Sony Lawsuits Target PS3 Jailbreak Authors

StikyPad writes "PS3News is reporting that Sony's latest legal salvo is targeting the creators of PS JailBreak, PSFreedom and PSGroove-related PS3 hacks, citing numerous court documents for those interested. From one of the documents: 'Having considered the Motion for Expedited Discovery of Plaintiff Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (oeSCEA) [...] the Court hereby grants SCEA's Motion. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that [...] SCEA has leave to serve similarly targeted subpoenas or deposition notices to any other third party who SCEA learns may be involved in the distribution or sale of the oePS Jailbreak software, known as, for example, "PSGroove," "OpenPSJailbreak," and "PSFreedom," or who may have knowledge of the distribution or sale of this software.'"

Comments

Sony should have lost this already.

[pecosdave]

I'm under the impression Sony has already lost this case. Very recently it was decided that you CAN hack your own phones. I don't see what would make the PS3 so special that Sony can declare they can police what you can do with hardware you yourself have purchased and is in your own living room, especially since phone manufacturers have been told they don't have the power Sony is claiming to have. Granted the PS3 is not a mobile phone, but take away that particular radio I don't see what differentiates it from a mobile phone in those same regards.

But the Copyright Office concluded that, “while a copyright owner might try to restrict the programs that can be run on a particular operating system, copyright law is not the vehicle for imposition of such restrictions.”

I think the Wired article the previous and next quotes come from address this case almost as well as the article covered in the parent.

A federal appeals court came to the same conclusion last week in an unrelated dispute about “dongles,” or keys that grant access to software. “The owner’s technological measure must protect the copyrighted material against an infringement of a right that the Copyright Act protects, not from mere use or viewing,” the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case concerning a software licensing flap between MGE UPS Systems and GE Consumer and Industrial.

I hope Sony gets shot down. The PS3, and for that matter the PSP are both incredibly powerful systems with so much to offer but with a big dolt called Sony sitting on them saying you can't use them for that. This attitude is why I ditched my iPhone, which I refused to hack even though I could, for an Android phone - which I wound up hacking - but to keep it from doing what I didn't want to instead of making it do what I thought it should. My PSP is hacked and I like it that way, the battery last much longer and I don't have to carry all those UMD's with me. For that matter I can buy my UMD's at fair market price at a store instead of having to buy them from a website that has Sony setting an outrageous price for them that has nothing to do with what they're worth on the market.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Kenja]

There is a difference, even if its only a minor one. The decision on phones was so that consumers where not stuck with carrier lock ins. The intent was so you could take your phone to a competing carrier. There is no such issue with game consoles. Its not like you can "jail break" your PS3 and hook it up to XBOX live.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[marcansoft]

The DMCA exceptions are revised every 3 years and the recent phone jailbreaking exception singles out phones and does not apply to consoles. The primary purpose of the device (the PSJailbreak) that started this is piracy, and this is what the vast majority of people using the device and its clones are doing. Even though the homebrew clones are trying to move away from it, currently, they still share quite a bit of the piracy code. Worse, currently, all installable PS3 homebrew is developed with the leaked Sony SDK, which, in and of itself, is also piracy.

I'm not saying Sony's case is a good idea, but they have a much better case than Apple would right now.

Personally, I'm working on using the PSJailbreak exploit (not any of its code, payload, patches, or functionality) to run a fully original payload that will eventually boot Linux as GameOS (with access to the 3D hardware, but otherwise similar to OtherOS). In order to avoid legal trouble, I would recommend that open source PS3 hack authors do something along similar lines and distance themselves from the original game-loading payload and the Sony SDK (and even GameOS). If you do that, then you seriously cut down on the number of things that Sony's lawyers can grab on to for a case.

My €.02.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Dalzhim]

Jailbreaking to bypass a carrier lock-in isn't a better reason than jailbreaking to run your own software that didn't go through the app store.
The only difference is that bypassing a carrier lock-in might be a more widespread reason than running software that didn't go through the app store.

If the reason for allowing jailbreaking is to allow people to bypass carrier lock-in, then there is a serious problem. The rationale for allowing jailbreak should be that you fucking own the hardware. End of discussion.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[internettoughguy]

There is a difference, even if its only a minor one. The decision on phones was so that consumers where not stuck with carrier lock ins. The intent was so you could take your phone to a competing carrier. There is no such issue with game consoles. Its not like you can "jail break" your PS3 and hook it up to XBOX live.

Theoretically at least, you can source games from suppliers other than Sony. Some of the indie games companies should do just that, compete with Sony for the supply of games to their console.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[rs1n]

While you don't need to jail break your PS3 to hook it up to XBOX live, you (apparently) need to do so to run other applications). The real issue here is how Sony will fight this. _IF_ they plan to use the copyright argument, the surely they will not prevail.

To reiterate a quote from the GP:"The owner’s technological measure must protect the copyrighted material against an infringement of a right that the Copyright Act protects, not from mere use or viewing" If the jailbreaks somehow infringe on copyrighted material, then Sony has a case with respect to copyright. If I'm not mistaken, there were reports that the software used in some of the jailbreaking may have made use of an illegal copy of Sony's SDK.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[rs1n]

That should have been "they surely not prevail if there were no copyright violations."

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[mSparks43]

erm.
OtherOS?

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Threni]

> The primary purpose of the device (the PSJailbreak) that started this is piracy
> they still share quite a bit of the piracy code.

lol! "the piracy code"!

> Worse, currently, all installable PS3 homebrew is developed with the leaked Sony SDK, which, in and of itself, is also piracy.

Wow - using an SDK is piracy? Is buying and playing a game using 'piracy code' also?

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Yvan256]

It's not like you can "jail break" your PS3 and hook it up to XBOX live.

We can't?! Let's sue Sony and Microsoft!

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[wiredlogic]

The "decision" cited in the Wired article does not carry the force of law. It's own title says that it is a "recommendation". It is just a policy position paper and doesn't do anything to change the DMCA. That can only be done by Congress, the president, or a federal judge ruling in a case.

It affirms the right we've always had to reverse engineer which the DMCA never took away. If you jailbreak something and keep it to yourself you are safe from the DMCA. The sticky bit is when you distribute a "circumvention device" so others can accomplish the reverse engineering. Distribute your "device" and you have trouble coming that is proportional to how many legislators are owned by the company you've pissed off.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[bloodhawk]

There is a difference, even if its only a minor one. The decision on phones was so that consumers where not stuck with carrier lock ins. The intent was so you could take your phone to a competing carrier. There is no such issue with game consoles. Its not like you can "jail break" your PS3 and hook it up to XBOX live.

Theoretically at least, you can source games from suppliers other than Sony. Some of the indie games companies should do just that, compete with Sony for the supply of games to their console.

hmmmm targetting a segment of the market of whom the majority have gone out of their way to avoid having to purchase games, yeah that sounds like a successfull business model for those struggling indie developers.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[DragonWriter]

Wow - using an SDK is piracy?

Insofar as "piracy" is a common, if somewhat informal, term for acts which violate copyright law, sure. At least, it is if the SDK is protected by copyright, if the work you create is a derivative work under copyright law, and you have neither a license to use the SDK for the purpose nor the protection of an applicable exception to copyright law.

While, absent litigation on the specific cases, there's may be some room for debate, I'd expect that most uses of a leaked Sony SDK to create homebrew PS3 software, and the copying and distribution of such software after it was created, be "piracy".

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[marcansoft]

lol! "the piracy code"!

I would normally prefer the term "the copied-game-loading code", which is more correctly neutral, but sometimes I get so irritated by all the lying smartasses who use the term "backup" as a thin veil (and thus discredit the minority of people actually legitimately backing up their own games) that I feel like using a term that is biased the other way just to make it blatantly obvious what most people end up using the code for.

Specifically, I'm talking about the Blu-Ray redirection patches which are still present in the PSGroove code (which is just a version of the PSJailbreak code hex-edited to trivially break, but not remove, this functionality). In other words, the PSGroove is technically a pirated PSJailbreak (not that I care about commercial game copying products getting copied, but there are legal implications to basing your stuff too much on a piracy device). It's a lot cleaner if you just take the required core concept of the exploit and develop an open product around it that shares nothing more than what is strictly necessary with the original.

Wow - using an SDK is piracy?

Torrenting it and then distributing code compiled with it both are, which is what everyone who is using the Sony SDK did. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. If Sony didn't grant you a license to use the PS3 SDK, then you aren't allowed to legally use it.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[internettoughguy]

hmmmm targetting a segment of the market of whom the majority have gone out of their way to avoid having to purchase games, yeah that sounds like a successfull business model for those struggling indie developers.

Is that true? I find it hard to believe those people would get a console in the first place, PC games are a great deal easier to pirate.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Schadrach]

The jailbreak itself doesn't use Sony's SDK. Pretty much all currently available homebrew (except maybe PSPong?) does use it however, since there isn't a stable open alternative...yet. Building a complete, mature, and stable SDK for a newly accessible system in, what, a month? is frankly an unreasonable demand.

Sony should be driving legal action to stop the current PSJailbreak scene, but they shouldn't be targeting the creators of PSGroove, PSFreedom, or OpenPSJailbreak -- they should be attacking the people who have released actual homebrew to date using the Sony SDK (which is, admittedly, basically all of it so far and includes the original creators of the PSJailbreak hack). That would protect their copyrights while also encouraging the creation of an open SDK as an alternative to the leaked Sony SDK.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Schadrach]

The open source clones actually specifically disable the "piracy" function, by blocking bluray dvd access. It's admittedly not hard by any means to re-enable it, but it's disabled the way it is for a reason -- they haven't found a way to re-enable or reinstall Other OS yet, and the only "piracy" functionality really left after their alteration is "can run unsigned code."

They should crack down on the github branches that re-enable the piracy functionality, and on the so-called "hermes payload" which is an altered payload with more advanced piracy functionality.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[sixteenbitsamurai]

I find it hard to believe those people would get a console in the first place, PC games are a great deal easier to pirate.

This. If I had mod points, you'd be getting one right now.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is piracy playing a game you own off the hard drive?

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[marcansoft]

The problem is that all of the code is still there and working, they just changed a single string to subtly break it. Right, this "does the job", but it makes it so ridiculously easy to reenable that it could be considered similar to, say, openly selling a game console cheat device that just happens to enable loading copies if you hit the right button combination, load the right hacked configuration file, or enter the right magic cheat code. It's still dodgy.

And heck, I know full well that the people responsible for these open clones (at least the original PSGroove and PSFreedom authors) are perfectly capable of rewriting the code to yank out the piracy parts (and save a lot of space; for technical reasons, the payload is pretty constrained), especially seeing as it's been analyzed pretty thoroughly by now. This is why I'm advocating at least taking the (not much) time to make an independently compilable reimplementation that entirely does away with all of the redirect code, instead of just trivially disabling it.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmmm targetting a segment of the market of whom the majority have gone out of their way to avoid having to purchase games, yeah that sounds like a successfull business model for those struggling indie developers.

Is that true? I find it hard to believe those people would get a console in the first place, PC games are a great deal easier to pirate.

Are you really that niave? you think just because they can also pirate on the PC they won't on a console? I know a ton of people with hacked gaming consoles (in the order of 15-20), all of them do it so they can copy/pirate/share games, none of them would even consider doing it to give them access to more stuff to purchase, they do it to get something for free.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[xMilkmanDanx]

Sony made it's initial money off a sliver of non-infringing purpose with the vcr (with its ability to record, not play that is). almost all uses of it were infringing but there was the one case of time shifting that was deemed non-infringing and that sliver was enough that the lawsuits were denied.

Soooo, as long as there's a non-infringing use for it, even if 99% of the capability is infringing, it should be allowed as was allowed by the prior ruling.

Of course, as IANAL and the law rarely does what is right (or even remains self consistent) when faced by big money.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[bloodhawk]

As it currently stands I know more people that pirate games for their Xbox and Wii than I do for PC Games. PC games being easier to pirate is irrelevent, people will pirate whatever they want to play if it is an option and it isn't exactly hard to pirate for the 360 or Wii (and now the PS3). I have been around gaming a long time and I can honestly say I don't know a single person that has hacked their console for any reason other than to play pirated games, even backups is a ridiculous excuse with the current guarentees and replacement disc deals you can get with most game shops.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[eldepeche]

The difference is that one is an explicit exception to the DMCA and one isn't.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[EvanED]

Sony made it's initial money off a sliver of non-infringing purpose with the vcr (with its ability to record, not play that is)

Huh? Sony was founded decades before VCRs were invented, and then probably lost a non-trivial amount of money, at least at first, by pushing Betamax.

almost all uses of it were infringing but there was the one case of time shifting that was deemed non-infringing and that sliver was enough that the lawsuits were denied.

I'm not convinced that "almost all uses" of the VCR were infringing; I'd be astonished if the proportion of uses of the VCR that were infringing is close to that of uses of the PS3 jailbreaks for infringing purposes.

If memory serves, the SCOTUS also explicitly said that the VCR wasn't illegal solely by the reason that Congress hadn't made it illegal, and it was not a Constitutional argument. the DMCA has changed that too.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay! This is *exactly* what I would like/why I bought a PS3 in the first place. I'm not a developer, at all, but is there anything you need help with?

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[MacGyver2210]

Time to fire up those "Bait and Switch" and False Advertising counter-suits boys. Have at 'em!

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[nomadic]

You are generally right about it only being a recommendation at this point, but wrong about it being just a policy paper; it's a formal recommendation under the DMCA to the Librarian of Congress, who can adopt those recommended exemptions, and his or her decision is final--it doesn't have to be endorsed by Congress or the President.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[pecosdave]

I don't have a single pirated PSP game on my hacked PSP. Then again I don't know you.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[pecosdave]

No it hasn't. The DMCA is not in the constitution.

You can still challenge the constitutionality of the DMCA on the grounds that it isn't in the constitution in and of itself. Good luck with that of course, but the DMCA still does not have the full power of the constitution.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[xMilkmanDanx]

you made me doubt myself and while wikipedia isn't the most reliable source, it's quick and usually in the right direction on non-controversial articles.

Sony vs. Universal City Studios

While the ruling wasn't as strong as I remembered, it was about that there were non-infringing uses and not even that there were widespread use of said non-infringing uses, but just the capability of non-infringing uses.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[wierd_w]

All that this means is that somebody needs to create a competing service. Sounds like there is a very fertile industry for it, especially if it s more lax than the default platform creator's choice. (Such as, actually ALLOWING halo map mods, etc.)

See for instance, things like the successor to BnetD, and associated open servers. Creating an actual company geared toward servicing "blacklisted" consoles would fill a valid market niche. Last I checked, reverse engineering laws STILL provided safe habor for such practices when used for "Cross compatibility" and "Interoperability".

*would LOVE to see an alternative to sony's PSN and Microsoft's XBOX Live! service; Especially if that same service was console agnostic, and would permit multiplayer games from both consoles to have mixed matches.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[interval1066]

"I find it hard to believe those people would get a console in the first place, PC games are a great deal easier to pirate."

• Not everyone is a pirate
• some people like to have hardware

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would normally prefer the term "the copied-game-loading code", which is more correctly neutral, but sometimes I get so irritated by all the lying smartasses who use the term "backup" as a thin veil (and thus discredit the minority of people actually legitimately backing up their own games) that I feel like using a term that is biased the other way just to make it blatantly obvious what most people end up using the code for.

Happen to have some data that shows your claim to have validity?

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[jedidiah]

It bears repeating that the PS3 used to allow for alternative software and was at one time sold specifically for this purpose.

The fact that this crack is merely re-enabling features that were sold with the hardware might make a bit of difference to the judges.

The fact that these cracks only came about when those features were disabled might be of some influence too.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[jank1887]

I'll add a second anecdote: I have a hacked Wii. I have my whole (20-30, 90% used from gamestop) game library loaded on a hard drive. I like the convenience. At this moment, I could pull out any game disc for anything on my hard drive you'd like to see. For me, it's about convenience. The same reason people want a media library of ripped DVDs even through they own all 400 the discs. Heck, it's even easier to FIND the game you want when the count gets high. I first figured out the USBloader process after my 4 year old rendered the Wii sports disc unreadable. (it was able to rip, luckily). could I replace a disc? probably. is there a convenient way for me to avoid needing to replace discs and avoid that hassle? yes. so that's all I need.

Then again, I also don't know you. so you're point stands. maybe you just need friends with a bit more moral fiber.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[hairyfeet]

Well I can't speak for them, but I can speak for myself, and I bought a Dreamcast even knowing it would probably be a loser PLUS buying games for said dreamcast specifically BECAUSE it had been jailbroken, thus allowing me to use emulators on it instead of having to keep my old consoles are wired together in a mess. I was more than happy to buy games for it PLUS buy games for my Xbox (which I had XBMC on) because they gave me MORE value for my money. The dreamcast was my one stop for all my classic games plus the newer Dreamcast stuff like Power stone, just as the xbox was my stop for playing lots of games PLUS it made a damned good media center.

To me it has always been about giving me a good value for my dollar. same reason I buy tons of games from Good old games even though there isn't a single game there I couldn't pirate, but they give me lots of extras like soundtracks PLUS guaranteed x64 support on all games PLUS make it easy and cheap to pay them. I think the bigger problem is game companies charging $50+ for frankly shitty games that are nothing but eye candy without any gameplay and then looking for a scape goat. Sure there will always be some that pirate, most of the pirates I've known were poor college students that couldn't afford the product anyway.

That is why I hope Sony gets the smackdown. Too many of these great new toys coming out are locked down tighter than a nun's thighs and there just ain't no sense in wasting all that good tech when it could do so much more. I might be tempted to get my family an x360 or PS3 if someone jailbroke it so I could have an HD XBMC and be able to run any format, along with emulators and homebrew and anything else cool someone thinks to do with one. If I buy the toy I want to play with it, no have some company tell me I'm only allowed to do what they say with it.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[wierd_w]

Offering a competing multiplayer backend (replacing WiiConnect24, PSN, and XBOX Live!) for "blacklisted" consoles would create an extensive reason to mod a console.

The issue that such a fledgling company (threatening to steal the apples from these company's walled gardens) would need to assert is that such a service is not geared toward allowing pirated games to be played. As such to be legitimate it would need to also ban people that are found to be using it for this purpose.

It's main function would be to allow people who have modified their consoles so that they can play modified multiplayer maps to continue to do so. (Currently this activity violates the PSN, XboxLive, and WiiConnect EULAs, resulting in being blacklisted.)

If I wasnt deathly afraid of blood sucking vampir^V^V^V -- "Lawyers", I would consider investing the time with a copy of Wireshark examining raw packet dumps of the Live, PSN, and WiiConnect protocols. (I have a PSP, a 360 and a Wii, so I should be able to investigate all 3 authentication methods.)

Once you have the language down, all you have to do is get the console to communicate with the new server; Something that might be doable by instructing it to use a "Special" proxy server. (IIRC, all of these consoles allow the use of a dedicated proxy for internet connectivity. Just point it at the rival service server's IP address, and it then masquarades as the real deal, by "internally" routing the target's IP address at itself, while opening the rest of the internet as a proxy is supposed to.)

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[marcansoft]

Nope, I just have a lot of practical experience with the group of people who collectively insist that they're "backing up their games", and how the vast majority are obviously pirates. Most are either outwardly pirating (and they just substitute the term 'backup' because it's cool, but otherwise outwardly acknowledge illegally downloading and copying games), or don't try very hard to hide it.

It's also common sense. Do you honestly believe that there's even a tiny chance that most people hacking their consoles aren't doing it for piracy? Especially with the PS3, where there has been an explosion of people who are out to buy or make a PSJailbreak clone, even though there's just about no useful homebrew for it yet.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[EvanED]

No it hasn't. The DMCA is not in the constitution.

Duh. What I said was that SCOTUS's ruling was not "the First Amendment means that it is unconstitutional to ban the sale of VCRs" -- it was "Congress hasn't made the sale of VCRs illegal." Thus if Congress had decided that such a thing would be a good idea, the Betamax case does not mean that such an attempt would be unconstitutional.

Congress didn't decide that for VCRs -- but it did decide that later for other circumvention devices and methods when it passed the DMCA. Because of this, the applicability of the Betamax case to anything relevant to the digital world is very little.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

The primary purpose of the device (the PSJailbreak) that started this is piracy, ...

Well, no. That has to be /proven/, not suspected or rounded off with loose terms like "probably". Also if it is proven, that does not logically negate the validity of legal use.

... and this is what the vast majority of people using the device and its clones are doing.

Again, that's not enough to logically negate the validity of legal use.

Of course this is probably going under US civil law rather than criminal law, which appears to be an 'anything goes' sort of court. I expect your view is entirely likely to be more correct about how things are actually going to go down.

The core trouble is the inherit contradiction of hardware and software lockdown. It doesn't seem to be possible to do this without infringing on legal use. Logically any infringement should make a lockdown illegal and/or invalid. Grotesque legislation like the DCMA is a bunch of handwaving to make it appear you can have things both ways.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Sollord]

"Not everyone is a pirate" Just 90+% of everyone. There is a small minority who will use the jailbreak to do linux and homebrew the vast vast majority are gonna be teens and young twenty somethings with limited funds to buy all the games they want. Just like all the people who modded the 360 to play pirated games.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[bysin]

The primary purpose of the device (the PSJailbreak) that started this is piracy, and this is what the vast majority of people using the device and its clones are doing.

The act of jailbreaking your PS3 shouldn't be illegal, even if you do so with the intent on playing pirated games.
Instead, copying or playing pirated games would be illegal. It shouldn't be illegal until you cross that line.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

>almost all uses of it were infringing

I'm not so sure. . . at the time, Betamax tapes were short (60 minutes max, IIRC) and sorta expensive. The technology was really a better fit for television.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about internet lock in, I'm still forced to only give Sony a subscription fee. It's the same as vendor lock in period.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that all of the code is still there and working, they just changed a single string to subtly break it
 
Even if the BD code didn't exist, you could probably still copy PSN games. So, no, the problem isn't that some code to access the BD is there, the problem is if you make the decision to pirate content. The software doesn't put a gun to your head and say "Copy games you don't own!".

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[lostmongoose]

What subscription fee would this be? I use the same internet on my PS3 that I use for everything else. If you were referring to Plus, that's hardly 'forced', let alone required. You're a moron.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would normally prefer the term "the copied-game-loading code", which is more correctly neutral, but sometimes I get so irritated by all the lying smartasses [..]

How do you sleep at night then? Or does willful distortion not count?

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[GizmoToy]

But Sony in no way wants to encourage the creation of an open SDK. They want to make the jailbreak go away, and that's it. Of course it's not going to happen, but that's all they're working toward with these lawsuits. They want any potential future firmware hackers to see what they did to these guys and think twice about working on PS3 exploits themselves.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not convinced that "almost all uses" of the VCR were infringing; I'd be astonished if the proportion of uses of the VCR that were infringing is close to that of uses of the PS3 jailbreaks for infringing purposes.

In Australia, until last year pretty much all uses of a VCR besides playing a tape you've bought or hired did infringe copyright.
In 2009 (or maybe it was 2008 at the earliest), the government amended the law so that taping something off the telly is no longer illegal; now it's only illegal if the tape is watched more than once (and I don't mean per person).

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what I don't get about the anti-Apple stance of Slashdot. You say you ditched your iPhone because you couldn't do what you want with it, but bought an Android phone and .......hacked it..... so you could do what you want. I know you tried to justify it as something else, but that's the end result.

If you prefer Android over iOS, ok. But claiming a stance of superiority for doing the same fucking thing you refused to do on another device is quite frankly bizarre.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Nursie]

The potentially massive amounts of data on a bluray disc count in Sony's favour there I would think, it could take a loooooong time to download 50GB. Not that many games are quite that big, but still.

Anyway, screw 90% of people, this is slashdot, where we're supposed to care about whether you can run BSD on a toaster, or linux on a ps3.

Do all the people that modded the Wii play pirated games? I don't. Likewise with the PS2. But then I would try to install linux/BSD on a toaster if I thought there was a chance of it booting.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[cgenman]

Hacking a $300 console is still a lot cheaper than a $1,000 gaming PC, and the gaming PC doesn't even live in your living room.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Nursie]

Whilst I agree that the SDK is illegal to use (and I'm amazed at the number of people who don't understand this!) I wish the bluray redirection could stay.

It's not 'backups' I care about, it's loading my games from a hard drive. It's usually faster (in terms of load time etc) and I don't need to have game cases and the inevitable pile of discs hanging around. Perhaps in time we could find a way to create signed isos and exploits/loaders that check for backups being ripped by a specific machine before they load.

It wouldn't stop people working around it, making other versions that could play downloaded games, but it would at least remove the allegations that it was solely for piracy whilst allowing me my menu-launched programs. I suppose it would still allow old-school sneakernet piracy, but hey. that's on a totally different scale to the real current opyright 'threats'.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[kimvette]

How is that?

Instance A: You buy a phone and own it outright. You wish to chance carriers. Oops. carrier lock. Jailbreak/root and unlock it. Interoperability!

Instance B: You buy a video game console and own it outright. You want to install Linux and use it as a cheap theater PC/media server. Jailbreak it and install what you want. Interoperability!

How is either not an explicit exception?

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Nursie]

Why should they crack down on it?

'pirates' will find a way to re-enable it anyway. The fact that the exploit came out of the pirate circles and not homebrew types tells me that they're going to be a step ahead because they have both higher numbers and a financial motivation.

Non-pirates like myself also like being able to run games from a hard drive. In fact it's the primary reason I hack/crack/jailbreak/whatever my consoles.

Linux? Sure, I love linux, but it'll be not much more than a curiosity on my console. What I really want is hard-drive play (I don't care if the machine will only play games it has ripped itself, for instance) and a better media player.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Trinn]

This would be why I like WebOS devices, they are already open, you don't have to do anything to run whatever you like on them that Palm/HP doesn't endorse. Even when obtained through Verizon, the Pre Plus's OS is still completely open to me, I'm even running a custom kernel, and the extent of what that means is if it causes problems (running a custom kernel) Palm isn't responsible, aside from that, they don't really care.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[amicusNYCL]

lol! "the piracy code"!

The code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules...

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Moryath]

I suggested doing this same thing for friends.

They have a 4-year-old kid and a dog, which is reason enough to have the hard drive route and keep the original discs locked safely in a closet where small larval-human hands or puppy teeth can't chew them to bits. The hard drive is easier to replace and a lot harder to damage in the first place.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[marcansoft]

Whether the software explicitly enables or partially enables copying games (i.e. includes functionality specifically for this purpose) instead of merely doing so as a side effect of a general security bypass hack (e.g. simply enabling copied PSN games by merely allowing unsigned code) can be legally significant.

iPhone jailbreaks are in little legal trouble lately, among other reasons, because none of them have any functinoality related to pirating App Store apps. Those apps can be ripped, decrypted, and installed as any unofficial app, but the jailbreak itself includes no functionality to aid in this process; it is a mere consequence of the ability to install unsigned apps. Contrast this with including code that is specifically and exclusively designed to play copied Blu-Ray games.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[marcansoft]

It shouldn't, but it is. Personally, I think it'd be great if the whole "circumvention device" nonsense went away and instead companies focused on cracking down on actual copiers. However, the current US law is what it is, and it isn't going to magically change now. Devices to "jailbreak" (horrible term, blatantly ripped from the iPhone scene, does not really apply here) your PS3 with the ability to play copied games are not currently legal in the US, whether you plan to exercise that ability to pirate games or not.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[marcansoft]

Well, no. That has to be /proven/, not suspected or rounded off with loose terms like "probably"

The proof is simply the device's marketing, which centers around running "backups", which even a stupid judge can understand is an euphemism for "pirate copies" most of the time. Even if you drink the "backups" kool-aid, it's still letting you bypass the technical protection measures (whether for legitimate use or not) and, therefore, it's a circumvention device.

Again, that's not enough to logically negate the validity of legal use.

The issue is that courts aren't going to care that legal uses exist if those legal uses are used by a tiny minority of people. Every circumvention device, by definition, has legal uses (since customers are being denied their rights by the DRM), but circumvention devices are still mostly illegal. If your legal uses are broad enough to have significant weight (see e.g. iPhone jailbreaks), then you might get an exemption or similar. Another option is to remove the functionality that enables the actual copying to attempt to get the "circumvention device" label slapped on whatever is developed to piggyback on your hack and ultimately play copied games. This is what I'm advocating.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Twanfox]

I, too, have a child and fear dreadfully the day she gets her hands on a game disk ($50, no question, few discounts ever available) and in one careless moment *SCRATCH!* There goes playing that game. Additionally, isn't it nice to just grab your controller and skim through the HDD menu to get to the game you want, rather than dig through a shelf, pull it out, and load it into the console? Also easier to switch games on a whim.

That was my only motivation for hacking my console.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Common sense" does not constitute a rational argument that's backed by facts. Common sense is a perception. You can keep your straw men to yourself. It isn't about belief or perception, it's about having something that substantiates the things you say.

Practical experience is at least something, but that's still a perception that's tainted by your sampling technique. It's not data that shows any relationship relevant to your claim. All it says is that you associate with people that do these things. Maybe it applies generally, maybe it doesn't, I don't know (and clearly, neither do you).

Perhaps you've considered the idea of there being no useful homebrew due to there being no useful way to get your hardware to do what you'd like (and the proprietary nature of the development kit, for that matter)? How can you quantify that population with a broad brush like LOLPIRATES without any actual data?

Your point is essentially that because there's virtually no homebrew, there cannot be interest in homebrew. These things aren't mutually exclusive.

A simple "no" would've been sufficient.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

The sole reason for me having an original x-box is to hook it to my TV for streaming movies from the network.

It doesn't play games anymore and it still required hacking.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[sixsixtysix]

then it is up to you, and you alone, to figure out how to let the legit segment use their fair use rights to make back-ups, whilst stopping those that pirate. what is your game plan? hell, i don't even own a console, but i don't like the idea of taking away some legit use because some people (majority or otherwise) use it in a bad way.

side note: if console makers just had free, open development in the first place like they should, none of this would be a problem, but they don't because they are retarded.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[daveime]

You might as well argue that a 3 year old drawing a picture of her favorite cartoon character, then giving it to her friend as a gift constitutes "a derivative copyrighted work that was then distributed".

You sir, are a moron.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[daveime]

Wow - using an SDK is piracy?

Torrenting it and then distributing code compiled with it both are

So, if I use MS Visual Studio to compile MY code, somehow that is a violation of THEIR copyright.

They aren't distributing the SDK itself, so no copyright has been infringed. And mores to the point, if they didn't want people using their SDK, why on earth did they make it public ?

If I build a house out of bricks, I'm not infringing the copyright of the brick manufacturer. I'm merely using their tool to create something that is mine.

Oh, and just because something is "torrented" doesn't automatically make it illegal. If I put it on an FTP server, or send it as an email attachment, does that somehow make it "better" than a torrent ?

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Boogaroo]

Torrenting it and then distributing code compiled with it both are, which is what everyone who is using the Sony SDK did. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. If Sony didn't grant you a license to use the PS3 SDK, then you aren't allowed to legally use it.

I know that physical object and copyright don't match 100%, but consider the following scenario:

A guy steals a knife from someone. The knife is infinitely reproducible so while the owner hasn't lost anything except control over the knife, it makes the owner of the knife angry.
Using the knife, the guy whittles a bunch of wood into neat little sculptures which are also infinitely reproducible.
Sure you can prosecute the taking of the knife, but what of the sculpture? Does he not have ownership of his sculptures?

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[eldepeche]

The US Copyright Office periodically publishes an exclusive list of permitted exceptions to the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions. Unlocking a phone is on the list. Unlocking a video game console for this purpose isn't.

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

I think you should be able to do it. The DMCA is a pile of shit. There's no good reason why uses of hardware that don't involve copyright infringement or unauthorized network access should be prohibited,

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing to say that what people are doing with the jailbreak software is connected to piracy. The hardware is paid for. SONY got paid! I bought the console. Its mine now. Is it their business if I use it as a door stop, or as a device to remotely open the garage door? NO! The jailbreak software is a step in opening up the box. Its none of their business whether I use my PS3 as a door stop or whether I use the jailbreak software on it. Their only complaint is if I steal games, and the jailbreak software can be used for other purposes than stealing games or whatever. The jailbreak software wasn't created by them. Its not theirs, and its none of their business. The issue here is fair use, and SONY is stepping way way over the line. I understand that SONY would like to pull a Microsoft "oh, its only licensed, not sold, so no warranty...", and besides giving no warranty, they can dictate use (and while we are at it, I can see car/television/furniture manufacturers all pulling the 'licensed, not sold' junk so that no one has warranties anymore, and consumers are locked into crap). Its all garbage. But this isn't software and PS3' s aren't sold that way. First sale doctrine: I bought it, its mine, and I can use it as a door stop or reverse engineer it if I want. Go ahead, gnash those teeth.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[nedlohs]

The DMCA exception in question is:

"""
(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.
""" - http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

Please explain how jailbreaking your PS3 to use as a PC/media server fits into that?

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[nedlohs]

Sorry, snipped too much, also:

"""
(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.
""" - http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

I suspect you are still going to have a hard time fitting a PS3 acting as media server into that...

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[wierd_w]

Mods:

What part of my post was flamebait?

(Seriously, I really want to know.)

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Bert64]

If you've saved money by not having to buy games, you can use the money you saved to buy multiple platforms to play those pirated games on. Not all games exist for all platforms.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Bert64]

Aside from the convenience...
Many people live in very small apartments especially in large cities, where are we supposed to store 400 or more DVD cases? I certainly don't have any space for that, but a couple of 2TB hard drives is far less of a problem.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Bert64]

As you say, people with limited funds...
These people would have bought few, if any, games if they weren't able to pirate them. And if they do pirate games, chances are their limited funds will be used to buy accessories like controllers (remember when games consoles actually came with 2 controllers?).

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Bert64]

And they say the GPL is viral...

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Bert64]

I have a device capable of running psgroove, and i have a ps3 which runs an old version of the firmware (not currently compatible with the jailbreak but i dont want to upgrade).
It currently runs linux through the otheros feature, but as soon as a version comes out which uses the jailbreak and can give me full access to the hardware i intend to use it.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Bert64]

Take guns for an example, there are legal uses for them (shooting targets etc)... But i would wager a significant portion of actual gun use is illegal.
In many countries guns are tightly controlled, yet the US has rather looser controls than most countries.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Bert64]

And what if those circumvention devices are distributed by someone outside of the jurisdiction of the DMCA and you as a US citizen are simply purchasing one and keeping it to yourself?

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for this sane and calm answer to a slightly flaimbait-y post. Much appreciated.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot's idiotic UI means that if the moderating user uses the mouse wheel to scroll down the page while leaving the focus set to the moderation list control, you will end up with a random moderation. I've done this before, myself. That accounts for a lot of seemingly nonsensical moderations.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Man On Pink Corner]

Oh, come off it. You aren't fooling anybody but yourself with the self-righteous lawyer/logician schtick.

Here's an idea: why don't the "homebrewers" spend their considerable time and effort working on a platform that isn't proprietary to a criminally avaricious company who doesn't want anyone else to work with it or add value to it? Turn your back on Sony, shake off the dust from your boots, and walk away.

Unless, of course, the "homebrewers" are mostly interested in warezing games. Then it suddenly makes sense for them to focus so much time and effort on the PS3 and other locked-down consoles.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[ThePhilips]

Proper comparison would be "glibc is viral". Many game SDK have redistributable part which has to go along with the game/incorporates itself in the final product. GNU/FSF/etc works also incorporate special provisions which establish the boundary between your (potentially proprietary work) and the work of GNU/FSF/etc which was used to create it. Thanks to great attention to licensing in the Linux world, most of the time it is a very clean cut: here is my code, there - not mine. On consoles that traditionally was different (and I think in part intentionally) to have the final products to incorporate large chunk of code owned by the manufacturer. This way Sony and Nintendo have to be a part of any game publishing deal - and there is no way around it.

So if GPL/glibc (or GCC with its libgcc_s.so) might be viewed as viral, they also contain clean provisions revolving around making sure that final product belongs to its producer and may not be limited in its distribution by glibc or gcc authors.

Consoles SDKs are the opposite: they intentionally contaminate final products, to allow the control over its distribution.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

The PS3 JB is for piracy, that was how it was even advertised. The homebrew software is all garbage at the moment, but will undoubtably improves. No one has managed to enable OtherOS or install Linux. The Judge only has to ask what do these devices allow to be installed, and it's becomes clear, 99.99% of usage is for piracy.

Should that be a reason to ban the devices and hide the information, absolutely not!

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[ThePhilips]

Wow - using an SDK is piracy?

Torrenting it and then distributing code compiled with it both are

So, if I use MS Visual Studio to compile MY code, somehow that is a violation of THEIR copyright.

It tells me that you actually never released a single program. By "released" I of course mean package it and sell it to people.

Because if you ever did, you would have known that MS has so called redistributable run-time libraries covered by special license, allowing you to deliver the piece of MS proprietary libraries along your own program. Because the proper version of run-time is required to run the final program - and user isn't guaranteed to have it install. That's why you have to ship it with your program.

And the fonts. Probably the only thing ever I could praise the MS sincerely: break the iron grip of font foundries on the market. All fonts MS delivers with Windows can be used by 3rd party software, can be redistributed to any other Windows version, etc. To my knowledge MS was first who bothered to buy a bunch of fonts with all right for its OS - and extend some of the rights to software developers. Because before 3rd party software developers had to fork money to font foundries if they wanted to redistribute (or even use installed) the fonts with their programs.

Console manufacturers on the other side do intentionally limit the rights of software developers using the SDKs. And as can be seen the ways are many.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[smallfries]

Torrenting it

Yes, sharing copies of it is definitely copyright infringement.

and then distributing code compiled with it both are

Not exactly; if compiling "with" it means including some part of it for distribution then it is clearly a violation. But normally compiling with an SDK means compiling against it: distributing code that calls it, but not the SDK code itself. This is not a violation of copyright.

which is what everyone who is using the Sony SDK did. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement.

Are they? I've never used it so I don't know but does the final executable contain / redistribute some part of their code, or just use their API. Because only one of these two cases is violating.

If Sony didn't grant you a license to use the PS3 SDK, then you aren't allowed to legally use it.

Nope, that's just wrong, or at the very least a stretch too far. Redistributing any part of their copyrighted material without a license is a violation of their copyright. But using it without their permission is not in itself a breach.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Schadrach]

And by "code specifically and exclusively designed to play copied Blu-Ray games" you mean the disabled out of the box (by that I mean you have to alter the source and recompile to enable it, or use a fork of PSGroove that has done so -- there are several) ability to mount a folder on any attached device in place of the Blu-Ray device.

I do wonder from what you've said though, since I haven't analyzed the payload -- is it as simple as you claim, is the code that allows blu-ray redirection completely unused by the rest of the payload and all non-BackupManager software in any way, such that it would be trivial to remove that piece of code while not effecting the rest of the functionality in any way?

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

What he means is that the DMCA specifically states that phones are allowed to switch carrier networks.

While the two scenarios are similar, one is actually written in the DMCA.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Sollord]

Well can they use the jailbreak to play off of BD-R discs? BD-Rs are down to $1 for a 25gb disc. If I'm not mistaken most ps3 games are not 50gb dual layer disc but simple 25gb blurays. Some of the exclusive games probably are over 25gb but cross platform games are unlikely to hit 25+gb since its extra info no other system will use. It's the 90% of people who ruin it for the 10% who want to play with the hardware.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[staticneuron]

Sony is not going after the people "installing" the hack. Just those distributing a modified version of their code. As a user you are free to hack the console, all you have to do is accept what goes along with it after you violate TOS/EULA/Warranty, which is normally a loss of service and support for the regular functions of the PS3.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Sollord]

People with limited funds who will never buy another non-PSN game ever. What accessories will they buy? 1 extra controller?

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[marcansoft]

Since I am interested in homebrew, not backups, I simply do not endorse or associate myself with tools that enable copies (legitimate or not).

There is no practical way to allow fair use backups while not allowing piracy. Therefore, as a homebrew developer, it's a hell of a lot easier to just stay away from the entire business of copying games. Would it be nice to be able to back up games? Absolutely. But I don't consider it essential, and involving yourself with it inevitable means associating yourself with piracy, which is something I think homebrew developers would do best to avoid.

Besides, it's not like backing up your games is an inherent expectation when buying a console. Everyone knows full well that the DRM restricts their rights. It's not our job to fully and completely crack every aspect of the DRM for every purpose; if you really dislike some aspect of the DRM, then you probably should've voted with your wallet and not have bought the system in the first place.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[marcansoft]

They aren't distributing the SDK itself, so no copyright has been infringed.

Yes they are. Once you include SDK headers or link your application with the SDK libraries, it becomes a derivative work and for our intents and purposes equivalent to distributing portions of the SDK.

Most SDKs have special license provisions that allow this, which is common sense (otherwise the SDK would be useless). Those license provisions aren't as broad for console SDKs, nor do they apply if you aren't a legal user of the SDK to begin with. If you aren't an authorized Sony developer publishing your game through Sony, you aren't licensed to use or link with or distribute code built with the Sony PS3 SDK, as doing so means redistributing portions of said SDK, which is copyright infringement without a license.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[marcansoft]

Not exactly; if compiling "with" it means including some part of it for distribution then it is clearly a violation. But normally compiling with an SDK means compiling against it: distributing code that calls it, but not the SDK code itself. This is not a violation of copyright.

Compiling code against the SDK implies including SDK headers (which are considered copyrightable, especially for nontrivial ones; for example, lots of GPU code is inlined in headers for speed) and statically linking SDK libraries (this isn't a PC where most things are dynamically linked). Both of these clearly produce a derivative work.

Normally, PC SDKs and similar have redistribution licenses that cover the redistributable parts of the SDK. These licenses are often taken for granted, but they need to be there. Console SDKs have different licenses that only apply if you're an authorized developer with a license to use the SDK and who is publishing through the console manufacturer.

Of course, you can use Sony's SDK's compiler (which is a GCC fork) to build some app that doesn't use any of their libraries (careful though, you'll have to use -ffreestanding and -nostartfiles and -nostdlibs, otherwise you link in their crt0.o and libc!), and distributing that app would be legal, but this is a totally pointless exercise because you can trivially build a PowerPC GCC that does the same. The useful parts of the SDK are the headers and statically linked libraries.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[daveime]

Because the proper version of run-time is required to run the final program - and user isn't guaranteed to have it install

Fine, yes, for a computer, the user could have anything on there.

But we're talking about a console ... there is ONE version of the PS3, no more, no less (and it updates itself automatically, much to the chagrin of people who thought they were buying a computer OS also) ... the RTLs are all flashed into the system. All your "compiled code" is doing is calling built in routines AFAIK, there's no need to package the graphics driver library or the sound driver library along with every single game released.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Schadrach]

Of course, but they should still be targeting the people actually violating their copyrights rather than the guys who are doing something directly analogous to what was declared legal with phones recently.

In all reality the genie is out of the bottle, and it's only a matter of time before custom firmware is released that tells Sony it's current and has the full current feature set but allows execution of unsigned code. The current version of PSGroove is capable of allowing homebrew to write to the firmware, CFW is just a matter of time.

Their response to the hack is just a continuation of what happened with GeoHot. They retroactively cut a feature (Other OS) from consoles in the wild. They have since done it again (the ability to use third party USB devices at all). Frankly, everyone who knows about this hack is going to grab one whether they care about piracy or not, and refuse to update until there's CFW, ideally CFW that restores OtherOS.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[marcansoft]

by that I mean you have to alter the source and recompile to enable it

There is no source, as the payload is a hacked (hex edited) version of the original PSJailbreak payload. All they did was change the string /dev_bdvd to something else, to break the functionality. All you need to do is get a hex editor and change those four characters back to bdvd.

is it as simple as you claim, is the code that allows blu-ray redirection completely unused by the rest of the payload

Pretty much, yes. It's a special call that invokes special code to trigger the redirection. You can get rid of all of that and still keep the debug package patches and the unsigned code patch.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

As it currently stands I know more people that pirate games for their Xbox and Wii than I do for PC Games. PC games being easier to pirate is irrelevent, people will pirate whatever they want to play if it is an option and it isn't exactly hard to pirate for the 360 or Wii (and now the PS3). I have been around gaming a long time and I can honestly say I don't know a single person that has hacked their console for any reason other than to play pirated games, even backups is a ridiculous excuse with the current guarentees and replacement disc deals you can get with most game shops.

obviously you've never heard of XBMC

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Schadrach]

OK, so does that mean that the PSJailbreak is illegal but that at least one of the open source implementations of the same hack (PSGroove) is fine because it specifically disabled the piracy functionality (though in a trivial way if you look at the source) and it's creators do not talk about piracy at all aside from the clear declaration "This software is not intended to enable piracy, and such features have been disabled. This software is intended to allow the execution of unsigned third-party apps and games on the PS3."?

It can't be used for piracy out of the box (read: without altering the source and recompiling).
It advertises itself as specifically not intended for piracy, and that such use has been disabled.

Would you consider it in the same position as PSJailbreak?

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[daveime]

So why isn't this classified as fair use ?

You aren't making a derivative copy of the entire SDK, you are using a subset of the SDK to create your game. Your game is not functional as an SDK in itself, so it is not derivative. In fact, if you aren't including source code (headers, whatever you want to call them), the call to a certain function presumably always lies at the same address in flash / memory ... how could you prove that the SDK had been used to create that code ? The call is to the same address whichever development platform was used to create the code.

Their terms are wrong, and I'm surprised they are legally enforceable. Well no, I'm not surprised because judges don't need to be knowledgeable in the cases they try, and this is the US we are talking about, where the legal system is fucked up anyway.

Sony are simply trying to equate using something as making a derivative copy of something, which is absolute nonsense. Example ...

A piano is an instrument that allows you to make music. When you create something on a piano, you aren't COPYing the piano. The music "Mozart's Concerto in D Minor" is NOT a piano. It is something created by a piano.

Now s/piano/SDK and s/music/game ... see what I mean ?

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Schadrach]

That's simple, the "Right to Bear Arms" is explicitly stated as being sacrosanct. The public doesn't see DRM etc as an infringement on property rights, as they largely drink the industry Kool-Aid. Hence why restricting one is a crime against humanity and the other is perfectly fine.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[ThePhilips]

Should I bother to reply when you haven't bothered to read what you respond to?

Console manufacturers on the other side do intentionally limit the rights of software developers using the SDKs. And as can be seen the ways are many.

While MS makes sure that the program you create using its development tools belongs 100% to you, console manufacturers do it other way around: (1) make sure that the program embeds part of SDK and (2) limit redistribution rights (e.g. give SDK license only to few selected publishers) using the copyright for the embedded part. IOW resulting program isn't copyrighted only by the game developer - it is also automatically copyrighted by the console/SDK manufacturer.

there is ONE version of the PS3, no more, no less

Are you living on the moon?

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

idea. can we use ps3 as a video voip phone?

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it sucks having to burn the two calories necessary to put a disc into a console.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[marcansoft]

Your game is not functional as an SDK in itself, so it is not derivative.

That's not how copyright works. Derivative works don't have to be in the same class or perform the same function as the original, they just have to be derivative.

the call to a certain function presumably always lies at the same address in flash / memory

Static linking doesn't work like that. Your final binary includes large chunks of the SDK inside it (for typical homebrew, the SDK portions are larger than the homebrew itself). And the addresses of those chunks of code change depending on how things get linked. It's the same output that you would get if you had the full source code of the SDK libraries and used it as part of your app, except you don't get to see or change that code. The end result, nonetheless, includes a fully relocated and linked version of it.

Their terms are wrong, and I'm surprised they are legally enforceable. Well no, I'm not surprised because judges don't need to be knowledgeable in the cases they try, and this is the US we are talking about, where the legal system is fucked up anyway.

I don't see why there would be an issue enforcing a license which is clearly being violated if you're not an authorized developer. Doing what you want with your own hardware is/should be a right, but you don't have the right to getting a convenient SDK for it.

Sony are simply trying to equate using something as making a derivative copy of something, which is absolute nonsense.

They are, in fact, equivalent, in this case, as I've explained. This is how embedded SDKs work. This isn't new and applies to every console SDK and also pretty much every embedded SDK. It even applies to PC applications, just to a lesser extent: library code is usually dynamically linked, but header files are statically included, your program includes the compiler's support functions (e.g. floating point emulation where necessary, and general support routines such as function prologue and exception handling helpers). You also use the library's crt0 startup code. Again, these things come with licensing exceptions (e.g. libgcc comes with a linking exception) that we take for granted, but those licensing exceptions are still required.

Compiling code with a development system isn't like producing a data file with an application (e.g. making a document in a word processor). Software compilation always involves copying (sometimes large) parts of code from the SDK into your app.

Now s/piano/SDK and s/music/game ... see what I mean ?

Using prototype.js or jQuery on your Web application means you COPY them into your website and include them via script tags.

Now s/jQuery/SDK/ and s/Web application/game/ and s/script tags/static linking/. See what I mean?

(ignore the fact that you can include them from external URLs; this isn't an option on consoles. You have to pretend that instead of <script src=...> you actually copy and paste the entire thing into an inline <script> block)

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Ah, now we come to the crux of the issue. Jailbreaking your phone is specifically itemized by the DMCA, and not the more general jailbreaking any hardware. This truly is one of the worst laws of our time...

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[ciderbrew]

You do not need to spend $1,000 on a machine to be on par with a PS3. Very cheap budget bits will match it.
If you include a decent TV and surround sound system to use the PS3, then the costs go over $1,000 in no time.

I've bought a new graphics card for £200 two weeks ago. Out of interest, I re-installed Oblivion to see the difference. I can now play it in 1080p with everything maxed. I even downloaded the better texture mods. The game looks great and I although I didn't intend to do anything other than look about. I'm right back into playing it. - You can't to that with a console.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should actually read and understand the content before you start asking completely redundant and loaded questions to which we all know the answer. The short answer is you are trolling for the answer you WANT to hear rather than the actually correct answer, which has already been provided numerous times. Period.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[mcgrew]

I think the bigger problem is game companies charging $50+ for frankly shitty games that are nothing but eye candy without any gameplay and then looking for a scape goat.

This is the only way anybody loses money from piracy -- they find out the game sucks and buy one that doesn't suck instead. Pirate might have been hoodwinked into buying the sucky game had he not played it first.

The same goes for books, movies, and music. If you give away something that sucks you won't make any money. Give away quality and you'll make money.

Nobody's going to buy a game/book/movie/CD if they know it sucks, but people WILL pay for quality. Nobody good ever lost money from piracy, but many authors have been impoverished by obscurity.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[smallfries]

Why would it be clear that using a header file creates a derivative work? (linking against libraries statically obviously does). The purpose of header files is to define interfaces. They don't leave any residual code in the final product. In most cases the final result of including a header file is a bunch of constants being defined (and numbers can't be copyrighted) and information about the layout of a library that is being called.

Remember: a copyrighted work must have some creative input. It is not the binary components of the SDK that Sony claim copyright on, rather it is the source-code behind them which was created by a human.

If the only influence on the output of a header file is that a table of numbers was baked into the residual code, then no derivative work can be claimed as there was no creativity in creating the original - it is simply a list of offsets, and databases of facts don't get treated the same way under copyright law as source does.

Again, I've never seen the SDK and the headers could easily have code in them in which case it's a whole different ball-game and something compiled from them would then clearly be a derivative work.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[hedwards]

Technically speaking that wouldn't help. The courts have forced companies that offer backup software for copyright materials to stop selling the software. But deCSS was ruled to be protected by the 1st amendment protections on free expression.

So, it's likely that people giving away software and instructions are free to continue, anybody selling a product to do it not so much.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[hedwards]

It's oddly ironic how Sony, the company behind Betamax suddenly became concerned with piracy as soon as they were making money off of selling original copies.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[hedwards]

I didn't realize that you'd been appointed final arbiter of who is and is not guilty. Perhaps we could have you decide which GITMO inmates are guilty and save the cost of a trial.

Or perhaps you're full of it and don't have any idea as to who and how many are genuinely making backups.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[DragonWriter]

You might as well argue that a 3 year old drawing a picture of her favorite cartoon character, then giving it to her friend as a gift constitutes "a derivative copyrighted work that was then distributed".

Well, it does, but that doesn't mean the liability would be the same as for other acts of that type, because, of course, both criminal and civil laws often have provisions which treat children, especially very young children, different in terms of liability.

You sir, are a moron.

I'm not sure how stating a fact that would, if one ignored a critical factor, tend to support a conclusion that you find distasteful makes someone a "moron".

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[marcansoft]

I did mention that (some of) the headers contain code, especially graphics-related ones that include static inline functions or #define macros for speed.

And even then, just merely using a library's headers and dynamically linking to it is definitely not as clear cut as you make it sound. Just ask the FSF; at least they swear and maintain that (dynamically or statically) linking against GPLed code means you are bound by the terms of the GPL. At some point, a library interface ceases to be a "database of facts". Consider a complex library that defines a multitude of interfaces including data structures. Just because there is no executable code doesn't mean the interface and its structures and their definitions cannot be considered a creative work.

This is a moot point, though, because code compiled with the Sony SDK statically links in their libraries.

Remember: a copyrighted work must have some creative input. It is not the binary components of the SDK that Sony claim copyright on, rather it is the source-code behind them which was created by a human.

The copyrightable material is created in the form of source code, but that copyright status is maintained through any transformations, manual or automated. Binary code has as much creative input as the source code it is produced from.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

There's no good reason why uses of hardware that does involve copyright infringement should be prohibited. If it is my machine then it should obey commands from me, not anyone else.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[eldepeche]

That's a good point. If X is illegal, then punish people for X; don't make it illegal to make a computer do X.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Nursie]

Probably, unsure at present, but you still need to get the data from somewhere, and here in Australia 25GB is a serious portion of your monthly broadband allowance for a lot of people. And it's gonna take a while to download, too.

That said, in places like malaysia, china etc, this may well open the door for large scale commercial piracy as they have many many shops that sell copies only.

I once went to one of these and surprised them.

"Ooooh! You want original! No, sorry, not here..."

Meh. Damned pirates, ruining it for us hackers.... and enabling us too I suppose.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do all the people that modded the Wii play pirated games? I don't. Likewise with the PS2. But then I would try to install linux/BSD on a toaster if I thought there was a chance of it booting.

So true. I keep hearing "no one uses Linux on the PS3" and "only pirates want to mod their console" but from my point of view that's bullshit. I don't have ANY pirated games for my PS2, and I WANT to be able to run Linux on my PS3. Why? My reasons are because I want to port a distribution to it so I can iron out portability bugs, and to explore the PS3 platform (it's limitations, advantages etc.). There aren't all that many alternative architectures you can (easily) get your hands on. It would also give me the perfect excuse to take a look at the bluetooth stuff in Linux. My reason for wanting Linux on the PS3 isn't "just because", but because it's INTERESTING, in more ways than one.

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

No one has managed to enable OtherOS or install Linux

Not true, although it's not in a releasable state yet: http://psx-scene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67372

Re:Sony should have lost this already.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you know someone.
I mod-chipped my original Xbox to run XBMC.
I had at the time, a real young Niece and Nephew that loved to play games on it.
Since DCMA obstructed my right to make archival backups, I installed a larger hard drive and first copied the games the kids liked to play to it.
My Brother has purchased over 130 Xbox games that he has copied to the hard drive of his Modded Xbox.

The only real question is...

[istartedi]

The only real question is, can anybody figure out how to fit the source on a T-shirt? If yes, the case is moot, right?

Sort of half joking. In all seriousness, is the source small enough to compress, encode in printable form, and put on a shirt along with instructions for use?

Re:The only real question is...

[toastar]

just print it in a book, ala pgp

Re:The only real question is...

[nacturation]

The only real question is, can anybody figure out how to fit the source on a T-shirt? If yes, the case is moot, right?

I take it you're referring to this?

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/

A wonderful gallery of multiple representations of the "illegal" DeCSS DVD decryption code presented with artistic merit. For example, the DeCSS code can be represented as a prime number. Does this make that prime number illegal?

Re:The only real question is...

[istartedi]

Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. I guess it might be a bit of a leap to assume everybody on /. remembers that. Sometimes I forget about the steady flow of teenagers just discovering geek history. Wow! Your link starts out referring to dates in the year 2000. Is DeCSS really that old? How time flies.

Re:The only real question is...

[mjwx]

The only real question is, can anybody figure out how to fit the source on a T-shirt? If yes, the case is moot, right?

12 pt font for shirts sold in Europe, 20 pt font for shirts sold in America.

Thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

, "PSGroove," "OpenPSJailbreak," and "PSFreedom,"

Okay Sony-- thanks for letting me know what to google for. Can you save me some search time by suing someone who might have a walkthrough or tutorial?

Re:Thanks!

[Pojut]

Streisand powers, activate!

Re:Thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful... "or who may have knowledge of the distribution or sale of this software".

You and I both have knowledge of the distribution of this software, so presumably are in line for litigation. Personally, I can't wait ;-)

dangerous, but they'll keep trying

[Anonymous Coward]

This is dangerous; it's only a matter of time until we lose the right to use our own hardware how we see fit. Maybe this decision will go that way or maybe it won't, but if not, they'll just try again... and again... and again until finally it does.

Sanity is leaving the computing industry, locked down device by locked down device.

Re:dangerous, but they'll keep trying

[luther349]

naa no case like that has stood in court the modders won every time xbox original modders won wii hackers won iphone hackers won. hell sony even tried this stunt on the ps2 and failed. don't we have laws on wasting the courts time.

That summary

[Master Moose]

Made about as much sense as what Sony has been (and by the looks of things) and will continue to do to their customers

Re:That summary

[Master Moose]

Which makes about as much sense as my previous post.

I must remember to proof-read posts
I must remember to proof-read posts
I must remember to proof-read posts

I Don't Understand Why...

[BlueStrat]

I don't understand why Sony doesn't just send the jailbreak software authors a few select "complimentary" Sony music CDs. They could then simply delete the code at their leisure.

Strat

Re:I Don't Understand Why...

[Yvan256]

You seem to assume that these guys are using Windows, with auto-run enabled on top of that.

Re:I Don't Understand Why...

[Ant P.]

And would want to listen to the contents of Sony music CDs instead of putting them in a blender.

Re:I Don't Understand Why...

[BlueStrat]

I think this is where one replies;

"WHOOSH!"

YMMV

Re:I Don't Understand Why...

[amicusNYCL]

I'm sorry sir, but that's an invalid use of "WHOOSH!". The respondent clearly had to "get" the joke in order to respond the way that he did. I'm going to have to issue a demerit, and I would remind you that this will go on your permanent record.

Re:I Don't Understand Why...

[BlueStrat]

I'm sorry sir, but that's an invalid use of "WHOOSH!". The respondent clearly had to "get" the joke in order to respond the way that he did. I'm going to have to issue a demerit, and I would remind you that this will go on your permanent record.

Heh!

I'm going to have to appeal my "Whoosh!" on the basis that respondent did *not* clearly get the joke, as demonstrated by his failure to grasp that the joke was that this topics' discussion of Sony's hostile behavior toward users was compared in my post to past hostile behavior in an absurd and ironic manner.

Respondent's post was an almost purely system administration/technical reply alluding only to the practical likelyhood of success of rootkit infection and demonstrably failed to grasp the gist of the humor or irony involved.

Did I mention that there are Wookies on Endor? :D

Strat

Re:I Don't Understand Why...

[amicusNYCL]

Respondent's post was an almost purely system administration/technical reply alluding only to the practical likelyhood of success of rootkit infection and demonstrably failed to grasp the gist of the humor or irony involved.

Ah HA! You have committed a fatal mistake! So you admit that respondent did in fact make the connection between Sony's audio CDs and the well-known fact that they contractually must include a rootkit on all media produced. Granted, respondent's response did not include any hint of humor that anyone other than him could observe, but clearly he had to understand the joke in order to respond so accurately.

Also, never get into a land war in Asia.

Lost Cause

[Anonymous Coward]

No action that Sony could take from this point forward, with regard to the jailbreak, could improve their situation.

Perception, monetary, whatever. No Action!

Endgame?

[kurokame]

You're not going to unhack it. Your target doesn't have anything in their pockets to take. You're not going to silence anyone. In fact, this will just draw more attention to the hack and probably expose it to completely new audiences which may not have been aware of it yet.

I see a few possibilities. Firstly, spite. Secondly, it may be a knee-jerk response by people disconnected from the realities of the situation. Lastly, they may need to establish intent to protect their DRM in order to validate future efforts to defend it as valid protection in the courts and to developers.

Re:Endgame?

[JordanL]

With corporations as large as Sony, it's almost surely #2 and/or #3.

Re:Endgame?

[Dachannien]

In fact, this will just draw more attention to the hack and probably expose it to completely new audiences which may not have been aware of it yet.

In other news, the children of four out of five Sony execs have beans up their noses.

It is silly...

[Darkness404]

It is silly that Sony and the US government through copyright laws, seems to think that Sony should own our consoles that we paid for, and quite honestly it sets a disturbing precedent against property rights. If Sony wants to try to block people from accessing PSN for this, if Sony wants to make firmware updates to prevent this it should be well within their rights, but don't tell me what I can and can't do with -my- console. The idea that I don't own the hardware that I bought and should be able to run whatever on it is quite scary. Property rights need to be balanced to have a free economy, Sony should own their services and I should own my own console.

The next thing you know, people are going to sue for removing the OEM copy of Windows off of your new computer...

Re:It is silly...

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU FOOL! Do you not realize that you just gave Microsoft execs another "bright" idea? Now we are truly screwed.

Re:It is silly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony is not telling you what you can or can't do on your console. They're not suing YOU. They're suing the people that distribute software that violates Sony's software terms of use. You are not part of this equation.

consoles or PC's ?

[volcan0]

Seriously, where does the line between a console and an embedded system lies ? I mean, if this would go through, does this mean that DELL can ship a computer running windows and legally refrain you from installing another operating system or restricting you to an app store with pre-approved apps ? I understand that one is a general purpose computer while the other is a game console, so the intended usage is the difference. But under the hood, they are the same hardware ( ok, not litteraly... ) and can do exactly the same things. Can you imagine the legal precedent this would set ?

Re:consoles or PC's ?

[slinches]

I understand that one is a general purpose computer while the other is a game console, so the intended usage is the difference.

To muddy the waters even further, the PS3 was originally advertised as being a general purpose computer as well a game console through the "Other OS" capability. Sony, with their decision to remove Other OS in a required software update, effectively made PS3 owners choose between their hardware being a general purpose computer or a game console. Assuming the firmware update EULA is upheld, I think Sony may have an argument that by updating to firmware 3.41 (necessary to use the current jailbreak exploit) the console owners would have to accept the removal of the device's ability to be a general purpose computer. Although, that could be complicated by a release of jailbreak code that works with firmware 3.15 (last one with Other OS) which is supposedly being worked on right now.

I don't envy the judge and jury in this case.

Re:consoles or PC's ?

[Anonymous Coward]

And before Sony's update, the PS3 was a general computing device.

Re:consoles or PC's ?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the reasons Sony initially put OtherOS capabilities into the PS3 was so that they could claim that the PS3 was a "General Purpose Computer" and dodge a bunch of European taxes... If I was a citizen of one of those countries I would be asking why they are not now suing Sony for those back taxes and/or the reinstatement of the OtherOS functionality.

Re:consoles or PC's ?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Apathy.

As long as Joe Sixpack can play Cod2 and PES with his mates, he doesn't give half a shit, let alone a full one, about the Other OS functionality, how much tax Sony dodges, whether jailbreaking the console is made illegal, or whether they actually own the console. They Just. Don't. Care.

Re:consoles or PC's ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much seems like the description of an Apple MacBook to me...

get ready for your subpoena

[aethogamous]

...or who may have knowledge of the distribution or sale of this software.'"

I think by now this includes everyone on slashdot...

Re:get ready for your subpoena

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, they should enforce their will with a ring of PS3-controlled orbiting brain lasers. It would be easier than wasting their time with all this "law" business.

Re:get ready for your subpoena

[black_penguin]

They can do it. They are giant. They got lot of money. They can 'buy' law. Who are we?

PSFreedom? Where?

[Tester]

Unlike what the summary says, I see nothing about PSFreedom in there. It seems to be mostly about PSJailbreak which if I understand correctly is a dongle, so there is a commercial side to it. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Re:PSFreedom? Where?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's in there - not sure which page,, but here's a quote from eXophase:

"Similarly, a motion also contests that “SCEA has served DMCA “take down” notices to sites hosting this illicit software, but as yet has been unable to verify the identity of those behind its copying and distribution,” in reference to PSGroove and its variants."

Source: http://exophase.com/ps3/sony-motions-for-subpoenas-targeting-psjailbreak-devices-psgroove-software-18591.htm

Screw these guys, I'll mirror

[jmorris42]

I don't even own a PS3 (or any console for that matter) but I have about had it with this DMCA crap. There isn't any Sony copyrighted code in the crack is there? If somebody can point me to a good description of how to jailbreak one of these damned things I'll host it on my homepage and then toss the gauntlet down to Sony. I'm a humble librarian but one benefit is I can use a page on our server. Ever seen how rabid the library world gets when the word 'censorship' gets tossed their way?

Way I see it I can't be subject to a Sony EULA since the only Sony product I own is a fairly basic receiver. If there is no Sony code copied into the crack I can't be subject to copyright. And a text page describing something can't violate a patent. With the right disclaimers trademark is out. So that leaves it a pure DMCA play and I really don't think the bastards want that going to court. They will use em when they think they can get an instant takedown from a frightened ISP but I ain't one of those. Our lawyer happens to be the district attorney so we don't have to instantly fold at the threat of lawyering up.

The most defendable position would be detailed instructions on how to crack a PS3 for the purpose of installing Linux back on one. So has that been accomplished yet?

Haven't stuck a finger in the system's eye since my minor role in the Cuecat fiasco a decade ago. Looks like it is time to stand up again.

Re:Screw these guys, I'll mirror

[tqk]

I don't own a ps3 either, nor am I a gamer. However, as one who regularly blows away or dual boots OSs, I wonder how long it's going to take for other hardware vendors to go mental like this. It's an intriguing battle to watch, and I'll enjoy seeing Sony auger in in flames.
    http://www.physorg.com/news148749271.html

    http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/10/ps3_supercomputer

That's the history. You need newer stuff to do this. Bon chance. My hat's off to you.

Fsck, now Sony's gonna sue me. Crap.

Re:Screw these guys, I'll mirror

[Astronomerguy]

Let me know if you want a Canadian mirror. I'm good to go. I also have a USA-based site that I'm willing to offer space on as well. As a pissed-off PS3 owner who used Linux on my PS3 and who uses my console for communication, I'm willing to stand and protect my rights as a property owner against a company who took away advertised features, from a durable good that I own, after I had paid for it. Fuck the fucking fuckers, says I. Ironically, I won PSP Go this week. I'll be goddamned if I'll buy anything from the PSN. That PSP will be used for music, Skype and movies only, and maybe a game demo. $ony can kiss my ass if they think I'll give them one more red cent given their obvious contempt for their consumers.

Re:Screw these guys, I'll mirror

[jmorris42]

> Let me know if you want a Canadian mirror.

No idea what the legal status would be in Canada. I'm not a lawyer even in the US so be sure you have your own ducks in a row.

Technically I'm probably talking about violating US law (DMCA) but pretty sure Sony would lose the PR war long before they won a legal fight. Telling a library they have to suppress knowledge is so obviously asking for a nightmare that I'm betting their legal department is smart enough to know it. The trick is I'm going to need a mostly TEXT site, too much software might confuse the issue too much, remember most librarians still miss their card catalogs, tech isn't a strength. But yell "Censorship!" and the reaction is pure Pavlovian reflex.

> As a pissed-off PS3 owner who used Linux on my PS3 and who uses my console for communication...

Good, you are probably the one to find the right dark dank corners of the Internet where the knowledge to get Linux back on a PS/3 is hiding from Sony's takedown notices. Somebody finds it either post a link in this thread, or if it can't take a slashdotting email me at the address /. has for me. My server here stood up strong to a glancing blow by slashdot in '05; we have a bigger pipe now, perhaps I'll find out if it can take a direct hit. :)

Willing to put in some time cleaning up, clarifying noisy web forum threads, etc. to get a page up. As an example, currently in the process of doing that sort of contribution for www.lg-hack.info, boiling down their research to a concise set of pages on my homepage. Not being a console owner, or even much of a gamer, I just don't hang out in the right places to know where to get good info and Google hasn't come through for me yet. Still poking around though.

Re:Screw these guys, I'll mirror

[CreamyG31337]

I was going to tell you, the exploit uses binary data, which might not qualify as "text"
This guy did the psfreedom port: http://kakaroto.homelinux.net/
There's a post dated sept 16th: "I’ve also recently created a new branch in git for writing custom assembly for the payloads instead of using the hardcoded binary blob from PSJailbreak. I’ve cleaned up the payload used by PSJailbreak as well as documented it so others can read it and better understand how it works. The reverse engineering and information has been provided by the group of Mathieulh as well as some of my own reverse engineering work. You can find the ASM payload file here. AerialX from the PSGroove team is also working on cool payloads so you should check out his git repository too!"
Sorry I'm too lazy to fix the links but you get the idea...

It's comforting to know...

[countSudoku()]

That I have already purchased my last Sony device, several years ago; a first gen PSP. I think I'm done with you now, Sony. This idea ranks up there with Network Walkman. Sony and it's products are second rate crap with pretty plastics. You'd be much better off with an XBOX-360 or a Wii. Although Wii seems to be pissing me off with their download content and similar OS "downgrades". All done with Sony. You buy from them.

Re:It's comforting to know...

[seebs]

Pretty much my position. I have gotten a couple of games for the PSP, but I haven't gotten any for the PS3 in over two years, and probably never will. (I got a PS3 originally to run Linux on it...)

Sony's just stayed nasty at a time when some other companies have been starting to open up.

Re:It's comforting to know...

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys realize that Nintendo and Microsoft are doing the same thing, right? So the alternative is to not buy proprietary consoles.

Re:It's comforting to know...

[tqk]

I'd assumed that was a given from the beginning. However, these things *used to be* "Openable".

Their hardware is being legally/judicially attacked by their vendor.

Ya build a supercomputer, and ya find the guys ya bought the hardware from want to brick it at their earliest opportunity. WTF? Is that legal? We're talking PRC here, yes?

Why isn't this called cracking computers, which is illegal?

Re:It's comforting to know...

[jhanderson]

You'd be much better off with an XBOX-360

I'm so confused now... Is Slashdot endorsing Microsoft now?

I can't keep up with what companies we are supposed to hate the most around here. Can somebody make a top ten list and refresh it every couple of days so I can keep up?

Re:It's comforting to know...

[AmonTheMetalhead]

Well in all fairness, they have some pretty decent camera's, and i do use them on a nearly daily basis, it's all their other junk i avoid like the plague

Re:It's comforting to know...

[mcgrew]

I'm so confused now... Is Slashdot endorsing Microsoft now?

Your choices are Sony, MS, and Nintendo. I don't much care for MS (well, I like Excel but that's about it, my home PCs are now Windows-free) but at least Microsoft never deliberately trashed the OS and half the software on my computer like Sony did when my daughter ran Sony's trojan malware XCP. Microsoft hasn't shown any indication that they don't respect your property; XCP, this Sony action, and a few more prove once and for all that Sony doesn't give a rat's ass about private property whatever. They're not the only ones, but they're the worst.

PS3: "It only does everything"...*

[Pezbian]

* ...everything but what we originally touted.

Scary you can build a supercomputer from PS3s and immediately have the system bricked without notice. True, if it were doing anything important it would be built from different stuff, but consider this: cellphones and a bunch of other devices made in China update firmware automatically. If China had enemies, they have a potential backdoor killswitch to disable these devices. Clever.

So why can't we start making things like that? (I don't care where you are. The same strategy applies and would rock.)

Re:PS3: "It only does everything"...*

[Cochonou]

Well, as far as I know, the PS3 doesn't update without notice.

Re:PS3: "It only does everything"...*

[faragon]

Yet.

Pyrrhic victories don't need laws, just lawyers!

[mykos]

"We don't have legal ground to stand on, but we'll keep you in court until you are out of money. Doesn't matter if you were right or wrong; all that matters is that you bleed to death."

Sony, why do you constantly fight your fan base?

[Eightbitgnosis]

This is why we can't have nice things!

MOD PARENT UP

[Brett Buck]

and what twit modded this "troll"? Its directly on point

what about the issue that m$ blocks 3rd party HDD

[Joe The Dragon]

what about the issue that m$ blocks 3rd party HDD on the xbox 360 you want to pay $70 for a 120gb HDD? $129.99 for a 250gb?

Re:rawr, i sony mad!

[Anonymous Coward]

that's real advanced. i bet you're a fucking teabagger too.

Re:rawr, i sony mad!

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I'll bet lawyers have never had to deal with anyone as smart as you before

The answer is simple...

[NonSenseAgency]

Don't buy Sony products. Problem solved.

Re:The answer is simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, that doesn't make SONY go away sooner, nor does it recoup what they have stolen from us.
No, SONY deserves much more attention than just a boycott.

Re:The answer is simple...

[Shadow99_1]

I've avoided buying from them for a decade, so far this hasn't seemed to bother Sony...

Of course those few of us who avoid them don't have much impact because to many people _will_ buy regardless of how Sony acts... it's why boycotts so rarely work, you need to hurt them enough in sales that it truly effects their bottom line. And even then they are likely to blame A) 'piracy' B) economic condition C) their own employees before admitting that we actually got to them. Hence they sue more, whine about the economy, and then fire employees to try to regain balance of the pocket book... At times this even raises prices... Only after all that will they actually go 'this boycott is killing us!'.

Streisand Effect

[Asterra]

Enough said.

Development will move on to countries where Sony can't bully.

And you know what made Sony so upset as to sue everyone they could think of? I'll tell you: MKV playback support.

Dumb shits

[Legion303]

"or who may have knowledge of the distribution or sale of this software."

So like everyone in the entire fucking world, then? Good job, Sony. I don't have a PS3 and I don't ever plan to have a PS3, but you've just ensured that I'll find this software and keep it handy, just because you don't like it enough to sue some John Does over it.

Re:Pyrrhic victories don't need laws, just lawyers

[byuu]

It worked great with Bleem!, of course they were going to try again.

Note that this only gives them permission...

[John Hasler]

...to serve subpoenas. If you receive one you can (and should) contest it. They will then have to convince the judge that there is good reason you specifically should be ordered to obey this particular subpoena, and if such an order issues they will have to pay all your expenses.

Its the lawyers and Uppest Management...

[crovira]

Sony's lawyers are embarked on justifying their salaries and Uppest Management is being fed bullshit by those lawyers because they certainly don't listen to their customers.

If it bothers you so fuckin' much, STOP BUYING SONY CRAP.

Make your own hardware platform, open-source it, product it on a shoe-string.

Negotiate with games makers to port their games to your platform, while agreeing that their existing agreements with Sony will be honored (meaning NO PIRATING their software.)

End result, you have an open platform, lots of expansion capabilities, lots of games, and YOU WIN!

END OF THE WHINING....

What to do when business is bad?

[kawabago]

Sue your customers of course! Does SONY REALLY want to follow in the footsteps of industry leaders such as SCO?

Re:What to do when business is bad?

[mcgrew]

Does SONY REALLY want to follow in the footsteps of industry leaders such as SCO?

Why wouldn't they? After XCP I wouldn't put anything past them. I surely won't be buying any more Sony products; they simply can't be trusted.

I hope the exploit is turned into something GOOD

[jonwil]

I hope someone can create a payload using this exploit specifically designed to load Linux and incapable of running ANY PS3 games at all. With full access to all the hardware (maybe the NOVEAU drivers can help with the PS3s GPU)

A way to "dual boot" such that you can boot into GameOS and play games (including playing on PSN) yet at the same time can then run the exploit and load Linux would be great too.

Something that specifically allows legitimate uses without allowing any piracy at all.

Two reasons.

[mjwx]

Just because they have no real money in Sony terms does not mean this law suit wont ruin their lives.

This is about 1. getting the source code. Sony may not know exactly how the OS was broken into and 2. making an example of those responsible, sticking their heads on a Playstation pike for all to see that you do _not_ hack Sony products. Not that it would work mind you.

been there done that.

[luther349]

sonys realty has been rather warped sense the ps3. but microsoft tried this with the xbox and lost. the only thing they set was a standard for chip makers to ship blank or with lnux bios. apple tried this with iphone and lost. being there is the simple fact you do own the hardware and can tinker with it. despite what apple,microsoft and sony think. so let them go to court and lose it will be funny. they aruldy opend the flood gates removing linux and now hey will brake the dam down with this move.

Maybe not a good idea - pls read

[CreamyG31337]

Hi,
I was researching this just now. It seems the PS3 "hacks" are based on the actual PS3 "jig" that sony uses to repair PS3s. I "found" (thanks google) an official manual describing one procedure ("ID swapping") and it seems to start off by exactly describing the process of jailbreaking a PS3. (Connect Jig with USB cable, Power on and hit eject within 0.2s)
Then it goes on to describe some complete different chain of activities, looks like cloning some "ID" from the hardware onto the usb, and then allowing it to be written to another PS3. Whatever.
My point is, Sony put this (buggy) code into the PS3 on purpose, and I guess the original hacking team have reverse engineered part of it, and figured out the rest from leaked documents, enough to get the exploit running anyways. We certainly aren't booting into service mode. It seems that the PS3 USB hacking devices are partial clones of this official sony hardware, and the danger lies in the fact that despite this being "open source", we don't really understand 100% how the exploit works. Microsoft had a nice (lame) trick for their Xbox360 hard drives - the drive contains a "security sector" that is nothing more than a (copyrighted) microsoft logo. I'm just worried you could be hosting some binary Sony logo, without knowing it, or something else that they can complain is "stolen".
Here's a bit more info on service mode: http://www.ps3news.com/PS3Dev/some-playstation-3-service-mode-details-1/
Anyways, the PSFreedom Git hub is here: http://github.com/kakaroto/PSFreedom
Those are easy to clone ;)

Re:Maybe not a good idea - pls read

[CreamyG31337]

Oh, I meant to link to this too: http://www.ps3news.com/PS3-Hacks/ps3-jig-id-swapping-procedure-manual-leaked-by-demonhades/
I'll be darned if that isn't some sort of top-secret document there... Better not download it. Your Sony Rootkit will rat you out!

Re:what about the issue that m$ blocks 3rd party H

[wierd_w]

The point of an alternative multiplayer back-end is not to allow downloads to the console, but to allow existing legitimate games to be played with modifications. (done with things like Datel Xport for XBOX360, etc.)

Hacking the console's firmware to support non-branded hardware upgrades would fall outside the scope of this theoretical network service.

What MIGHT fall into it would be an alternative to the MSN store front, allowing direct download of homebrew games. (Possibly along with tricking the console into giving it a local signature so that it can run cleanly without modding.)

Re:I hope the exploit is turned into something GOO

[Elaugaufein]

That goal is usually something of a pipedream, if you provide the access to the system necessary to execute arbitrary code in a convenient way, you provide the foundation to write the software that executes a backed up or pirated game.

The only way you could disable piracy is to implement clever limits into your software, obfuscate it ferociously and keep it closed source. And even then chances are pretty good it'll get broken, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have all failed to secure a console or handheld for its lifetime since the internet provided ridiculous collaborative power.

or who may have knowledge of the distribution or s

[AmonTheMetalhead]

Oh Goodie goodie goodie, a Sony vs the World battle is about to begin! Will they start with google or yahoo?

Then this is Sony telling someone else what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Then this is Sony telling someone else what to do with something that ISN'T EVEN SONY'S.

I fail to see how this makes it better...

Actually, it's pretty simple.

[master_p]

If company X sells a product and says in the contract (or EULA) that you can't change its software in any way, then you can't change its software in any way. This means that hacking the PS3 is illegal for now, but replacing your Dell PC's operating system is legal.

If tomorrow Dell decides they don't want you to replace Windows with another O/S, then if you buy a Dell it would be illegal to change its software, because you agreed to it when you bought it. If you don't like it, return the product and buy something else.

Re:Actually, it's pretty simple.

[drinkypoo]

If company X sells a product and says in the contract (or EULA) that you can't change its software in any way, then you can't change its software in any way

Shrinkwrap EULAs are still in legal limbo, sometimes they apply, sometimes they do not. You have to agree to a contract before a purchase and it has to offer both parties something. A EULA offers nothing because First Sale law has granted you the right to fold, spindle, and mutilate your purchase, and even resell it afterwards. Copyright law requires that you transfer all copies of a copyrighted work if you transfer ownership. A company selling software as a service (e.g. selling you a license which expires, and a piece of physical media) has the right to not create a license for another party. You still have the right to sell the media to another party. No contract may trump law, which is what the EULA attempts to do. However, the DMCA places specific limits on circumvention devices which can apply to your own modifications.

You have a legal right to change the software and hardware that you buy, the EULA cannot alter that. But there are other laws you must observe beyond contract law.

"...we could build a large wooden badger?"

[rts008]

But then I would try to install linux/BSD on a toaster if I thought there was a chance of it booting.

Perhaps you would have better luck with a 'Linux Zombie Badger'?

Now, imagine a Beowolf Cluster of Linux Zombie Badgers...

"Run away! Run Away!"

Re:a better analogy...

[lpq]

You'd have a better analogy if your 2nd example was to allow the device to be compatible with a PS3-game that didn't work due only because of the licensing lock. That would be a *compatibility* issue. In your example, you have repurposed the device into something else entirely, something it would be hard to argue is a compatibility issue. You could just as easily argue that you hacked your 'X' because it wasn't compatible with the kitchen sink. Don't think that would be bought as a compatibility issue.