Sony Wins Restraining Order Against Geohot 397
tekgoblin writes "The courts have just issued a temporary restraining order against George Hotz (Geohot). Sony filed this lawsuit because they were unhappy that Geohot had released the Playstation 3 decryption keys so other people could play unsigned games on it. [Geohot is prohibited from] 'offering to the public, creating, posting online, marketing, advertising, promoting, installing, distributing, providing, or otherwise trafficking' in any software or methods for circumventing the PS3's protection methods. No longer can he 'provide links from any website to any other website' relating to such matters, or publish any information obtained by hacking the PS3. And more to the point, he can no longer 'engage in acts of circumvention of TPMS in the PS3 System to access, obtain, remove, or traffic in copyrighted works.' Pretty much he can't talk or think about the PS3 for some time."
No.. that would be silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
(something he likely should have just done in the first place)
Re:No.. that would be silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were Geohotz, I wouldn't even be doing that. I might do some research on the PS3 in my spare time, but nothing would be published until the court case is over. Then, once the cheque comes form Sony paying his legal bills, release that research. His lawyer is probably telling him (for his own good) to STFU for a bit.
Having had a read through the court docs that have come to light thus far, I'd say Geohotz has this case in the bag if his legal representation can stand up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No.. that would be silly. (Score:4, Insightful)
Modification of your OWN property is not a crime. (Searches US Constitution.) I can not lay my hand on any part of this document which gives Congress the right to block you or Geohot from making mods.
On the contrary part 10 of the Bill of Rights reserves that power to the Member States of the union. And part 9 reserves to the People the right to make said modifications.
Re:No.. that would be silly. (Score:5, Interesting)
The answer is "interstate commerce clause."
No, seriously. Our fucked-up senile delinquents on the Supreme Court have ruled that everything under the goddamn sun falls under the "interstate commerce clause."
Want to grow your own wheat to feed to your own chickens, which means you didn't have to buy someone else's wheat? Sorry. ""Interstate Commerce." [google.com]
The same crap comes up in just about any argument. Want to regulate guns? Well sure, they might conceivably be sold across state lines. Even if the original factory won't sell them out of state, a rebuyer might, or someone might buy one and ship it to someone later or someone from out of state could buy it and transport it themselves or or.... yeah. You get the picture. Regulate food, regulate clothes, everything under the damn sun can be regulated under the "interstate commerce clause"... a clause originally intended to merely stop the various states from erecting tax stations and charging "import tariffs" on each other's borders, as was happening under the Articles of Confederation....
Re:No.. that would be silly. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've wondered if a criminal defendent could use the interstate commerce clause against a state law.
For example, someone is prosecuted under state law for some offence. Criminal defendent says: "but this affects interstate commerce, hence it is the province of the federal governement to regulate it -- and, by the way, there isn't a federal law prohibiting this offense". Since the Supremes have completely gutted any limit to the interstate commerce clause, it's hard to imagine any activity that could not be described as affecting interstate commerce. Unless there is a federal law that specifically allows the states to regulate that activity, it seems like it would be an interesting tactic.
Re:No.. that would be silly. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>>>Want to regulate guns? Well sure, they might conceivably be sold across state lines.
Well here's some good news: The Supreme Court recently over-turned the Central Government's gun ban near schools. They said that calling it interstate commerce was a step too far, and that proper jurisdiction for local schools belongs to the Member State government, not the Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Modification of your OWN property is not a crime.
Like this hasn't been covered a billion times before...you don't own the software, you own the hardware. You can modify the hardware all you want but the catch is that it's pretty much useless without the software.
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution doesn't say anything about it being illegal to travel in a vehicle greater than 30mph, but try it in a school zone and that can also land you in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a state crime, not a federal one.
Re:No.. that would be silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
How dare you think that silly, old piece of paper called the US Constitution should somehow be allowed to slow (or God forbid stop) any corporation from being able to extract every last penny from their victims (errr customers)???.
This is America, bitches! This is were you only *think* you can own something. Where you can "buy" a PS3 knowing you can load another OS (until they decide otherwise).
This is America, where you can "buy" a DVR at Best Buy for $199.00 only to have to return it to DirecTV after you cancel service or they will charge you another $250.00 for that thing you already "bought".
This is America, where odds are you can punch your local taxi driver right in the face and steal his wallet and get less of a penalty than if you, GOD Forbid, share that song that you already "bought" on vinyl, then "bought" on cassette, and maybe "bought" CD. Fuck those stupid hold-up victims, the real victims are the music and media companies and the fines imposed on those caught sharing prove that out.
And, finally, this is America, where you can be punished for pointing out that the security of the product you "bought" was designed by ass clowns. Of course if one of those corporations ever fucks up and breaks a law or two (Sony root kits anyone?), well, tough shit...that YOUR problem...That's what all you stupid-fucking-morons (oh, sorry we mean victims, er, no that not it...we mean "customers"). Yeah that's the funny word we corporations call you - customers. Anyhow, yeah, tough shit, customers, that is what you get by not being able to afford an army of lobbyists yourselves.
This is AMERICA bitches! The best fucking government (Democrat or Republican lead - it don't matter) that money can buy. Stupid Constitution wavers....
Re: (Score:2)
I think you could make a pretty good case that the US Constitution prohibits the DMCA, though.
Re: (Score:2)
You could make a good case for a large proportion of Federal laws. The Supreme Court might even agree in a few of them, but unless you can show that you've personally been harmed by the law and are lucky enough to win the being-heard-by-the-supreme-court lottery, then it won't help you.
Maybe if you introduced the death penalty for any politician who voted for an unconstitutional law, then the constitution would have teeth. As it is, it's easy to pass an unconstitutional law and very hard to get one overt
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, let's just make it "1 strike and you're out". If you introduce a bill that becomes a law and is eventually ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, you lose your seat in Congress and are barred for some period of time from holding any seat in Congress.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it treason to pass a law that wasn't envisaged by the agrarian founders?
Now, I'm not for the DMCA, but to treat the Consitution like holy writ is wrong. The founders were not omnipotent, clairvoient or even particularly extraordinary men; the constitution as they declared it was to define a set of principles they thought fair. The reason why we have the amendments we have today is because through the years the American public has decided that the founders either didn't think some things through, or w
Re: (Score:2)
Restraining orders are civil. You're talking about criminal evidence seizures. They're totally different and unrelated legal actions.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, I just found the impoundment order attached to the TRO. I've never heard of anything like that in my life. Highly unusual.
Re:No.. that would be silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's beside the point, which is that fiddling with your Playstation 3 is not fucking bank robbery. It's not murder. It's not terrorism. It's not even spitting on the fucking sidewalk.
I may not be able to rob a bank, but I can write a book about robbing banks, even if it requires me to research the topic by learning to crack safes.
Geohot fiddled with his PS3. He published what he learned.
Here, I'll even give a car analogy for the pudknockers who want Geohot sent to Guantanamo for crimes against humanity.
I can buy a Ford Focus, and if I had the skill and the means, I could drop in some engine (even from a different manufacturer) that could make the Focus go 200 mph, which is clearly illegal in all fifty states. That is not the same as driving 200 in a 55 zone.
The DMCA is bullshit, and once the current crop of corrupt ideologue bastards on the Supreme Court are safely retired (or whatever) it's going to be revisited. Besides being horrible law, it hinders innovation which is eventually going to cost us. It applies 19th century standards to 21st century technology and eventually it's going to collapse under its own weight. Either that or we're screwed. On further reflection, we're probably screwed, but that doesn't make the DMCA any less bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
That's beside the point, which is that fiddling with your Playstation 3 is not fucking bank robbery. It's not murder. It's not terrorism. It's not even spitting on the fucking sidewalk.
No, it's something far, far worse than any of these. It's interfering with corporate profits. That's why the government is so keen on clamping down on this guy, or anyone else who releases such information. Remember, in a fascist government, corporate profits are more important than anything else.
Don't forget, murder is no
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the next-generation products will get a new name, like NGP, giving him a loophole? If they really are launching a quad-core ARM-based product later this year, some might like to run unrestricted Linux on it.
Chances are it'll be expensive. And if Sony gets quad core CPUs / GPUs, others most likely will also.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sony-computer-entertainment-announces-its-next-generation-portable-entertainment-system-114703879.html [prnewswire.com]
(admittedly I'm biased against Sony at this point; no
Re: (Score:2)
(admittedly I'm biased against Sony at this point; not a serious gamer and not too quick to forgive Sony for the rootkit fiasco)
No kidding.
Re: (Score:2)
This just means he won't be attaching his name to anything PS3-related for quite some time.
Listening to advice like this explains why the bank foreclosed on your mortgage and your divorce papers were served in the county lock-up.
It is a mistake to be too clever. To try to sneak around a court order. Because someone will be watching.
Re: (Score:2)
He can still do it on websites located in 193 other countries.
This makes me sad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This makes me sad (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not? He's doing something that may, or may not be illegal. Asking the court to knock it off until the status of his actions is quite reasonable. Now, IMO there isn't much question and what he's doing should be legal, but the court obviously thinks it isn't that obvious.
It's not as if Geohot makes his living hacking PS3s to run pirated games (which is all the restraining order prevents him doing). This is costing him his hobby, and only temporarily if what he's doing is determined to be legal.
Don't like it? Find a politician who will fight to have the law overturned or clarified. Can't find one? Then make one. The Tea party didn't exist 3 years ago. If that particular group of people can become a political force overnight I would hope the geeks of the nation could manage as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Your opinion may or may not be illegal. I'll prohibit it while I check. How does that make any sense?
Re: (Score:2)
Your opinion may or may not be illegal. I'll prohibit it while I check. How does that make any sense?
Replace "opinion" with "actions". This is fairly common in civil cases.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a lot easier to find tens of thousands of stupid people to form a "political" party, than fill a courtroom with intelligent and non-corrupt lawmakers.
Re:This makes me sad (Score:5, Informative)
It's not as if Geohot makes his living hacking PS3s to run pirated games (which is all the restraining order prevents him doing). This is costing him his hobby, and only temporarily if what he's doing is determined to be legal.
That would be true if the TRO didn't have an order of impoundment attached:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) business days of this Order, Defendant Hotz shall deliver...for impoundment any computers, hard drives, CD-roms, DVDs, USB stick, and any other storage devices on which any Circumvention Devices are stored in Defendant Hotz's possession, custody, or control. http://www.scribd.com/doc/47676627/50-Order-GRANTING-TRO [scribd.com]
...and I'm pretty sure that those devices are his trade tools which means this TRO places a significant and disproportionate burden on him as the defendant.
Re: (Score:2)
streisand effect
It only sues everything... (Score:5, Informative)
So other people will invite him to work on their products, which he'll do, and that'll generate buzz and excitement for those products. And they'll win, and Sony will lose. This is awesome! I really have to say, I am amazed at the skill and precision with which Sony has managed the PS3. They've got some kind of dream team working on this. There's a cycle. First, identify the largest clearly identifiable remaining demographic. Second, piss them off. Repeat.
PS3: Buy it for the Other OS feature, keep it because no one will take it off your hands. (No, really. I have a launch 60GB which I bought entirely for the Other OS feature. It's now useless for playing games because games require "updates" that disable the only functionality I got it for, but no one's gonna buy the old loud monster to play video games...)
Re: (Score:2)
So other people will invite him to work on their products, which he'll do, and that'll generate buzz and excitement for those products.
Sure if he wants to face contempt of court and legal issues. Did you fail to read the part that said:
he can no longer 'engage in acts of circumvention of TPMS in the PS3 System to access, obtain, remove, or traffic in copyrighted works.'
Re: (Score:2)
Did you fail to read the part that said:
Re: (Score:2)
The original 60GB with the EE chip? I know several people who would buy it just for that. I've often thought about getting a PS3 but at this point i'd only buy a used one to get the EE chip.
If the price is right I might even take it off your hands.
Re: (Score:2)
So other people will invite him to work on their products, which he'll do, and that'll generate buzz and excitement for those products. And they'll win, and Sony will lose. This is awesome! I really have to say, I am amazed at the skill and precision with which Sony has managed the PS3. They've got some kind of dream team working on this. There's a cycle. First, identify the largest clearly identifiable remaining demographic. Second, piss them off. Repeat.
PS3: Buy it for the Other OS feature, keep it because no one will take it off your hands. (No, really. I have a launch 60GB which I bought entirely for the Other OS feature. It's now useless for playing games because games require "updates" that disable the only functionality I got it for, but no one's gonna buy the old loud monster to play video games...)
I would, but then again I like the backwards compatibility and I want a blue ray player :)
Re: (Score:2)
Where do we send our bids?
Re: (Score:3)
So other people will invite him to work on their products, which he'll do, and that'll generate buzz and excitement for those products.
Going to be kinda hard for him to work on anything for a while, since the court order also requires him to turn over his computers and hard drives to Sony. He's unlikely to get them back for months, if ever, and it's going to take yet more lawyer time to get them back. Which is exactly what Sony wanted. This is all about making life difficult for Geohotz because he dared to publish the PS3 root key. It's harassment, plain and simple, and so far, Sony is winning.
A life lesson I learned years ago (Score:4, Insightful)
It is very hard to stuff a cat back into a cat carrier. It is even harder to stuff a cat back into a bag.
Re:A life lesson I learned years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
It is very hard to stuff a cat back into a cat carrier. It is even harder to stuff a cat back into a bag.
I guess it depends on whether or not you want to keep the cat alive. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
It's ok, he can teleport the cat to the vet by throwing it out the window.
Re:A life lesson I learned years ago (Score:4, Funny)
Oh I doubt this is an attempt to our the cat back in the bag.
This is just trying to slow the cat down temporary for as long as possible and shoot the guy who let it out of the bag.
Misleading summary/article? (Score:2)
'Pretty much he can't talk or think about the PS3 for some time.'
I wasn't aware that the only things one could say about the PS3 were related to cracking its protection schemes and pirate! (or, okay, 'traffic in copyrighted works'). He can talk about the games, he can talk about the OS, he can talk about the hardware, he just can't, y'know, talk about how to circumvent any of it. Really, this seems like a relatively reasonable restraining order all around, at least by the metrics for such things; it stops
Re: (Score:2)
Don't buy anything from Sony for some time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just don't buy anything from Sony for some time. Like forever.
The way Sony treated me over the faulty PS3 hardware they sold me makes this decision easy, never mind the other horrible things Sony does on a regular basis.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
At one point I wanted a PS3... Then this crap that has been coming from them since other OS removal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, the initial $599 price for the PS3 was enough for me to avoid them in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry, pretty soon a $6000 cellphone will be the norm, as will $10-20k/month rents, $50 for a loaf of bread, $500-1000 for a dinner at a restaurant, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The rootkit wasn't enough?
The better solution is to actually stick to your boycott. Don't buy anything Sony, ever. Making it only "for some time" makes it clear that Sony can do whatever they want so long as they're willing to take a short-term financial hit, and that's assuming there are enough people to even make that point.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony made pretty good portable cassette players, so I'll buy those (though as I already have two I probably won't buy another one for quite some time). However, as Sony does not make them anymore (and I am buying them used), Sony still sees none of my money.
Re: (Score:3)
I stopped buying from Sony after they started installing rootkits into their products.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But did Sony make the actual panel?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you also make sure the TV doesn't use any component made by Sony? Or that the company making it didn't license some technology from Sony? It's practically impossible to not pay them directly or indirectly if you buy any complex electronic product.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy for you to say if you don't want to play a game that's only available for PS3, for instance MGS4.
Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time. (Score:4, Funny)
Easy for you to say if you don't want to play a game that's only available for PS3, for instance MGS4.
Aw poor baby. You might actually have to make a *gasp* sacrifice!
Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Less than 18 months ago, I foolishly bought a Sony car radio. It's cr*p. I won't be buying any Sony products again.
As an example, the radio can read mp3s from a flash drive, but, it appears that this only works if the flash drive is less than 4GB. Even then, it seems to be very picky about the format of the filesystem (picky about a FAT filesystem!!!).
It has some other stupid design "features", which are too numerous to mention.
protected like iPone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Low lifes, eh? Ever heard about poor countries? (Score:2)
Where people earn like 200-400 buck per month? Exactly how do those evil "would never buy it if I had to pay for it" "pirates" harm Sony please?
Oh, and by the way, try to find out how many of the hackers out there have actually payed for IDA license. Someone on #ps3test already tried, quite fun to read:
http://pastie.org/1476525 [pastie.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I see this question come up quite often by people who haven't taken the time to actually read up on the jail-breaking exemptions.
Here's a list of the exemptions granted for jail-breaking your devices. Could you please point out the one that would allow breaking the encryption on the PS3 to play cracked games or add functionality?
Thank you.
- Computer users may now bypass external security devices if they do not longer work and cannot be replaced..
- Phone owners may break access controls on their phones to s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You cant blame him for thinking he was within the law on this one
Then maybe he shouldn't have been hacking on the game OS and causing all this to come on his head to begin with?
I fail to see how your reply follows from the line you chose to quote. You might as well said "Then maybe he shouldn't have drank soda that day!"
Re: (Score:2)
This is suprising why? (Score:2)
I can't believe it took this long.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's more surprising that they think this will accomplish anything other than harassing this one guy. The damage is done -- everyone who wanted the keys has them, and there's nothing Sony can do about that.
This is worse than the MPAA trying to stop 09 F9.
protection methods (Score:2)
So now companies just have to put in minimal protection and the rest is legal protection?
Re: protection methods (Score:4, Informative)
So now companies just have to put in minimal protection and the rest is legal protection?
Yes, it's been that way since 1998. See this [wikipedia.org] and, more generally, this [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I do not agree with the DMCA or the way it is abused by companies like Sony, but this is not a case of minimal effort.
How about the rest of the web (Score:2)
Self-important judiciary (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFO [psx-scene.com]:
Paintiff has submitted substantial evidence showing that defendant George Hotz has violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A), 120(b)(1). Plaintiff has also submitted evidence demonstrating that plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief, and that the balance of hardships favors plaintiff.
Once the keys were out there, the irreparable harm was done. There is no "relief" whatsoever provided by this order. It's vindictive intimidation, plain and simple.
I'm also disappointed that the judge decided to assert jurisdiction despite the obvious fact that it's well within SCEA's means to file suit in New Jersey, and clearly places a significant burden on the defendant to appear in California. The fact that SCEA wanted this case heard in Northern California has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it's the "proper venue" and everything to do with forum shopping. I can only surmise that the judge was rationalizing her decision to participate in what will undoubtedly be a precedent setting case should it go to trial, which doesn't speak highly of either her integrity or judgement. Signing her name to a paper stating that the plaintiff's case is "likely to succeed on the merits," shows either a bias in favor of SCEA, ignorance of the facts, or both. Mr. Hotz has repeatedly stated that he does not condone piracy, none of the PS3 tools he has released directly facilitate piracy, and in fact, none of the tools he's ever released on any platform has directly facilitated piracy. Sony's keys, while ostensibly a trade secret, are not subject to IP law protections, and even if they were, they were obtained through lawful reverse engineering of property sold to the defendant(s).
In summary, we have some really crappy laws, and those charged with upholding them don't seem to be much better.
Re: (Score:3)
In summary, we have some really crappy laws, and those charged with upholding them don't seem to be much better.
He who enforces an unjust law is no better than he who breaks a just one.
Re:Self-important judiciary (Score:4, Informative)
I agree with most everything in the parent post and would also like to add that it's pretty clear that the ECDSA signing keys do not, in fact, compromise a "circumvention device or technique". Suggesting that a set of secret numbers, unto itself, forms a device or technique is stretching the meaning of the words past the breaking point. Further, the part of the order which requires him to turn over to Sony all computers, hard drives, etc. which contain circumvention devices presupposes that he actually has software which would legally be considered a circumvention device. It is not at all clear from the publicly known facts that he possesses anything which would qualify. All of the stuff which he has released has been about gaining access to the hardware without gaining access to any of Sony's software, firmware, etc. The PS3 is not, itself, a copyrighted work. The best that they can argue is that the firmware and OS which run on the PS3 are. That is a silly, but potentially successful legal argument (as the courts have previously held the communicating with running copyrighted software or firmware is a form of "gaining access to a protected work" in several cases, including the Bnetd case despite that being an idiotic interpretation of the language of the DMCA). So that would work as an argument, unless, of course, the keys you've released are the keys used to sign boot loaders and bypass loading any of Sony's firmware or software at all, which, as it happens, are exactly those keys which Geohot released.
So the question is what happens if he complies with the last part of the order by giving them an empty box and saying "I don't have circumvention devices"? Presumably, more legal fun would ensue. I'm curious if that's the tack he'll take. I probably would in his case, since turning anything over to them is tantamount to an admission of violating the DMCA.
Re:Self-important judiciary (Score:5, Interesting)
If there was anything in the Judge's order that smelled of misconduct to me, it would be that she is hearing the case in the first place rather than in NJ (where geohot is) or somewhere with an actual Sony corporate office at the time the suit was filed.
AFAICT, the whole argument there was that they claimed one of the Does was likely to live in CA, so they had standing to sue in CA. Does that mean that I can simply add an unidentified Doe to any suit I want and move the case to whatever jurisdiction I want to pretend he’s in?
More importantly, does this mean that if that particular Doe is discovered not to be in CA that they have no claim to standing in that jurisdiction and would need to throw the case out and start over in an appropriate locale?
IANAL, so I would love some clarification on this one, because it honestly confuses me.
Sony steals features. (Score:4, Informative)
Counter-order ? (Score:2)
Sloppy Court Documentation (Score:2)
This order really doesn't say much about the ability of courts in the US to follow even basic procedures.
"Hotz is ordered to appear before the court at 10:00am on January __ 2011."
There's a scribble about parties arranging their own hearing date after that, but this is simply unacceptable. Hotz is supposed to engage with a team of Sony legal sharks and the court expects them to act honestly? They could arrange one date with the court and give him another.
I don't know where courts get off sending things like
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where courts get off sending things like this out.
From reading the document, it appears to have been a proposed order submitted by plaintiff's counsel. This is typical in motion practice. To save time, the Court can just use it.
IANAL, etc.
Doofus! (Score:2)
When will these people figure that out?
Sony have gone to great expense to prove that they still don't get it!
Doesn't matter. (Score:4, Interesting)
Should have left the "Other OS" feature on (Score:5, Interesting)
Sony should have left the "Other OS" feature on and just "unsupported." There was a link on /. last time this came up to a black hat conference on the trend of gameOS hacking. Sony PS3 enjoyed the longest time in recently history from launch till being compromised to be able to run custom "home brew" and pirated software (3.16 years). If you date it from when they removed the "Other OS" feature, it falls right in line with every other hacked game system (Xbox/360, game cube, wii, ps2, dreamcast...). Bottom line, if you don't allow people to install linux, enough people will be motivated to break your system to do just that, also opening the can-of-worms that is pirated software.
Re: (Score:2)
> Bottom line, if you don't allow people to install linux, enough people will be motivated to break your system to do just that, also opening the can-of-worms that is pirated software.
In other words, don't mess with the penguin!
Re:Should have left the "Other OS" feature on (Score:4, Insightful)
True! That is very true, and I'm sure he's having a devil of a time right now.
But -- pay attention here -- the cat is out of the bag. And I think original poster's point is that if you don't give geeks some reasonable access to a device, to do something innocuous (install Linux) that doesn't muck with your DRM, they will break your paltry encryption and publish the hack. Regardless of the personal consequences. 'S how geeks are. And the rest of us will turn the hack into haiku and t-shirts and spread it all over the net and sundry, and you'll never EVER get that particular cat back in that particular bag.
That being the case, and acknowledging that he's in a heap 'o' trouble, and whether or not Sony has the high ground here, Sony could have saved themselves a lot of grief by just keeping the damned "Other OS" feature on. Can we agree on that?
Re: (Score:3)
Thats nonsense. Geohotz broke the hypervisor before they pulled support for the PS3 fat. They pulled support as a direct result of his hacking.
That is not an appropriate response. You don't remove features for everyone just because you don't like how someone is using them.
The slims were never advertised as supporting Other OS. No one ever lost Other OS who owned a PS3 slim.
I understand that they've essentially removed Other OS for the old, fat ones as well.
You can get a better Linux machine than the PS3 slim anyways. These hackers are not going to use the PS3 for linux after this. They are just going to move on to the next device. The break machines that people paid good money for and move on. All for a feature that no one, includeing them, uses.
Sony was the one who broke it. People did use it for homebrew, and anyway you still don't remove features from products you already sold even if no one uses them.
Sony Lawyer Arrives With Bag... (Score:2)
Let's get something straight. (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's get something straight.
Geohot was the one who threw the first punch, he broke through the hypervisior using "other OS" and "bus glitching", Sony removed "other OS" in response.
Regardless whether you think that was the right response, it's not unexpected and unprovoked.
PS: This is the end of my karma I suppose.
Re:Let's get something straight. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's get something straight. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Let's get something straight. (Score:5, Interesting)
Geohot was the one who threw the first punch, he broke through the hypervisior using "other OS" and "bus glitching", Sony removed "other OS" in response.
Regardless whether you think that was the right response, it's not unexpected and unprovoked.
Why should we disregard whether or not it was an appropriate response? That matters a great deal. Taking away features from everyone is an extreme overreaction. It could be expected since consumers seem to have no rights, but that doesn't justify it.
It's kind of like saying "Those people currently protesting against their governments threw the first punch. Regardless whether you think it was the right response, police cracking down with lethal force was neither unexpected nor unprovoked." I'd say it's still unprovoked.
Expected, sure, but so what? It's still wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it takes a certain viewpoint to describe it as a "punch".
If you think about the computing world today I don't think it is overstating things to say that it would be very different if not for the fact that reverse engineering of the original IBM PC bios was permitted by law.
Geohot's tinkering may not lead to such change but his freedom to tinker with his own equipment and talk about his tinkering should nonetheless be supported. I have had Playstation
Ex Parte. Very nice (Score:4, Interesting)
So Sony sends one of their expensive lawyers to court against an individual, and gets a broad temporary restraining order against him "ex parte"... meaning he didn't even get a _chance_ to fucking respond.
Oh, and despite this being a "temporary" restraining order, it's actually indefinite.
Fuck Sony and fuck the honorable rubberstamp Susan Yvonne Illston.
Re: (Score:3)
And that is indefinite enough. It's easy to drag out a case. For instance, in patent cases, the fight for the initial "temporary" injunction is usually the most important part -- and certai
Re:No big deal (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed, and:
he can no longer 'engage in acts of circumvention of TPMS in the PS3 System to access, obtain, remove, or traffic in copyrighted works.'
So he CAN still engage in acts of circumvention of TPMS in the PS3 System to access, obtain, remove, or traffic in NON-copyrighted works.
-Rick
Re: (Score:3)
From the presentation I saw, it looks like roughly 80-90% of the work in completely pwning the PS3 was unrelated to piracy or cheating. That is, roughly 10-20% of what they did could've been used for piracy, the rest was for the complete and permanent ability to run any homebrew they like without restrictions, including (say) Linux with access to the PS3's GPU.
Also, note that the PS3 was pretty much left alone until Sony killed Other OS. So long as people were allowed to run Linux on the PS3, it was left al
Re: (Score:2)
Sony believes that it pays to be evil so they will keep doing it.
Re: (Score:2)