced computing purposes. It has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with being able to use the PS3 as a powerful computer which it was marketed for at one time.

The PS3 has a cell processor, USB ports, ethernet, wifi, an internal hard drive, a blu-ray drive, etc. You can hook a keyboard and mouse up to it. You can hook up a printer or a scanner or pretty much anything just like with a PC. There's a lot it has going for it that makes it an appealing Linux PC. So why is it so difficult for so many to accept that this isn't all just about piracy?

[broodwars]

I really have to wonder, on this Nintendo-centric site, how many of the hacker supporters here would be quite so supporting if the situation were different and it was Nintendo under fire from hackers/pirates after years of financial difficulties.

Regardless, it's clear we aren't going to agree on such matters.  It's best to just agree to disagree and consider the issue on hold until we receive word of further developments.  I'd rather not see this spiral into yet another thread filled with increasingly venomous language, forcing the mods to close it down.

[BranDonk Kong]

What shady people do I support? If anything, Sony is the "shady" person here - they're like a Peeping Tom hiding inside your CDs and game consoles. Please read the info that I linked to - it's also pretty funny that Sony is getting sued to the exact same thing that they're suing George Hotz for. I don't necessarily support hackers in general (although your definition of hacker probably differs from mine), but I do support people who buy a product and feel they have the right to use that product as they please. Sony shutting down Lik-Sang sucked too (I was gonna mention that actually, thanks UB), I remembered I was going to order something from there several years ago, but then found out the site was wiped off of the internet.

[Morari]

Isn't that exactly what you're arguing for though? You not only want to prevent crimes, you seem to want to outright punish people for thought crimes. You want to ban material that may be used to commit crimes by independent groups.

I don't believe I've argued for any bans (I've said that the public would not allow certain things such as the publication of a handbook in how to blow up buildings), just that when an act is committed using such material that those who leaked it cannot say they do not share responsibility.

You very clearly implied that you would side right along with the public. You don't like people having blueprints of the White House, you don't like counter-culture groups publishing books, and you don't like bored kids disassembling and reverse engineering their bought and paid-for consoles. But why? Because someone, somewhere might do something with it that you're not supposed to agree with. It's precisely because the public can be so easily distracted with this lurking fear that we now have things like airport x-rays and the DMCA.

Never mind though. I suppose that Remington should be held liable for every gun wound in the world too, right? Or how about we start suing Chevrolet for car accidents? Providing a tool and using a tool are not the same, nor is responsibility shared between the two actions.

Regardless, it's clear we aren't going to agree on such matters.  It's best to just agree to disagree and consider the issue on hold until we receive word of further developments.

Ah, the merciful cry of a losing debate...

[Ian Sane]

I agree with Guitar Smasher that a service-based function like an MMO that one has to pay a subscription fee for is different than a standalone feature.  And in the case where an MMO is cancelled I feel the consumer has a right to a refund regarding any unused time left on their subscription.  You have six months left on your account?  You should get refunded six months worth of fees.

The Other OS disabling brings up the different hot topic of the seller's right to a remote off switch.  Right now I am certain that Nintendo could remotely brick your Wii if they really wanted to.  The way electronics connect to the internet and make use of patches and updates this sort of thing is easy to do.  Same with downloaded material.  Here is an early example of it.  I don't think Sony has the right to do that.  I don't think the extent of hacking that has gone on since then is justifiable but I don't think Sony has any right to remotely disable features of any product we bought from them.  They also should not be allowed to delete from my hard drive any online content I have purchased legitmately or brick my PS3.  They are allowed to disable the online services they provide however.  I don't expect the PSN Store to stick around forever for example.  But 50 years from now if my PS3 still runs I should be able to pop a game in there and play.

But there is all that talk about whether you buy the product or a licence to use the product.  I say you buy the product and any suggestion otherwise is revisionist history bullshit designed to screw the consumer.  There is a clear conflict of interest in the remote off switch.  If the seller can remotely break the product you buy from them they can force you to buy a replacement.  To me it's no different than if a car manufacturer put in a killswitch in a car that permanently destroyed the engine after so many miles.  Such a thing would unanimously be considered a violation of consumer rights.  However the internet is for some reason considered different so the opinion on this matter is not so universal.

These days we move more and more into cloud based applications.  While there are benefits to it the fact that it puts more and more of the functionality in the hands of the seller scares me.  This is a topic that is only going to become more and more relevant over the years.  I like the isolation and control that self-contained devices have.  It protects me from the incompetence or corruption of others.  I like the freedom of having control over what I buy after I have purchased it.  We are losing that control and the Other OS disabling is an example of that and if anything the reaction to it from hackers will only make things worse as it puts Sony in a more sympathetic light.  Sony were the bad guys.  Now that we're talking piracy and disabling innocent user accounts and stealing credit cards the hackers look like the bad guys.  Misuse of hacking gives Sony ammunition for the argument that consumers should have less control over the products they buy.  It only helps the "you buy a licence to the product" ideology.

[Chozo Ghost]

I really have to wonder, on this Nintendo-centric site, how many of the hacker supporters here would be quite so supporting if the situation were different and it was Nintendo under fire from hackers/pirates after years of financial difficulties.

http://www.gc-linux.org/wiki/Main_Page

Linux has been possible on Nintendo hardware for years. I never seen anyone complaining about it on here, and why would they? Piracy and Linux Homebrew are two entirely different things.

As for piracy, I've NEVER seen one person on here (except possibly Morari) try to justify piracy. If someone wants to hack their Wii or GC to turn it into a PC or Multimedia center, fine. Why should I care? Why should even Nintendo care? But if they are pirating GC or Wii games then its a problem.

[UncleBob]

broodwars - If you've ever noticed me on these forms, I'm very outspoken against piracy - games, music, movies or otherwise.  Anyone remember the voting thread with Mother 3 in it?  Still think that was bull crap.

But I'm wise enough to know that hacking does not equal piracy.  Hacking can bring us things like Game Genies, Game Sharks, Action Replays, Freeloaders, Modded Panasonic Q's that play US games, the Homebrew channel on the Wii that let me import Another Code R, etc., etc.  These are all things I support.  Because they're not piracy.

[lolmonade]

I really have to wonder, on this Nintendo-centric site, how many of the hacker supporters here would be quite so supporting if the situation were different and it was Nintendo under fire from hackers/pirates after years of financial difficulties.

Regardless, it's clear we aren't going to agree on such matters.  It's best to just agree to disagree and consider the issue on hold until we receive word of further developments.  I'd rather not see this spiral into yet another thread filled with increasingly venomous language, forcing the mods to close it down.

I don't think there are any real sympathizers for people who pirate the games here.  I think it's a question of whether or not you believe the people who released the hack did so with malicious intentions, and whether or not you think the actions Sony have taken so far are reasonable in how they've responded to what they consider threats.  If you think about it, the Wii has been hackable easily for some time, and it's not hard to find out how to pirate games for it.  Nintendo has responded by largely ignoring it and silently releasing firmware updates to disable them.  It's obvious based on Sony's response and the news that followed it that the breach in their system poses much more of a threat than just pirating games, otherwise I imagine they would have adopted the same strategy as Nintendo or Microsoft.   

[broodwars]

But there is all that talk about whether you buy the product or a licence to use the product.

Actually, that argument was settled a long time ago, and the law's view on it has not changed.  When you buy a product, you are purchasing a license to use that product, not the product itself.  This is why it is a copyright violation to then take that product and post its data online, or any other variety of things you can do with it outside of Fair Use.  Trust me, my father is an executive at a Software Backup company, and I get an earful on this very topic every time I bring up the issue of video games and digital distribution.  I don't care for it myself, since I like the idea that if I'm holding a disc the contents on it are mine, but that's the law as it is currently written.

[BranDonk Kong]

Why doesn't Sony sue themselves for selling CD-Rs and DVD-Rs, etc, which are used for piracy in every corner of the world? They also sell the burners that people use to create bootleg movies or warez copies of computer and console video games? What George Hotz and graf_chokolo have done have not helped pirates in any way. If you take geohot's PS3 3.55 firmware patch and installed it on your PS3, it absolutely does NOT allow you to run pirated PS3 games. It lets you install homebrew software, and explicitly keeps you out of the realm of piracy. What other people have done with his information (not his software) have allowed more questionable things to be done. As far as I know, graf_chokolo hasn't released...anything, except for information. He's helped some people build some tools, but he's never released a custom firmware or a backup manager or anything like that. A lot of people are making comments here simply to argue against other members here, and it's obvious that they are far removed from the actual situation, and in fact, have no idea what they're talking about.

[Morari]

As for piracy, I've NEVER seen one person on here (except possibly Morari) try to justify piracy.

Just to be clear. I've never condoned piracy. I do however condemn the majority of anti-piracy measures. Nothing will ever stop pirates from being pirates. Increasing DRM and walled-garden environments only hurt legitimate consumers. The end result is a product that is worth less and is now more troublesome to use than the stripped-down, cracked, pirated version.

This isn't about piracy though. This is about custom firmwares. This is about a company with a horribly long track record of fucking over their customers. This is about a broken system that allows entities like Sony to do whatever they like with no regard to common sense of individual ethics.

[BranDonk Kong]

But there is all that talk about whether you buy the product or a licence to use the product.

Actually, that argument was settled a long time ago, and the law's view on it has not changed.  When you buy a product, you are purchasing a license to use that product, not the product itself.  This is why it is a copyright violation to then take that product and post its data online, or any other variety of things you can do with it outside of Fair Use.  Trust me, my father is an executive at a Software Backup company, and I get an earful on this very topic every time I bring up the issue of video games and digital distribution.  I don't care for it myself, since I like the idea that if I'm holding a disc the contents on it are mine, but that's the law as it is currently written.

That applies to software, not hardware.

[lolmonade]

But there is all that talk about whether you buy the product or a licence to use the product.

Actually, that argument was settled a long time ago, and the law's view on it has not changed.  When you buy a product, you are purchasing a license to use that product, not the product itself.  This is why it is a copyright violation to then take that product and post its data online, or any other variety of things you can do with it outside of Fair Use.  Trust me, my father is an executive at a Software Backup company, and I get an earful on this very topic every time I bring up the issue of video games and digital distribution.  I don't care for it myself, since I like the idea that if I'm holding a disc the contents on it are mine, but that's the law as it is currently written.

Yes, but then you have things like it being legal to jailbreak iphones and put custom firmware and programs on those.  Other than one being a phone and the other being a video game console, it's difficult to distinguish a difference between the two, and since one is legal, I find it hard to believe that it should be illegal to do essentially the same thing with your video game console. 

[TJ Spyke]

What shady people do I support? If anything, Sony is the "shady" person here - they're like a Peeping Tom hiding inside your CDs and game consoles. Please read the info that I linked to - it's also pretty funny that Sony is getting sued to the exact same thing that they're suing George Hotz for. I don't necessarily support hackers in general (although your definition of hacker probably differs from mine), but I do support people who buy a product and feel they have the right to use that product as they please. Sony shutting down Lik-Sang sucked too (I was gonna mention that actually, thanks UB), I remembered I was going to order something from there several years ago, but then found out the site was wiped off of the internet.

The allegations you posted, with no proof. Pretty much the only good hackers are the ones who discover these problems and then quietly report them to the company so they can deal with it, they don't tell people how to do it since a large percentage of people who do it will use it for piracy. Hell, maybe Hotz would have even been hired by Sony if he had just e-mailed them and explained he discovered this stuff.

Sony didn't shut down Lik Sang, Lik Sang shut themselves down rather than try and appeal the lawsuit they lost (the UK court ruled Lik Sang broke the law by shipping PSP's to the UK before it was released there).

On a side note, the guy who wrote The Anarchist Cookbook has apologized many time since he wrote the book and has denounced it since he admits it was a bad idea. The company that currently owns the rights to it also stopped printing it because they said it had no positive social reasons to keep it in print.

Brandogg, OtherOS is software so it does apply.

[Chozo Ghost]

Brandogg, OtherOS is software so it does apply.

But the hackers have found a way to use Linux without Other OS. Other OS is software, but its gone. Sony removed it themselves. Whatever software is used now to install it is therefore not made or owned by Sony.

[BranDonk Kong]

The "allegations" that I posted - the proof is in the pudding (or the firmware update). Are you clueless? Use the tools available, extract the contents of one of Sony's PS3 firmware updates, and see if there's a copy of the source code (which they are required to provide) anywhere in reach, or a copy of the GPL (which they are also required to include). Here's a hint - you'll find neither. OtherOS was a feature of the PS3 system software (which is physically stored onto the hardware that you purchased with your own money) that allowed you to install Linux on your console. Do you even know what George Hotz "discovered?" Do you have any idea what's going on here?

Here's Lik-Sang - they didn't decide to shut down rather than appeal to the lawsuit they lost - not being able to sell imported PSPs didn't make or break the business. PSPs are systems, and ironically, it seems some of Sony Europe's managers ordered their PSPs from Lik-Sang before they were released in Europe. Bottom line - Sony sued them out of existence, and for no good reason.

[TJ Spyke]

No good reason? BS. And a court in the UK also disagrees with you because they ruled Lik Sang were violating Sony's copyrights. Lik Sang tried to make themselves look good, are they gonna admit that they decided to shut down rather than pay Sony the money they legally were required to?

[UncleBob]

[...] but I've only ever argued against actual crimes perpetrated by actual hackers (not "thought crimes").

Do tell, what crime, exactly, did Graf_Chokolo commit by releasing the knowledge he had regarding Sony's products?