Sony Wins Restraining Order Against Geohot

tekgoblin writes "The courts have just issued a temporary restraining order against George Hotz (Geohot). Sony filed this lawsuit because they were unhappy that Geohot had released the Playstation 3 decryption keys so other people could play unsigned games on it. [Geohot is prohibited from] 'offering to the public, creating, posting online, marketing, advertising, promoting, installing, distributing, providing, or otherwise trafficking' in any software or methods for circumventing the PS3's protection methods. No longer can he 'provide links from any website to any other website' relating to such matters, or publish any information obtained by hacking the PS3. And more to the point, he can no longer 'engage in acts of circumvention of TPMS in the PS3 System to access, obtain, remove, or traffic in copyrighted works.' Pretty much he can't talk or think about the PS3 for some time."

Comments

No.. that would be silly.

[intellitech]

This just means he won't be attaching his name to anything PS3-related for quite some time.

(something he likely should have just done in the first place)

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[TENTH SHOW JAM]

If I were Geohotz, I wouldn't even be doing that. I might do some research on the PS3 in my spare time, but nothing would be published until the court case is over. Then, once the cheque comes form Sony paying his legal bills, release that research. His lawyer is probably telling him (for his own good) to STFU for a bit.

Having had a read through the court docs that have come to light thus far, I'd say Geohotz has this case in the bag if his legal representation can stand up.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[cpu6502]

Modification of your OWN property is not a crime. (Searches US Constitution.) I can not lay my hand on any part of this document which gives Congress the right to block you or Geohot from making mods.

On the contrary part 10 of the Bill of Rights reserves that power to the Member States of the union. And part 9 reserves to the People the right to make said modifications.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[camperslo]

Perhaps the next-generation products will get a new name, like NGP, giving him a loophole? If they really are launching a quad-core ARM-based product later this year, some might like to run unrestricted Linux on it.
Chances are it'll be expensive. And if Sony gets quad core CPUs / GPUs, others most likely will also.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sony-computer-entertainment-announces-its-next-generation-portable-entertainment-system-114703879.html

(admittedly I'm biased against Sony at this point; not a serious gamer and not too quick to forgive Sony for the rootkit fiasco)

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[intellitech]

(admittedly I'm biased against Sony at this point; not a serious gamer and not too quick to forgive Sony for the rootkit fiasco)

No kidding.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's in the TRO

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Moryath]

The answer is "interstate commerce clause."

No, seriously. Our fucked-up senile delinquents on the Supreme Court have ruled that everything under the goddamn sun falls under the "interstate commerce clause."

Want to grow your own wheat to feed to your own chickens, which means you didn't have to buy someone else's wheat? Sorry. ""Interstate Commerce."

The same crap comes up in just about any argument. Want to regulate guns? Well sure, they might conceivably be sold across state lines. Even if the original factory won't sell them out of state, a rebuyer might, or someone might buy one and ship it to someone later or someone from out of state could buy it and transport it themselves or or.... yeah. You get the picture. Regulate food, regulate clothes, everything under the damn sun can be regulated under the "interstate commerce clause"... a clause originally intended to merely stop the various states from erecting tax stations and charging "import tariffs" on each other's borders, as was happening under the Articles of Confederation....

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[PopeRatzo]

Violation of the DMCA by trafficking in a technological prevention method (TPM) workaround

I think you could make a pretty good case that the US Constitution prohibits the DMCA, though.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[exomondo]

Modification of your OWN property is not a crime.

Like this hasn't been covered a billion times before...you don't own the software, you own the hardware. You can modify the hardware all you want but the catch is that it's pretty much useless without the software.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[MooseTick]

The constitution doesn't say anything about it being illegal to travel in a vehicle greater than 30mph, but try it in a school zone and that can also land you in jail.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[westlake]

This just means he won't be attaching his name to anything PS3-related for quite some time.

Listening to advice like this explains why the bank foreclosed on your mortgage and your divorce papers were served in the county lock-up.

It is a mistake to be too clever. To try to sneak around a court order. Because someone will be watching.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[zach_the_lizard]

That's a state crime, not a federal one.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[whoever57]

I've wondered if a criminal defendent could use the interstate commerce clause against a state law.

For example, someone is prosecuted under state law for some offence. Criminal defendent says: "but this affects interstate commerce, hence it is the province of the federal governement to regulate it -- and, by the way, there isn't a federal law prohibiting this offense". Since the Supremes have completely gutted any limit to the interstate commerce clause, it's hard to imagine any activity that could not be described as affecting interstate commerce. Unless there is a federal law that specifically allows the states to regulate that activity, it seems like it would be an interesting tactic.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[nospam007]

He can still do it on websites located in 193 other countries.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[jdpars]

I've thought for a while now that we need to get rid of the interstate commerce clause, and put in its place more specific rules. Even if it didn't change anything, it would help settle Congress's power into what it is now and prevent future expansion. If it needs toned down from there, that can be done afterwards.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[areusche]

Depends on the law broken. If you crossed state lines in committing the act, then it falls under the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Trust me you don't want this to happen.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Chris Snook]

Restraining orders are civil. You're talking about criminal evidence seizures. They're totally different and unrelated legal actions.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[PopeRatzo]

It is the state that arrests & prosecutes you.

That's beside the point, which is that fiddling with your Playstation 3 is not fucking bank robbery. It's not murder. It's not terrorism. It's not even spitting on the fucking sidewalk.

I may not be able to rob a bank, but I can write a book about robbing banks, even if it requires me to research the topic by learning to crack safes.

Geohot fiddled with his PS3. He published what he learned.

Here, I'll even give a car analogy for the pudknockers who want Geohot sent to Guantanamo for crimes against humanity.

I can buy a Ford Focus, and if I had the skill and the means, I could drop in some engine (even from a different manufacturer) that could make the Focus go 200 mph, which is clearly illegal in all fifty states. That is not the same as driving 200 in a 55 zone.

The DMCA is bullshit, and once the current crop of corrupt ideologue bastards on the Supreme Court are safely retired (or whatever) it's going to be revisited. Besides being horrible law, it hinders innovation which is eventually going to cost us. It applies 19th century standards to 21st century technology and eventually it's going to collapse under its own weight. Either that or we're screwed. On further reflection, we're probably screwed, but that doesn't make the DMCA any less bullshit.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[TheRaven64]

You could make a good case for a large proportion of Federal laws. The Supreme Court might even agree in a few of them, but unless you can show that you've personally been harmed by the law and are lucky enough to win the being-heard-by-the-supreme-court lottery, then it won't help you.

Maybe if you introduced the death penalty for any politician who voted for an unconstitutional law, then the constitution would have teeth. As it is, it's easy to pass an unconstitutional law and very hard to get one overturned.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Chris Snook]

Okay, I just found the impoundment order attached to the TRO. I've never heard of anything like that in my life. Highly unusual.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[f8l_0e]

You might want to re-read the judgment on that case. It wasn't that he wasn't allowed to grow his own wheat to feed the chickens and livestock. He filed a specific acreage to sow wheat on and actually sowed double that. Had he filed the proper acreage, they wouldn't have ruled against him. Now, I don't know what the rules are regarding the taxation of a particular crop on a farm, but I would imagine that he filed a lower number to avoid being taxed. I also wonder if he had enough chickens and livestock to justify that large an excess of wheat.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[harlows_monkeys]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 + the last clause of that section.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Alanbly]

But in this case what the guy published were keys stored in hardware. They allow users to run software but they are not software.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[timeOday]

No, the answer is, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" I.e., copyright. I'm sure Sony will argue Geohot's work enables people to circumvent their copyrights - which it clearly does, although I wouldn't claim that was his primary motivation.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Solandri]

Modification of your OWN property is not a crime. (Searches US Constitution.) I can not lay my hand on any part of this document which gives Congress the right to block you or Geohot from making mods.

That's the devious and sinister part of the DMCA. It doesn't do anything with your right to modify stuff you own. You can modify your PS3 all you want, Geohot can modify their PS3s all they want. What the DMCA makes illegal is trafficking in knowledge/software needed to circumvent copyright protection mechanisms. That is, it makes it illegal for Geohot to tell you how to modify your hardware.

Essentially, it's like saying it's legal to make or own a key to a lock you own. But it's illegal for anyone to sell or make you a key, teach you how to make a key, teach you how to pick locks, or sell you lockpicks. Technically we still have the right to fair use, they've just made it illegal for us to obtain any means to exercise that right. The people who came up with that legal loophole deserve to be shot by people claiming they were aiming at targets which happened to be behind their heads.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Nadaka]

I would not go so far as to grant the death penalty for voting in an unconstitutional law. Perhaps just a fine equal to the sum total of his pay (including kickbacks and campaign contributions) for the duration of his stay in congress, for each such vote.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Mathinker]

> has this case in the bag

Ain't no such thing in court. Especially if it's a jury trial.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[exomondo]

But in this case what the guy published were keys stored in hardware. They allow users to run software but they are not software.

That's not what i was responding to, read what i quoted. But yes that is what prompted the lawsuit, though it's not confined to that.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[cpu6502]

>>>Want to regulate guns? Well sure, they might conceivably be sold across state lines.

Well here's some good news: The Supreme Court recently over-turned the Central Government's gun ban near schools. They said that calling it interstate commerce was a step too far, and that proper jurisdiction for local schools belongs to the Member State government, not the Congress.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[catmistake]

No, seriously. Our fucked-up senile delinquents on the Supreme Court have ruled that everything under the goddamn sun falls under the "interstate commerce clause."

Their argument for the taxation of breast milk makes sense... baby formula is taxed, and if a mother opts to breast feed she is affecting commerce in lost sales of baby formula.

Yes, kidding. But the decision from the case that exploded the power of that interstate commerce clause uses the same logic. If prostitution were legal commerce, masterbation would be taxed as interstate commerce, even if you never crossed state lines to do it.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[eyrieowl]

depends on whether you did anything crossing state lines...the federal government often uses seemingly trivial things like "you bought a car in another state" or something to make it a federal case.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[cpu6502]

Why does it matter? It's not the job of the Central government to ration how much wheat you can grow on your OWN property. It is the job of the Member State Legislature (per the 10th).

About 5 years earlier the Supremes made a similar ruling, where they said the Congress has no authority to tell a chicken farmer how much he can charge his customers, since said farmer only sold locally to New Jersey residents. i.e. INTRAstate commerce does not fall under the Union government's jurisdiction.

âoeResolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes â" delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government;
--- and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force
--- that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party:
--- that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers;
--- but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.â - 1799

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (both of whom were threatened by Dictator... I mean, President Adams with imprisonment for issuing this document).

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Grishnakh]

That's beside the point, which is that fiddling with your Playstation 3 is not fucking bank robbery. It's not murder. It's not terrorism. It's not even spitting on the fucking sidewalk.

No, it's something far, far worse than any of these. It's interfering with corporate profits. That's why the government is so keen on clamping down on this guy, or anyone else who releases such information. Remember, in a fascist government, corporate profits are more important than anything else.

Don't forget, murder is not even a federal crime, it's a state crime. That's why murderers usually get lesser punishments than people who traffic drugs across state lines (which is a federal crime), or those who break the DMCA (a Federal law).

Geohot fiddled with his PS3. He published what he learned.

Yes, and that's illegal, according to the DMCA, which Bill Clinton signed.

I can buy a Ford Focus, and if I had the skill and the means, I could drop in some engine (even from a different manufacturer) that could make the Focus go 200 mph, which is clearly illegal in all fifty states. That is not the same as driving 200 in a 55 zone.

You don't need to drop in a new engine to go fast in a Focus. The factory-provided engine will easily exceed 100 mph, which is also clearly illegal in all fifty states. However, there's no law specifically directed against people modifying their cars with different engines. There is a law specifically directed at preventing people from modifying electronic equipment they own to bypass encryption or other built-in protection mechanisms.

Is that law Constitutional? I doubt it, but who cares? Since when has our government followed the Constitution? You want an example? Try cashing out your bank accounts, so that you have at least $100k in cash. Carry that around with you, such as on a flight, or in your car when you get pulled over for speeding or improper signaling or whatever. See what happens when the cops find all this money on you. You probably won't be charged with anything, but you won't ever see that cash again. Seizure without due process is plainly illegal according to the 4th Amendment, but that hasn't stopped the "authorities".

The DMCA is bullshit, and once the current crop of corrupt ideologue bastards on the Supreme Court are safely retired (or whatever) it's going to be revisited. Besides being horrible law, it hinders innovation which is eventually going to cost us. It applies 19th century standards to 21st century technology and eventually it's going to collapse under its own weight. Either that or we're screwed. On further reflection, we're probably screwed, but that doesn't make the DMCA any less bullshit.

Exactly. We're screwed.

My suggestion: don't engage in this kind of behavior if you live in the US. If you really want to do this kind of thing, move to a country where freedom is more respected. It's not that hard for IT people to move to Canada, I think they even have a special consideration for IT skills in their immigration laws.

-----

When the hell is Slashdot going to fix the italics? This redesign sucks!

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Thing 1]

Good luck gaming the system.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Grishnakh]

Not good enough. He'll just declare bankruptcy, as he'd probably have spent most of the money anyway.

I have an alternative: he gets one limb amputated for every vote for an unconstitutional law. After 4, there's only one limb left, the head.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Grishnakh]

everything under the damn sun can be regulated under the "interstate commerce clause"... a clause originally intended to merely stop the various states from erecting tax stations and charging "import tariffs" on each other's borders, as was happening under the Articles of Confederation....

I'm really surprised they were dumb enough to not put in the Articles of Confederation a ban on such activity.

After all, the European Union resembles a confederation in many ways, but one of the main tenets is that member countries can't impose tariffs on each other, and there's free trade within the Union, in addition to the right of workers to move freely throughout the Union.

What's the point of a confederation without free trade?

I kinda wonder if we shouldn't just dump the Constitution, and return to a confederation, but more like what Europe has (with free trade between the states), but of course keep the Bill of Rights which in my opinion is the best part of the Constitution, and probably even beef it up some with more protections for individuals. What we have now, where the interstate commerce clause allows everything to be regulated by the central government, and states aren't allowed to leave the union, just isn't working too well. And I even wonder if we should dump the whole tricameral thing and set up a Parliamentary government like almost every other Republic in the world has. It seems to work a lot better for them than our system works for us.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[cpu6502]

It's amazing how many of ye are anxious to give the central government virtually unlimited power. If sometime this year the Congress declares, "All lights shall be turned off from 9pm to 3am," you'll not only comply like a good kitchen slave beating the yard slaves to please the master, but also sit here and Defend this as "constitutional" even though it clearly is not.

The copyright clause gives Congress the right to prosecute copiers NOT to punish people for hacking into their own purchased property like cars, TVs, or whatever, and discovering the secret to their operation ("If your Ford computer refuses to recognize your key and locks you out, here's how you unlock the code and fix it."). That is how knowledge spreads. - "Grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good."

"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of Natural Right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If Nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.

"Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by Nature when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in Nature, be a subject of property."

- Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, 1780s while drafting the Constitution

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[techoi]

How dare you think that silly, old piece of paper called the US Constitution should somehow be allowed to slow (or God forbid stop) any corporation from being able to extract every last penny from their victims (errr customers)???.

This is America, bitches! This is were you only *think* you can own something. Where you can "buy" a PS3 knowing you can load another OS (until they decide otherwise).

This is America, where you can "buy" a DVR at Best Buy for $199.00 only to have to return it to DirecTV after you cancel service or they will charge you another $250.00 for that thing you already "bought".

This is America, where odds are you can punch your local taxi driver right in the face and steal his wallet and get less of a penalty than if you, GOD Forbid, share that song that you already "bought" on vinyl, then "bought" on cassette, and maybe "bought" CD. Fuck those stupid hold-up victims, the real victims are the music and media companies and the fines imposed on those caught sharing prove that out.

And, finally, this is America, where you can be punished for pointing out that the security of the product you "bought" was designed by ass clowns. Of course if one of those corporations ever fucks up and breaks a law or two (Sony root kits anyone?), well, tough shit...that YOUR problem...That's what all you stupid-fucking-morons (oh, sorry we mean victims, er, no that not it...we mean "customers"). Yeah that's the funny word we corporations call you - customers. Anyhow, yeah, tough shit, customers, that is what you get by not being able to afford an army of lobbyists yourselves.

This is AMERICA bitches! The best fucking government (Democrat or Republican lead - it don't matter) that money can buy. Stupid Constitution wavers....

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Mackeul]

In that case, I'd like to order one PS3 please, hold the software...thank you.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[nurb432]

I agree, but its only an issue if when they go to court that he loses. During the case, its normal for restraining orders to be granted while things are sorted out, even against the people that win.

Lets hope the real law will prevail, and GeoHot counter sues for damages afterward.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Pharmboy]

Why would you give such a convoluted address like

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.umkc.edu%2Ffaculty%2Fprojects%2Fftrials%2Fconlaw%2Fwickard.html&rct=j&q=%22interstate%20commerce%22%20wheat%20quota&ei=b_ZBTdzgPIX4gAfj_umxAQ&usg=AFQjCNF7d9isNCMMNeYeQ__i98uHFPon2A&cad=rja

When you could have given the direct url of http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wickard.html, or the better link at Wikipedia, which explains the case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

I'm too lazy to see if there is revenue sharing in that, but it is doesn't seem be to a good way to link.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[sznupi]

What I wonder - why do everybody assume that the people writing Commerce Clause (and adjoining scribblings) were incapable of envisioning how it can be (apparently) easily interpreted...

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Alanbly]

Yes, the bit you quoted is about moding your own property, but the guy isn't changing sony's software so your argument is moot. The thing he's getting in trouble for is publishing a set of hardware keys that allow non-sony software to masquerade as approved software. In point of fact he's not actually moding anything.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Hatta]

Software is manifested physically as magnetic domains on a disk. It is my prerogative to physically manipulate my property in any way that I wish. That includes electromagnetism.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[exomondo]

In that case, I'd like to order one PS3 please, hold the software...thank you.

Wouldn't that be nice.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Nah, let's just make it "1 strike and you're out". If you introduce a bill that becomes a law and is eventually ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, you lose your seat in Congress and are barred for some period of time from holding any seat in Congress.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[karmatic]

See Concurrent Jurisdiction.

Long story short, the Federal and State governments often can both regulate things. This is not considered double jeopardy either, as you have broken both laws - you are being tried for the offense against each.

Unless it's something specifically listed in the constitution as being reserved to the Federal government, the States have the right to regulate it. While the feds have overstepped their bounds with the commerce clause, they (constitutionally speaking) can't preempt the states. That's why they (for example) use highway funds as a tool of control. Basically, it's "we can't regulate it, but we can make it worth your while to do so."

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[timeOday]

The copyright clause gives Congress the right to prosecute copiers NOT to punish people for hacking into their own purchased property like cars, TVs, or whatever, and discovering the secret to their operation

Whose interpretation are you referring to? "Securing to authors exclusive rights of their writings" could reasonably be interpreted as warranting action against means to circumvent those rights, especially if the means in question don't have significant non-infringing uses.

In this case, perhaps Sony should not win, since Geohot's work does have non-infringing uses, and especially since Sony originally allowed OtherOS and then banned it. But I also don't think Sony's claims are particularly un-Constitutional or non-Constitutional, since the tie to copyright is evident.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Iron Condor]

When a server gets slashdotted but was accessed through google prior to its unfortunate demise, chances are that there's a google cache for the page...

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[exomondo]

Software is manifested physically as magnetic domains on a disk. It is my prerogative to physically manipulate my property in any way that I wish. That includes electromagnetism.

Obviously the legal system doesn't agree with you.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Iron Condor]

Modification of your OWN property is not a crime.

That depends on the property and the type of modification. If the "property" consists of certain (perfectly legal) chemicals, for example, and the "modification" consists of letting them undergo certain reactions that result in the creation of, say, explosives, drugs, or fertilizers(!) then that modification may very well be a crime.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Culture20]

Their argument for the taxation of breast milk makes sense... baby formula is taxed, and if a mother opts to breast feed she is affecting commerce in lost sales of baby formula. Yes, kidding. But the decision from the case that exploded the power of that interstate commerce clause uses the same logic. If prostitution were legal commerce, masterbation would be taxed as interstate commerce, even if you never crossed state lines to do it.

It is legal in Nevada. All it takes is one other state to make it legal and you'll have the interstate commerce necessary to ruin the Internet porn industry.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[spire3661]

Why not death? Knowingly passing an unconstitutional law is very much akin to treason

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Pharmboy]

Except a google cache link normally looks like this:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aMP7SIVhyggJ:www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wickard.html+http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wickard.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

His link looks nothing like a Google cache, and I can't see that it is. If I had seen the word "cache" in the link, I would have assumed it was such. I appreciate, but I don't think that answers the question.

After more inspection, it appears he hovered over the address in a Google page search, right clicked and "copy link address" and just pasted that, instead of going to the page and copying the address. IE: was citing a search result, not an actual page, which is kinda lazy because it isn't confirming the contents of the citation. Again, not a good way to provide a link, as thinks often get broke that way, and you haven't confirmed the content of the page you are linking.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[fatty2by4]

You don't need to drop in a new engine to go fast in a Focus. The factory-provided engine will easily exceed 100 mph, which is also clearly illegal in all fifty states.

Just being pedantic... It's clearly _not_ 100% illegal. Either that or your pertty bootleg originating motorsports wouldn't exist, legally.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[GameboyRMH]

Holy fucking shit, a restraining order can do that!? 8-(

What's to keep a crazy ex-girlfriend from having your car seized? You could use it to stalk her after all...

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[I_Lost_My_Puppy]

Yeah that's the funny word we corporations call you - customers.

The word you're looking for is "consumers"

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Antisyzygy]

What makes you think he will get a check? Sony is a global behemoth. They will tie him up in the court system/s for a decade or until we either forget about him, he gets tired of it, or he goes broke. The court systems of the world these days are far removed from reality and instead based on manipulating laws and precedent to one's advantage. Really, this case should be about the fundamental principal of what he did rather than what it "could possibly do one day". After all, we don't sue the blacksmith because one of his axes were used to cleave a mans skull in twain. We don't make him stop making axes, and one doesn't hold rights over what he does with metal once one sells it to him.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Antisyzygy]

It works the same way everywhere man.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Antisyzygy]

The problem is the DMCA and such. He considered as facilitating software pirates endeavors essentially. Don't get me wrong, its all a big joke, but the way the shoddy and hellish legal system works you actually would be considered wrong. What we have here is a brilliant young man that should be getting job offers from Sony or any other company that has half a brain but because of the whole Intellectual-Property-Mentality of today he is being challenged. Seriously, look up this kids accomplishments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hotz.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[dakameleon]

Why is it treason to pass a law that wasn't envisaged by the agrarian founders?

Now, I'm not for the DMCA, but to treat the Consitution like holy writ is wrong. The founders were not omnipotent, clairvoient or even particularly extraordinary men; the constitution as they declared it was to define a set of principles they thought fair. The reason why we have the amendments we have today is because through the years the American public has decided that the founders either didn't think some things through, or were flat out wrong (see: slavery).

The founders had no idea of the transformational nature of computers; hell, 50 years ago they didn't have a clue about the transformation that was soon to take place. The constitution simply doesn't cover the things we do today, and that's why laws that make up the living body of the legal system supplement the consitution.

I've done a undergrad thesis on the impact of the DMCA, and I'm far from agreeing with it or its outcomes. It is a fundamentally biased law favouring corporations and their commercial interests, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

(Disclaimer: not a constitutional lawyer. Anyone care to correct me?)

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[SaroDarksbane]

depends on whether you did anything crossing state lines...the federal government often uses seemingly trivial things like "you bought a car in another state" or something to make it a federal case.

Actually, the current interpretation of the commerce clause is that it depends on whether or not what you did affects interstate commerce in any fashion, real or imagined. Theoretically, they could tell you how many times you can legally hit the snooze button in the morning, since being late for work could conceivably affect interstate commerce.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[sixteenbitsamurai]

He can still do it on websites located in 193 other countries.

He can't do it in Egypt.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Xaositecte]

what's up with spelling it "Amerika?"

Is that like a shoutout to the whole "Amerikkka" meme?

Just a generic counter-cultural "America bad" thing?

I've seen a couple people do it that way, but honestly don't know what it's supposed to mean.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[diamondmagic]

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The key word here is foregoing Powers. Which of the foregoing powers is the law executing (i.e. building a post office, which is an enumerated power, requires buying cement, which is not), and why is it necessary, and why is it proper? (Clearly one needs cement to build post offices, it is necessary and the proper way to do it.)

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

Its spelled that way in some languages. For example in swedish america is spelled "amerika".

Slashdot is an international multi-cultural website and as such has members from all over the world that use different spelling and sometimes that reflect the comments.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[dryeo]

Moving to Canada is only a temporary solution. Once again there is a DMCA type bill moving through Parliament. Actually it is worst then the DMCA because they've learned from America's version 1 of the bill and closed various loopholes. Of course the government claims it's better because it has an exception for breaking encryption on VHS.
With luck there will be an election in the spring and once again the evil bill will die. Unluckily one of these times it will pass as the government is under enormous pressure from the States and our current governing party is pretty pro-USA.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[dryeo]

Isn't that why the constitution has an amending process. Any unconstitutional law can be made constitutional just by 2/3rds or 3/4s of the States saying so (I'm not an American so maybe my numbers are off). Perfect way to deal with the things the founders had no way to foresee. This was done when it was decided to prohibit alcohol. Unluckily it seems the only amendments now a days are administrative, like changing the election procedure.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[shentino]

Sorry, but any law can and will swing both ways, even in a self contradictory manner, will always favor the rich and powerful.

The individual will always lose no matter which side of the fence he is on.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[shentino]

In theory, Galoob v. Nintendo would agree with you, however in practice the legal system only works if you're rich enough to survive suing or being sued.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Grishnakh]

Unluckily one of these times it will pass as the government is under enormous pressure from the States and our current governing party is pretty pro-USA.

What is with all these pro-USA governments in democratically elected western countries? Don't most other people not like Americans, esp. the American government? So why are they electing politicians who are so pro-USA, and willing to be their bitches?

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[hairyfeet]

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that first growing in popularity after the release of the miniseries of the same name. Since it depicted an America ruled by a cold Soviet style control and now we are seeing more and more that same control only in the hands of the megacorps that now pretty much rules this country (just look at how many laws are written by the corporations and just rubber stamped by elected officials, such as DMCA and endless copyrights) I assume some would see it as appropriate.

Me personally the way the corps run the country reminds me of the late great philosopher/ comedian Bill Hicks and his take on things which is sadly probably even more true now than when he did it 20 years ago. The fact that the courts can take away his right to speak because it would impact a corps bottom line is frankly disgusting to me.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[TheRaven64]

Why is it treason to pass a law that wasn't envisaged by the agrarian founders?

You're proposing a straw-man argument there. It is entirely possible to amend the constitution. The process for amendment is written into the document itself, and has been used several times in the past. If you find yourself in a situation that was not foreseen by the founders, then you have two options:

• Amend the constitution.
• Ignore the constitution.

It seems that option 2 is now the most common, and that's a problem. Without enforcement, you may as well not have a constitution. You derive no benefit from it, other than some degree of smugness that you get from saying to people in other countries 'our rights are protected by the constitution and yours aren't (although our government is free to ignore the constitution)'.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[martyros]

Having had a read through the court docs that have come to light thus far, I'd say Geohotz has this case in the bag if his legal representation can stand up.

But if his legal representation could stand up, wouldn't they have stopped this restraining order in the first place?

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[IndustrialComplex]

I hate to use terms like this, but understand it comes from a situation where I lack a better term to describe the general group and isn't intended to say that non-progressives would behave differently, it's just that there is a naivety associated with the term.

One of the biggest issues I have with people who identify as progressive, is that they do not see the danger in attributing almost every cause to be solved by a large central government. Like communism, it could work theoretically on paper, but when faced by real world assholes (corruption, etc) it ends up being much worse than simply having an ineffective government, an unrestrained authority that becomes corrupt is my worst nightmare.

A key point of this are progressives who tout the expansion of federal power (usually via the commerce clause) to be a 'good thing' because it lets them get done 'good works'. They point out things like integration of schools, abolishment of Jim Crow laws, and a series of other truly helpful things which came about. The problem isn't a government that is doing good, it is a government that isn't restrained from doing bad. Naturally, this is dangerous on any level (Sheriff Joe at the local, etc) yet on a local level, as tough a choice as it is, you always have the option to leave. Yet when it occurs on the national level, you have no option to leave. With 100% of the Earth's territory claimed (and even if you found a place that wasn't, you can bet there would be someone there to contest you even if you claimed the floor of the Marianas trench), there is no elsewhere to flee to. An important safety valve has been removed now that there is no 'frontier' on Earth people can head to should they find themselves dissatisfied.

Obviously a high level problem, but one that I feel stems from allowing unlimited authority to reside in a government at a national level like the United States. It is clear that our Constitution was designed to be one of enumerated powers, and not one simply of enumerated limitations (Bill of Rights).

In short, I find that Progressives are remarkably short sited when it comes to granting the Federal Government the power to fix 'problems' because in so doing it also grants them the power to really screw up everything without the option to move to a different state.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[IndustrialComplex]

Since the definition that the feds have used for what qualifies as Interstate commerce is "anything that might have the slightest effect on interstate commerce"

It is worse than that. The current definition is:

"If we pass any law that influences it, it BECOMES interstate commerce, and therefore we have the authority to regulate it."

ie: We can regulate it, because we do.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[IndustrialComplex]

but of course keep the Bill of Rights which in my opinion is the best part of the Constitution, and probably even beef it up some with more protections for individuals.

I'd say dump it, because the original opponents of it were right. Not that those aren't Rights which we have, but because by enumerating them people think that those are the ONLY Rights we have. I've heard people claim that their rights are adequately protected by the Bill of Rights, and only cite the First, the Fourth, and the Fifth. As if those were their only Rights. I'd say strengthen the language of the enumerations of powers, and our authority/ability to smack down laws which fall outside of those enumerations would go a hell of a lot farther to protecting our rights than strengthening the Bill of Rights.

Afterall, the Internet isn't mentioned, so people would argue if it isn't mentioned in your strong bill of rights, it isn't a right. Whereas with an enumeration of poweres, if it isn't enumerated, they don't have the power. We could certainly grant them the power, but that implies that the government is ASKING us for that power, instead of simply exercising it and then We have to ask the government to limit itself.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Attila Dimedici]

You know, I think you might be able to make a case that current copyright law actually violates the Constitution. The key phrase for that argument is "by securing...to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to thier respective Writings and Discoveries." I am pretty sure that you are not securing to the author any rights that are extended beyond said author's death. I am quote sure it would be rather difficult to convince the courts of this, but it is an argument that I think should be made

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[X0563511]

Those items that he's publishing are copyrighted material. He does not have the rights to distribute/publish them.

Happy now?

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[ti1ion]

Have you ever heard of something called "jobs?" Yes, The US trades with other countries and provides access to the domestic market for products from other countries. Like it, or not, there is also a lot of politics involved in allowing/denying trade. One (example) of the most notorious of the recent past/present has to do with Canadian lumber entering the US. The US firms that were/are being undersold protested furiously to the US government, which established various trade barriers to Canadian lumber entering the US market -- which (surprise!) costs Canadian jobs. The US government basically said: go ahead and take us to international court. Canada did, and won, and the US did nothing because the international court has no power to actually make the US do anything. So, the Canadian government worked the "back channels," making deals with US politicians that eventually resulted in an agreement. An agreement that was still bad for Canada, but better than nothing. And that means some Canadian jobs were saved and the politicians can take that to the voters the next time there is an election.

There is no "ideal" world that is governed by concrete and un-alterable laws. We are people and are governed by people -- people with biases and differences of opinion. That is life -- get used to it. There is no universal fairness to all. Never has been. In the lumber debate, if you are an American, would you rather the US government told US firms to shove it, and cost hundreds, or thousands of jobs? Yeah, it ain't so cut and dry. Someone is going to lose their job and not be able to provide for their family. Depending on which side of the border you are on it is always easier to accept the "other" guy losing his job, not you.

The US is still a huge, fat market (pun intended). Others want access to that market and will bend under US pressure in the hope of gaining/retaining access.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Zediker]

The use of the 'k' in 'Amerika' is a reference to the German use of the letter 'K' for "hard C" sounds. Essentially, godwining the post by making a reference to America as a fascist country, due to Germany's historical past.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[d6]

>> What is with all these pro-USA governments in democratically elected western countries?

At least in Canada, the right* is unified. They are decent fundraisers. The left is fragmented and doesn't tap its' base for funds as efficiently.
The result, as things stand is a pro-us minority in power that is very receptive to big business.

* our "right" is two notches left of your demos...

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Alanbly]

Well see actually there's the rub. Sony didn't copyright them, or patent the system (Which is why the case is so interesting). They just really hoped that no one would figure it out. When it comes down to it, I don't believe Sony is going to try to argue that he didn't have the right to distribute the keys but that the act of getting the keys violated the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Kalriath]

I was under the impression it gave congress the right to pass laws pertaining to interstate commerce, does it not? This seems to me to fit squarely in that category.

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[Kalriath]

Is the amendment process "get someone else to propose a treaty, since the document dictates that treaties are effectively amendments themselves"?

Re:No.. that would be silly.

[camperslo]

Of course it's a different division, but all of the divisions contribute to the profitability or losses of the parent. If one feels either individually or collectively wronged by a company and feels it is not appropriate to support them, that usually extends to the whole company. Compare to one not wanting to support a drug gang avoid doing business with a member selling watches as well as those selling drugs.

Sony lost credibility with many when they hired people to blog and people to paint graffiti promoting the Playstation. So even before ousting Linux there was inappropriate behavior from the Playstation division.

What can Sony do to improve the feeling some have towards them?

They could be more open and interoperable. Let people innovate with Sony products, finding new uses for the hardware and using alternative software. Don't force people into proprietary (slow, costly, and non-interoperable) memory modules etc.
Microsoft is actually profiting and seeing favorable excitement from people finding new ways of using the Kinect. A success in spite of themselves. Will some notice and learn from that?? Would a food vendor dictate what recipes a food product can go into? Instead of strong DRM, allowing some sharing to provide a sort of viral marketing while designing to give some added functionality to registered users might have more people smiling. Genuine user excitement might be more effective than bogus shipping figures or subsidized launch parties to promote a product.

Sony had the potential to excite the open source community with their GNUstep derived SNAP project, but then pulled back. They could bring in people with that, as well as create some exciting projects.

Some wanting to limit consumption from another country that has been dominating imports may like to see Sony as a more viable alternative. Doing more manufacturing in the countries of their target markets would make some more receptive. Closer ties with people in other nations would help their image.
With Sony branding being less visible now on Columbia pictures, they realize there was some U.S. resentment of foreign ownership of a major player in what has traditionally been one of the stronger U.S. industries.
Their involvement with B.M.G. and Columbia has no doubt be behind their corporate mindset pushing clinging more tightly to DRM in their hardware divisions. Where did that get them? They've got many great people, but like Microsoft they've had some problems with the visionary people not being the ones making the decisions.

Many people once loved Sony the way some now love Apple. Innovating and not being hostile to the customers might help them get some of that back. With cheaper products coming from China, they're in a bad spot of they try to compete only on price, or by strong-arming locked in customers. They need to bring back some love. Sony was very innovative, highly regarded and successful under Masaru Ibuk and Akio Morita. I wish them well at efforts to bring back that sort of vision.

This makes me sad

[Octopuscabbage]

Coporations should not be able to do this...

Re:This makes me sad

[MozeeToby]

Why not? He's doing something that may, or may not be illegal. Asking the court to knock it off until the status of his actions is quite reasonable. Now, IMO there isn't much question and what he's doing should be legal, but the court obviously thinks it isn't that obvious.

It's not as if Geohot makes his living hacking PS3s to run pirated games (which is all the restraining order prevents him doing). This is costing him his hobby, and only temporarily if what he's doing is determined to be legal.

Don't like it? Find a politician who will fight to have the law overturned or clarified. Can't find one? Then make one. The Tea party didn't exist 3 years ago. If that particular group of people can become a political force overnight I would hope the geeks of the nation could manage as well.

Re:This makes me sad

[ifiwereasculptor]

Your opinion may or may not be illegal. I'll prohibit it while I check. How does that make any sense?

Re:This makes me sad

[afidel]

Actually this move is counterproductive for Sony since the information is already too widely distributed for it to go back in the bag.

/TLDR
streisand effect

Re:This makes me sad

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Your opinion may or may not be illegal. I'll prohibit it while I check. How does that make any sense?

Replace "opinion" with "actions". This is fairly common in civil cases.

Re:This makes me sad

[billcopc]

It's a lot easier to find tens of thousands of stupid people to form a "political" party, than fill a courtroom with intelligent and non-corrupt lawmakers.

Re:This makes me sad

[StikyPad]

It's not as if Geohot makes his living hacking PS3s to run pirated games (which is all the restraining order prevents him doing). This is costing him his hobby, and only temporarily if what he's doing is determined to be legal.

That would be true if the TRO didn't have an order of impoundment attached:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) business days of this Order, Defendant Hotz shall deliver...for impoundment any computers, hard drives, CD-roms, DVDs, USB stick, and any other storage devices on which any Circumvention Devices are stored in Defendant Hotz's possession, custody, or control. http://www.scribd.com/doc/47676627/50-Order-GRANTING-TRO

...and I'm pretty sure that those devices are his trade tools which means this TRO places a significant and disproportionate burden on him as the defendant.

Re:This makes me sad

[jonfr]

That order is out of legal jurisdiction of this restraining order. As this is not a criminal investigation (far as I understand the U.S legal system). The Sony lawers are playing dirty tricks here and I do not understand how the judge allow this to pass.

This restraining order should be fought in court if possible.

Notice: I do not live in the U.S and only have second hand knowledge of the U.S law.

Re:This makes me sad

[quacking duck]

I'm surprised there hasn't been a defense on free speech grounds yet.

Fox "News" can broadcast things they know to be false. Not just lies of omission, actual lies.

Anonymous political donations in amounts so large you know they're from corporations, are "free speech."

And yet publishing the poorly protected keys to the Sony gaming crown jewels gets a legal muzzle.

Re:This makes me sad

[Bahamut_Omega]

Does this mean we can work on a form of capital punishment for a few greedy corporations? If so; I'd recommend hijacking the assets and capital of the shareholders, and turning said capital into government funds.

Re:This makes me sad

[kiwix]

Hey, I see you are currently using the publicly available air for you own purpose by breathing. That may or may not be illegal, be I'd like to get a court preventing you to breath until someone find out.

Seriously, America, what happened to the presumption of innocence?

Re:This makes me sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Just try and remember that, specifically,
SONY
is the company doing this. So long as you remember the name
SONY
associated with the crap they've been pulling, you'll remember not to buy anything with a
SONY
name on it.
SONY doesn't belong in an free market.

Re:This makes me sad

[russotto]

I'm surprised there hasn't been a defense on free speech grounds yet.

There was. The 2600 case. It got to the appeals court level, 2600 lost, and 2600 and the EFF conceded.

Re:This makes me sad

[mrchaotica]

Seriously, America, what happened to the presumption of innocence?

That applies only to criminal cases. This is civil.

Re:This makes me sad

[mrchaotica]

Sony is also responsible for:

• Pushing multiple anticompetitive, proprietary formats (minidisk, ATRAC3, MemoryStick, etc.)
• Vandalizing/destroying people's private property (by remotely disabling existing functionality)
• Hacking into and sabotaging people's computers using a rootkit-infested trojan horse music CD

Anyone with any sense should have been boycotting Sony long before this. I know I have! And not only does it not belong in the free market, it needs to have its corporate charter dissolved and its executive officers in prison!

Re:This makes me sad

[metacell]

It's not just about Geohot's individual rights, it's about how a corporation tries to control the entire hacking community by going after a few individual members.

And I don't think it's reasonable to require someone to stop with an activity which *might* be illegal until the courts have sorted it out. I think these types of restraining orders are a bad idea in general. They give far too much power to the party who can afford good lawyers to exploit the loopholes and waiting times inherent in the legal system. The accused party can take their punishment if and when it actually turns out to be illegal, and if the accuser has a good case, the accused already has an incentive to stop with the activity.

Re:This makes me sad

[diamondmagic]

Fox "News" can broadcast things they know to be false. Not just lies of omission, actual lies.

But CBS can get away with actually manufacturing false documents for their journalism about, among other things, GWB's military career, and that's supposedly okay. But misspellings by FNC commentators get treated as lies, somehow.

Re:This makes me sad

[Panaflex]

2600 and the EFF completely screwed that one up... Felton had a better case and could have published his academic paper for a challenge, and it would have won. Instead 2600 just appeared to be giving away the dvd farm with the decss utility, and Felton lost the "academically chilled" lawsuit. Ugh.

Re:This makes me sad

[mcvos]

Aren't you making the exact same point as the parent: that news stations can publish known lies? Or is this suddenly about your favourite TV station being criticized, rather than a human being's free speech getting restricted by a court?

Re:This makes me sad

[stiggle]

Or give the equipment to someone else - so it is no longer in his possession, custody or control.

Print it out - its a constitutional right to hold the info then.

Re:This makes me sad

[Tim C]

The Tea party didn't exist 3 years ago. If that particular group of people can become a political force overnight I would hope the geeks of the nation could manage as well.

Speaking as a geek who's worked in IT for 11 years, as a rule we simply don't have it in us to be politicians. We just don't think or speak the same way and are nowhere near charismatic enough.

Yeah, there are exceptions to that, but I'm not convinced that there are enough of them to get a party together that has any real chance.

Re:This makes me sad

[Cytotoxic]

Coporations should not be able to do this...

The corporations aren't able to do this. They didn't do this. The government, however, is able to do this. It is a government court that issued the order, and a government agent will enforce it. Sony just asked - it is the government that agreed with Sony and shut him down.

Re:This makes me sad

[JDBurnZ]

them preventing him from working on his hobby before trial is pronouncing him guilty until proven innocent.

It only sues everything...

[seebs]

So other people will invite him to work on their products, which he'll do, and that'll generate buzz and excitement for those products. And they'll win, and Sony will lose. This is awesome! I really have to say, I am amazed at the skill and precision with which Sony has managed the PS3. They've got some kind of dream team working on this. There's a cycle. First, identify the largest clearly identifiable remaining demographic. Second, piss them off. Repeat.

PS3: Buy it for the Other OS feature, keep it because no one will take it off your hands. (No, really. I have a launch 60GB which I bought entirely for the Other OS feature. It's now useless for playing games because games require "updates" that disable the only functionality I got it for, but no one's gonna buy the old loud monster to play video games...)

Re:It only sues everything...

[HarrySquatter]

So other people will invite him to work on their products, which he'll do, and that'll generate buzz and excitement for those products.

Sure if he wants to face contempt of court and legal issues. Did you fail to read the part that said:

he can no longer 'engage in acts of circumvention of TPMS in the PS3 System to access, obtain, remove, or traffic in copyrighted works.'

Re:It only sues everything...

[sqlrob]

Did you fail to read the part that said:

he can no longer 'engage in acts of circumvention of TPMS in the PS3 System to access, obtain, remove, or traffic in copyrighted works.'

Re:It only sues everything...

[francium goes boom]

The original 60GB with the EE chip? I know several people who would buy it just for that. I've often thought about getting a PS3 but at this point i'd only buy a used one to get the EE chip.

If the price is right I might even take it off your hands.

Re:It only sues everything...

[CTU]

So other people will invite him to work on their products, which he'll do, and that'll generate buzz and excitement for those products. And they'll win, and Sony will lose. This is awesome! I really have to say, I am amazed at the skill and precision with which Sony has managed the PS3. They've got some kind of dream team working on this. There's a cycle. First, identify the largest clearly identifiable remaining demographic. Second, piss them off. Repeat.

PS3: Buy it for the Other OS feature, keep it because no one will take it off your hands. (No, really. I have a launch 60GB which I bought entirely for the Other OS feature. It's now useless for playing games because games require "updates" that disable the only functionality I got it for, but no one's gonna buy the old loud monster to play video games...)

I would, but then again I like the backwards compatibility and I want a blue ray player :)

Re:It only sues everything...

[mr_mischief]

Where do we send our bids?

Re:It only sues everything...

[FauxReal]

PS3: Buy it for the Other OS feature, keep it because no one will take it off your hands. (No, really. I have a launch 60GB which I bought entirely for the Other OS feature. It's now useless for playing games because games require "updates" that disable the only functionality I got it for, but no one's gonna buy the old loud monster to play video games...)

Actually, if you have one of the ancient ones that has the chip that lets you play PS2 games I would buy it from you. The originals had hardware support for PS2 backward compatibility... then they removed that and made it software... then that was removed and at least you still had Other OS. The cycle continues...

Re:It only sues everything...

[Nadaka]

I recently bought an old 20 gig ps3 for just this reason (it came with 5 good games and I also got a cheap 250gig hd for a combined cost less than a new ps3 without games). My ps2 was failing and I wanted something more than just a skinny replacement.

Re:It only sues everything...

[seebs]

Uh, yeah. That's why he will be working on other peoples' products instead of on the PS3. That was sort of the point.

Re:It only sues everything...

[seebs]

No one would have paid me shiny American dollars to write about optimizing code for the computer. They were happy to pay me to write multiple articles about the Cell SDK and developing for the Cell.

I got it because I got well over 1000% ROI within a year. I am well aware that other options existed which would have provided better performance, but there wasn't a cheap way to get a Cell at the time.

Re:It only sues everything...

[Maestro4k]

So other people will invite him to work on their products, which he'll do, and that'll generate buzz and excitement for those products.

Going to be kinda hard for him to work on anything for a while, since the court order also requires him to turn over his computers and hard drives to Sony. He's unlikely to get them back for months, if ever, and it's going to take yet more lawyer time to get them back. Which is exactly what Sony wanted. This is all about making life difficult for Geohotz because he dared to publish the PS3 root key. It's harassment, plain and simple, and so far, Sony is winning.

Re:It only sues everything...

[webheaded]

I'm amazed these comments don't constantly get marked as troll. Yes, you WERE screwed by Sony. Yes, someone will still buy your PS3. Some people buy gaming systems to *gasp* play GAMES ON. It is irritating, to be sure, by let's tone down the hyperbole a tad?

I'm not apologizing for Sony being a bunch of fucking idiots, but let's not dance around and pretend that everyone else is prefect or that Sony is the devil. I hear so much great stuff about the XBOX, blah, blah, but it's still the same company that you guys have been complaining about since Slashdot came into existence. With a choice between them and Sony...I'll STILL pick Sony. At least they don't hide what fuckwads they are. They pretty much tell you flat out how things are going to be. Better the devil you know, I suppose.

Nintendo is better by far (and they're printing money to boot) but they still aren't perfect. No one is.

Re:It only sues everything...

[mcvos]

At least they don't hide what fuckwads they are. They pretty much tell you flat out how things are going to be.

Do they? Did they tell in advance that OtherOS was going to be removed some day?

Personally, I trust Sony less than Microsoft. Less than Oracle, even.

No big deal

[Scott64]

So he can't make available what's already been mirrored countless times all over the internet...Oh no :o

Re:No big deal

[RingDev]

Agreed, and:

he can no longer 'engage in acts of circumvention of TPMS in the PS3 System to access, obtain, remove, or traffic in copyrighted works.'

So he CAN still engage in acts of circumvention of TPMS in the PS3 System to access, obtain, remove, or traffic in NON-copyrighted works.
-Rick

Re:No big deal

[SanityInAnarchy]

From the presentation I saw, it looks like roughly 80-90% of the work in completely pwning the PS3 was unrelated to piracy or cheating. That is, roughly 10-20% of what they did could've been used for piracy, the rest was for the complete and permanent ability to run any homebrew they like without restrictions, including (say) Linux with access to the PS3's GPU.

Also, note that the PS3 was pretty much left alone until Sony killed Other OS. So long as people were allowed to run Linux on the PS3, it was left alone. From the date Sony killed Other OS until it was completely pwned is about the same amount of time it took to pwn other systems (Wii, 360) from when they were initially released.

Essentially, if Sony had left Other OS intact, it's very likely people wouldn't be able to pirate stuff today.

Re:No big deal

[Blakey Rat]

They could just buy an Xbox, which supports homebrew out-of-the-box. If homebrew is what they want to be doing.

Oh wait, Microsoft is too eeevil.

Re:No big deal

[rworne]

Actually, the glitching that opened a hole in the system was done first through OtherOS. Removal of that feature by Sony was done as a knee-jerk response after the exploit was made public.

The storm of users trying to crack the system wide open was inevitable after that point, the removal of OtherOS was just a catalyst to speed things up a bit by pissing off the userbase.

Re:No big deal

[shentino]

Sony's 800 pound gorilla lawyers will eat him alive if he even comes close to committing contempt of court by defying the injunction, and at this point the judge is probably going to broadly interpret potential violations of his order.

The fact that they even got the TRO is telling as to who the judge sides with at this point.

Re:No big deal

[SanityInAnarchy]

That's like saying, they could just buy a PC. That's what I'd do, but that's also missing the point.point.

Aside from the opportunity to play around with different hardware, aside from the need to use their own hardware -- seriously, "just" throw away the PS3 you paid several hundred dollars for and buy a 360, because Sony decided to kill Other OS? -- there's also the fact that the PS3 has the Cell, which is much better at certain things than the 360.

Example: These guys. Can the 360 do that?

If you're talking about XNA, by the way, go back and read the above. Does the 360 let me run whatever I want on bare metal, or do I need an exploit? If I need an exploit, what's your point?

Re:No big deal

[jonwil]

The real kick-starter for the hackers was the desire to run OtherOS on the slim PS3 (which didnt support it even though there is no technical reason it couldn't, just Sony wanting to stop people buying PS3s for Linux only and not buying games)

This is partially what led to the first GeoHot exploit (the memory glitch) which was used (in conjunction with Linux running under OtherOS) to produce the first firmware dumps of the machine.

Sony then got concerned that the memory glitch could have lead to piracy somehow (by exposing the workings of the game-loading bits of the PS3 in a way that OtherOS can talk to and load and mess with) so they removed OtherOS and that kicked things into high gear (starting with the "jailbreak" exploits, then firmware downgrade exploits to downgrade to a vulnerable version and finally the complete failure of the PS3 security thanks to Sony not knowing how to use ECDSA.

Re:No big deal

[mrchaotica]

So he CAN still engage in acts of circumvention of TPMS in the PS3 System to access, obtain, remove, or traffic in NON-copyrighted works.

There's essentially no such thing as a "non-copyrighted work" in the US except for things 100-something years old or things created by the Federal government. Everything you or anyone else writes is automatically copryighted, including something as trivial as this Slashdot post.

Re:No big deal

[SanityInAnarchy]

Actually, the glitching that opened a hole in the system was done first through OtherOS.

Well, here's what jonwil said:

The real kick-starter for the hackers was the desire to run OtherOS on the slim PS3 (which didnt support it even though there is no technical reason it couldn't, just Sony wanting to stop people buying PS3s for Linux only and not buying games)

So, basically, in the process of trying to re-enable that, they got just enough access to make Sony nervous, so Sony shut down Other OS.

In other words, the message, if Sony is listening, is that this entire thing could've been avoided by continuing to support Linux. Every device they don't support Linux on becomes a target. They didn't support it on the Slim, so that was the first target. Then they removed it, so now everyone's pissed off and the entire PS3 is a target.

Re:No big deal

[peppepz]

The real kick-starter for the hackers was the desire to run OtherOS on the slim PS3 (which didnt support it even though there is no technical reason it couldn't, just Sony wanting to stop people buying PS3s for Linux only and not buying games)

Playing the devil's advocate - although there are no technical reasons for the slim PS3 not to run Linux, there's plenty of commercial reasons: writing and maintaining GPL drivers costs time and money. And the slim ps3 was all about cutting costs. Also, the need to support OSS drivers means that further cost-cutting in future releases of the console by replacing hardware components could be hindered by the fact that Sony had to restrict their choices to those components whose manufacturers allowed OSS drivers to be written - Microsoft and Nintendo hadn't this problem.

The other manufacturers already sold cheaper consoles and were about to introduce even cheaper new variants. Sony has probably considered that the very small slice of their market made up of people who would buy the console for the OtherOS support wasn't worth the much bigger share of the market made up of people who wouldn't buy the console because it was too expensive.

Re:No big deal

[jonwil]

Name one component in the PS3 where there are manufacturers not willing to release OSS drivers (i.e. where Sony would be restricted to picking parts that have open drivers).

Sony never provided access to the GPU other than through Hypervisor calls and a dumb frame-buffer so that doesn't count.

Re:No big deal

[peppepz]

Name one component in the PS3 where there are manufacturers not willing to release OSS drivers (i.e. where Sony would be restricted to picking parts that have open drivers).

WLAN, Bluetooth, USB, audio? Being OSS-friendly, especially in the embedded field, is an exception rather than the rule.

Sony never provided access to the GPU other than through Hypervisor calls and a dumb frame-buffer so that doesn't count.

GPU doesn't count for the OSS problem, but it still counts for the cost problem, because you still have to write the drivers for the privileged side of the hypervisor.

Re:No big deal

[jonwil]

The GPU code in the Hypervisor is the the same for GameOS and OtherOS. (being that both GameOS and OtherOS sit on top of the same Hypervisor).

For USB, AFAIK all USB host controllers implement one of a few documented standards like UHCI, OHCI or EHCI.
I have never seen a bluetooth chip that isn't documented either (most of them put the secret bits into an on-device firmware that is downloaded)

WiFi I will grant you, there are still WiFi vendors unwilling to open up their drivers. But with the PS3 having Ethernet (and any future PS3 wouldn't change that) if Sony wanted to use a WiFi chipset that couldn't be supported in OSS drivers, they could just not support WiFi in OtherOS and let the community deal with it.

Don't know what sort of audio chip Sony are using on the PS3 and whether its a dumb "sound card" like on most PC motherboards or a smarter chip that does audio processing work but I havent seen any audio chipsets that are undocumented either (even Creative Labs has open-source drivers for many of their cards these days, some written by third parties but still open)

Re:No big deal

[peppepz]

You're assuming that embedded chipset enjoy the same modularity and standards you can find in PCs. But in reality it's not always so; for example, most PC Bluetooth adapters follow the USB HCI standard and therefore require no specialized driver; Bluetooth adapters found in mobile phones, instead, are often implemented in a single chip that offers FM radio, GPS reception, Bluetooth and WLAN all multiplexed together in some custom way.

A life lesson I learned years ago

[FictionPimp]

It is very hard to stuff a cat back into a cat carrier. It is even harder to stuff a cat back into a bag.

Re:A life lesson I learned years ago

[The Grim Reefer2]

It is very hard to stuff a cat back into a cat carrier. It is even harder to stuff a cat back into a bag.

I guess it depends on whether or not you want to keep the cat alive. ;-)

Re:A life lesson I learned years ago

[Zelgadiss]

Oh I doubt this is an attempt to our the cat back in the bag.

This is just trying to slow the cat down temporary for as long as possible and shoot the guy who let it out of the bag.

Re:A life lesson I learned years ago

[MachDelta]

It's ok, he can teleport the cat to the vet by throwing it out the window.

Re:A life lesson I learned years ago

[interkin3tic]

This is the company that took features away from their product, which caused nerds to try to find exploitable cracks in the system. They're not too smart to try to put the cat back in the bag.

Re:A life lesson I learned years ago

[Grishnakh]

I had 8 cats until recently, so I have plenty of experience with them. I've never had much trouble putting them in carriers. It's really quite easy: just grab their front legs together with one hand, while holding them under the chest with another, and shove them in. Then slam the door shut before they can spin around and bolt back out.

The problem most people have with handling cats is that they're too afraid of getting scratched. Keep their claws trimmed, and realize you're going to get scratched at some point, and stop being afraid of it, and handling them becomes much easier.

Re:A life lesson I learned years ago

[KillBillFan]

Judges are elected ...yes / no?

so, I'm curious to know how much $ony gave them for there re-election campaign

Just another ignorant judge who thinks I can't tinker with what I own.

Re:A life lesson I learned years ago

[The Grim Reefer2]

Still a challenge, what with the 9 lives and all.

The standard clip in a .40 cal. Glock holds 10 rounds.

Re:A life lesson I learned years ago

[Attila Dimedici]

Yes and no. It depends on what judges in what state. However, in this case it is in Federal Court and Federal Judges are all appointed, not elected. So, campaign funds are not part of this case (at least not election funds for the judge).

Re:A life lesson I learned years ago

[Fnord666]

This is just trying to slow the cat down temporary for as long as possible and shoot the guy who let it out of the bag.

No, it's to show the next guy that considers letting a cat out of the bag how bad a corporation with a large legal team can make his life if he dares cross them.

Re:A life lesson I learned years ago

[MrBippers]

I'm not sure I quite get the analogy. Can you explain it again using cars this time?

Re:A life lesson I learned years ago

[coolmadsi]

It is very hard to stuff a cat back into a cat carrier. It is even harder to stuff a cat back into a bag.

I guess it depends on whether or not you want to keep the cat alive. ;-)

Spent some time with Schrödinger, have you?

Misleading summary/article?

[Shaterri]

'Pretty much he can't talk or think about the PS3 for some time.'

I wasn't aware that the only things one could say about the PS3 were related to cracking its protection schemes and pirate! (or, okay, 'traffic in copyrighted works'). He can talk about the games, he can talk about the OS, he can talk about the hardware, he just can't, y'know, talk about how to circumvent any of it. Really, this seems like a relatively reasonable restraining order all around, at least by the metrics for such things; it stops the specific (alleged) infringing behavior and doesn't strike much more broadly than that.

Re:Misleading summary/article?

[AK Marc]

You say he can talk about the OS. But there's precious little he can say about the OS other than a list of adjectives. Even describing how the OS interfaces with hardware could be seen as contempt of court, even if there isn't any direct or indirect reference on how that could be used for an exploit. I'm sure his lawyers gave him the same advice as the summary, "just don't say anything about it at all for any reason." It's much easier to follow that than to talk about it extensively and be 100% sure that no one could misinterpret anything you said being related to any crack, weakness, or otherwise related to the restraining order.

Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[Daniel Phillips]

Just don't buy anything from Sony for some time. Like forever.

The way Sony treated me over the faulty PS3 hardware they sold me makes this decision easy, never mind the other horrible things Sony does on a regular basis.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[Dayofswords]

At one point I wanted a PS3... Then this crap that has been coming from them since other OS removal

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[TheSpoom]

Frankly, the initial $599 price for the PS3 was enough for me to avoid them in the first place.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[SanityInAnarchy]

The rootkit wasn't enough?

The better solution is to actually stick to your boycott. Don't buy anything Sony, ever. Making it only "for some time" makes it clear that Sony can do whatever they want so long as they're willing to take a short-term financial hit, and that's assuming there are enough people to even make that point.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[gstrickler]

With the possible exception of the PS3, when is the last time Sony marketed a product that you might actually want to buy (for it's features and/or price)? Ok, maybe some movies they market.

Sony has made it very easy to not buy their products. It's a great example of how to destroy a huge company:

1. 1. Stop making great products that people want to buy.
2. 2. Sue your customers
3. 3. Repeat until you're out of business

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[Dan541]

I stopped buying from Sony after they started installing rootkits into their products.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[rock_climbing_guy]

I just bought a 46" LCD TV a few days ago. I made *sure* it wasn't a SONY branded TV because of their involvement in suing downloaders.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[Pentium100]

Sony made pretty good portable cassette players, so I'll buy those (though as I already have two I probably won't buy another one for quite some time). However, as Sony does not make them anymore (and I am buying them used), Sony still sees none of my money.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[Fry-kun]

Easy for you to say if you don't want to play a game that's only available for PS3, for instance MGS4.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[kenshin33]

buy them used ... and don't tell anybody.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[jack2000]

Same, Sony actually changed my mind after I had committed to buying a ps3, I was just waiting for a good time to get one. After the other OS and the related shenanigans( I wanted to play ps1/2 games on it ) screw em!

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[Anonymous Cowpat]

But did Sony make the actual panel?

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[whoever57]

Less than 18 months ago, I foolishly bought a Sony car radio. It's cr*p. I won't be buying any Sony products again.

As an example, the radio can read mp3s from a flash drive, but, it appears that this only works if the flash drive is less than 4GB. Even then, it seems to be very picky about the format of the filesystem (picky about a FAT filesystem!!!).

It has some other stupid design "features", which are too numerous to mention.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[Narishma]

Did you also make sure the TV doesn't use any component made by Sony? Or that the company making it didn't license some technology from Sony? It's practically impossible to not pay them directly or indirectly if you buy any complex electronic product.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[mikelieman]

Take a look on archive.org sometime and see how many shows in the live music archive were done on either a D5 or a D6. 20 years ago, Sony was the leader there. Around 10 years ago, I had a really nice Vaio.

Now, I can't think of a product they make that I've got any interest in.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[Mal-2]

The only Sony-branded products I would buy are those that are inherently "dumb", like speakers (because they do make pretty good ones). I definitely avoid even relatively simple products like their car stereos, because they often reject CD-Rs. (Not always, which makes me think it's not designed in, but they sure as hell aren't going out of their way to make it work either.) Ironically, ten years ago I bought an HP CD burner because it was supposed to be one of the best affordable ones out there -- and it turned out to be a rebadged Sony, but it worked beautifully up until the SCSI card driving it gave up the ghost. By that time, faster IDE burners were cheaper than a replacement SCSI card, so I retired a perfectly good 4x burner for lack of an interface.

No, the discs it burned STILL would not play in a Sony car stereo.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[Pentium100]

I have a WM-D6C and WM-EX606 (cannot record but is much smaller than D6C and is autoreverse, more convenient for just listening to tapes while I am not at home).

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[Blakey Rat]

Easy for you to say if you don't want to play a game that's only available for PS3, for instance MGS4.

Aw poor baby. You might actually have to make a *gasp* sacrifice!

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[Em Adespoton]

Sony now owns KonicaMinolta, which means they now produce decent digital cameras and camcorders. That said, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Fuji and JVC sell stuff of equal or better quality without the hardware lock-in.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[Thing 1]

Yeah, the proprietary "memory sticks" was the first shot across my bow; the rootkit on music CDs that to this day are still infecting people who frequent used CD stores, was the last straw. No Sony in this household.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[Grishnakh]

Don't worry, pretty soon a $6000 cellphone will be the norm, as will $10-20k/month rents, $50 for a loaf of bread, $500-1000 for a dinner at a restaurant, etc.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[F34nor]

"Tech savy consumers are lining up today to buy Sony's new stupid piece of shit that doesn't do the god damn thing it supposed to."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuuSoRI8tPc

The best part is the line about it being a "...time vampire..."

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[sjames]

Hoist the Jolly Roger!

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[F34nor]

Sony is the only corporation in history to sue its-god-damn-own-fucking-self. What kind of fucked up imbecile factory do they have going on there for Christ's sake? Seriously bereft of any fucking concept of getting the god damn job done on any of their consumer products, how they didn't make the iPod as the uber Walkman them selves is the work place warning poster for how not to do your fucking job.

Short the stock, boycott their shit, and pick over the reaming intellectual capital.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[shoehornjob]

never mind the other horrible things Sony does on a regular basis

Yeah like sticking a root kit on my cd. They can go eat sh!t for that one. Bastards

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[Daniel Phillips]

Easy for you to say if you don't want to play a game that's only available for PS3, for instance MGS4.

I don't have time to play all the games I have already, and frankly, today a low end Radeon or NVidia card leaves PS3 so far in the dust it isn't funny. The game I want to play is SkyRim. MGS4 are simplistic and dull in comparision to TES. I only bought the PS3 to eliminate having to boot Windows, to fill the gap until AAA titles start to get regular Linux ports. I guess we're nearly there now.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[Daniel Phillips]

The only Sony-branded products I would buy are those that are inherently "dumb", like speakers (because they do make pretty good ones).

Forget it, get JBL, they are awesome.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[noidentity]

My father received a new Sony digital camera for Christmas that can do some neat things. I was checking the type of battery and memory cards it uses, and I couldn't believe that it didn't use standard SD memory cards as every other camera does; it's some proprietary Sony crap. Oh well, don't look a gift horse in the mouth...

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[jonwil]

I have already blacklisted the computer games, music and electronic arms of Sony including products branded with the Walkman, PlayStation, CyberShot and Sony Erricson brands. (although I did buy a special "bushfire aid" CD a few years ago because it had cool songs on it and the money went to bushfire victims and didn't line the pockets of Sony executives). Blacklisting the movie arm of Sony is harder because they own so many different movies and franchises under so many different names that its impossible to know which films I need to avoid. (plus the movie arm isn't the one distributing rootkits on audio CDs or suing hackers for discovering that they need to hire someone who actually knows about encryption, not just someone who claims they do on their resume)

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[mrchaotica]

I stopped buying from Sony even before that, when they kept insisting on shoving proprietary formats down our throats (e.g. MemoryStick etc.).

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[Anthony Mouse]

Blacklisting the movie arm of Sony is harder because they own so many different movies and franchises under so many different names that its impossible to know which films I need to avoid.

There is an easy solution to that: If a movie is big enough that you see an ad for it, make sure the studio behind it doesn't see any of your money. It's not like the other major studios are run by a girl scout troop that donates the money to starving orphans.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[xtracto]

Yah... I thought the same and was actively boycotting Sony since the Rootkit fiasco (I even had my 5 minute fame while fighting those bastards).

I did it until I wanted to buy an ebook reader. I waited and looked for all the options; I compared the Kindle vs the Sony eReader. Surprisingly, Sony's ereader is more open than Kindles (e.g. copy/paste PDFs, DOCs ePubs into SD Card [yes SD-card]) and the quality was quite good. Originally I waited for the Asus DR-900, which I saw at the ceBit 2010 (it was a good surprise when I was there... nobody gave attention but as a loyal asus customer.... i liked what I saw).

But after waiting for almost one year, this last christmas I decided to fuck it and go for it. I got a PRS 950SC and could not be happier. It is a really neat piece of hardware that has me completely hardwired into my books.

BTW... I was also surprised that product quality-wise Sony is not that bad... of course Asus is better =oP

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[AmiMoJo]

Do Sony actually make any really good products you can't just go somewhere else for?

PS3 - similar to the Xbox 360, only real difference being the games and internet content available

TVs - Plenty of other equal or better choices, cheaper too

Audio - I have never liked Sony audio gear for the sound, but either way there are plenty of options

Cameras - Overpriced, better options available

Memory Sticks - Get an SD card adapter and save yourself ££ on flash memory and as a bonus you can re-use it in other devices

I really can't see any reason to buy anything from Sony ever again.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[Drugmath]

Nor here. It really sucks that I can't pick up DC Universe to play with my friends that have grabbed it (published by Sony Online Entertainment) , but it sucks even more that the same guys who swore they'd never buy a Sony product are perfectly happy to give them money because a fancy new game came out.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[PReDiToR]

Avoid Panasonic.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[sabt-pestnu]

Sonymusic.com displays the labels Sony uses:

Arista
BNA Records
Columbia Nashville
Columbia Records
Epic Records
Jive Records
jRecords
Legacy Recordings
Masterworks
Provident Label Group
RCA Records
RCA Records Nashville
Roc Nation
Sony Music Latin
Verity Records

Sony online games:
Everquest / Everquest II
Free Realms
PlanetSide
Star Wars Galaxies
Vanguard: Saga of Heroes

Consoles:
PlayStation (all varieties)

Movies:
Sony Pictures Entertainment
Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group

The sony wikipedia page gives you links to many of them. The Other Subsidiaries page lists subsidiaries and shareholders. If you're complaining about Sony's behavior, complain to the shareholders too.

Having said all that...

If your complaint is about the RIAA, boycotting SOE isn't going to affect the issue. If your complaint is about the playstation crack (IE Sony Computer Entertainment/America) then boycotting Columbia Records isn't on point either. Feel free to boycott both, if you want, but do so for the valid reasons given earlier.

If you want to boycott *at all*, you need a force multiplier: one person not buying Sony products won't show up even in the statistical noise. One person writing a prominent blog post, however, might get noticed. One person starting a class action lawsuit is likely to spend a lot of money. ... and get real notice.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[Mal-2]

Actually I am lucky enough to have a pair of Tannoy SRM12Bs as my primary speakers. The 8" Sonys have been relegated to surround speakers, and the 6 1/2" Sonys are currently serving as speaker stands for the Tannoys.

I did recently buy a pair of 6x9 three-way Sony car speakers, though I haven't had the chance to install them yet. They were only marginally more expensive than names I didn't recognize, and I figured I was less likely to get absolute crap. On the down side, they're really flashy, which may make them a theft target even though I only paid $60 for the pair.

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time.

[va.va_va.va]

Same here, I was set to buy a PS3 in its first year but the removal of backwards compatibility made me delay the buy. Then came the rootkits, OtherOS removal and more and more screw-ups, so I'm not getting one anymore.

protected like iPone?

[sunjay]

It baffles me that this is not protected like jailbreaking of mobile devices. It is near identical, Full hardware access in order to add features, which some low-lifes use for piracy. You cant blame him for thinking he was within the law on this one, since he is when he does the same thing on his iPod.

Re:protected like iPone?

[AK Marc]

Well, he was hacking on the OtherOS, but they turned that off, so he turned to the only OS left.

Re:protected like iPone?

[Chyeld]

You cant blame him for thinking he was within the law on this one

Then maybe he shouldn't have been hacking on the game OS and causing all this to come on his head to begin with?

I fail to see how your reply follows from the line you chose to quote. You might as well said "Then maybe he shouldn't have drank soda that day!"

Re:protected like iPone?

[hedwards]

Doesn't matter if that's there largest revenue stream, they're screwing over their customers and reducing the functionality of hardware they've already sold. If they were incompetent enough to assume that the system couldn't be broken, then they deserve what comes to them.

Re:protected like iPone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let's all just sit around and do what everybody that has money and "authority" tells us to, because they all know what's best for us. Let's not push the boundaries of "the law" so that lives can be bettered.

Re:protected like iPone?

[Sloppy]

Near identical? Use the key to write a VoIP program that runs on the PS3, and it will be identical.

The recent LoC exemptions were kinda funny. On one hand, it used some very specific wording in some places (e.g. "DVD" instead of "optical disc" so it wouldn't apply to Blu-Rays) but on the other hand, it used words like "wireless telephone handsets" which became interchangable with "personal computer" after the market converged a few years years ago (maybe even earlier, when stuff like Skype came out). The PS3 is a wireless telephone handset if that's what you do with it, just as the iPhone is a game machine if that's what you do with it.

Re:protected like iPone?

[sxeraverx]

It's not even that they're hardwired. It's that they can't change the keys and stop accepting the old ones, because then legit customers can't play games they purchased before date X.

They can't even update the public keys, because there's no way to verify that it's the legit new public key unless it's been signed by the old private key, which has already been found, unless they have some other super secret key just for signing other keys that hasn't been found yet.

Re:protected like iPone?

[Mad Leper]

I see this question come up quite often by people who haven't taken the time to actually read up on the jail-breaking exemptions.

Here's a list of the exemptions granted for jail-breaking your devices. Could you please point out the one that would allow breaking the encryption on the PS3 to play cracked games or add functionality?

Thank you.

- Computer users may now bypass external security devices if they do not longer work and cannot be replaced..

- Phone owners may break access controls on their phones to switch to another wireless carrier.

- It is now allowed to break video game protections to investigate or correct security flaws.

- Allow college professors, film students, filmmakers and producers of non-commercial videos to break copy-protections on DVDs for educational purposes, criticism or commentary.

- Allow blind people to break protections on electronic books so that they can be used with blind-suitable software.

Re:Alrighty then...

[Daniel Phillips]

Sony believes that it pays to be evil so they will keep doing it.

This is suprising why?

[The Grim Reefer2]

I can't believe it took this long.

Re:This is suprising why?

[SanityInAnarchy]

It's more surprising that they think this will accomplish anything other than harassing this one guy. The damage is done -- everyone who wanted the keys has them, and there's nothing Sony can do about that.

This is worse than the MPAA trying to stop 09 F9.

protection methods

[Dayofswords]

So now companies just have to put in minimal protection and the rest is legal protection?

Re: protection methods

[Saxophonist]

So now companies just have to put in minimal protection and the rest is legal protection?

Yes, it's been that way since 1998. See this and, more generally, this.

Re: protection methods

[betterunixthanunix]

I would hardly call the PS3 restriction system "minimal" -- just take a look at the combination of hacks that was needed to finally crack it. Frankly, the way Sony screwed up ECDSA signing was just dumb luck -- had they not screwed up (i.e. had they implemented ECDSA signing correctly), it would have been significantly harder to crack the PS3.

I do not agree with the DMCA or the way it is abused by companies like Sony, but this is not a case of minimal effort.

Too little, too late

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a saying here in México about late reactions like this one:

"Ahogado el niño, a tapar el pozo"

or in english: "drowned the kid, let's cover up the well".

Sony can't claim this as a victory. They already lost. The code is out in the wild.

Low lifes, eh? Ever heard about poor countries?

[Kartu]

Where people earn like 200-400 buck per month? Exactly how do those evil "would never buy it if I had to pay for it" "pirates" harm Sony please?
Oh, and by the way, try to find out how many of the hackers out there have actually payed for IDA license. Someone on #ps3test already tried, quite fun to read:

http://pastie.org/1476525

Re:Low lifes, eh? Ever heard about poor countries?

[jrumney]

[Ever heard about poor countries] where people earn like 200-400 buck per month?

No, but I've heard about poor countries where substantial proportions of the population live on less than a dollar a day. $200 - 400 a month is not poor for most of the world.

just the 3?

[ohzero]

Seems kinda short sighted to only limit him to talking about PS3 when Sony is so far down the road on the development of a new platform (ie 4)

Re:Alrighty then...

[hedwards]

Perhaps they're planning to merge with Oracle?

How about the rest of the web

[unity100]

the rest which is distributing those keys like there's no tomorrow as of this moment ?

Self-important judiciary

[StikyPad]

From TFO:

Paintiff has submitted substantial evidence showing that defendant George Hotz has violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A), 120(b)(1). Plaintiff has also submitted evidence demonstrating that plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief, and that the balance of hardships favors plaintiff.

Once the keys were out there, the irreparable harm was done. There is no "relief" whatsoever provided by this order. It's vindictive intimidation, plain and simple.

I'm also disappointed that the judge decided to assert jurisdiction despite the obvious fact that it's well within SCEA's means to file suit in New Jersey, and clearly places a significant burden on the defendant to appear in California. The fact that SCEA wanted this case heard in Northern California has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it's the "proper venue" and everything to do with forum shopping. I can only surmise that the judge was rationalizing her decision to participate in what will undoubtedly be a precedent setting case should it go to trial, which doesn't speak highly of either her integrity or judgement. Signing her name to a paper stating that the plaintiff's case is "likely to succeed on the merits," shows either a bias in favor of SCEA, ignorance of the facts, or both. Mr. Hotz has repeatedly stated that he does not condone piracy, none of the PS3 tools he has released directly facilitate piracy, and in fact, none of the tools he's ever released on any platform has directly facilitated piracy. Sony's keys, while ostensibly a trade secret, are not subject to IP law protections, and even if they were, they were obtained through lawful reverse engineering of property sold to the defendant(s).

In summary, we have some really crappy laws, and those charged with upholding them don't seem to be much better.

Re:Self-important judiciary

[Hatta]

In summary, we have some really crappy laws, and those charged with upholding them don't seem to be much better.

He who enforces an unjust law is no better than he who breaks a just one.

Re:Self-important judiciary

[BuildMonkey]

To receive injunctive relief, the moving party must demonstrate "It has at least a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits." This wording is part one of a four part test on when injunctive relief may be granted, as laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Rizzo v. Goode. See the first Google hit for "likely to succeed on the merits."

Use of the wording is not a show of bias, but the judge's way of referencing that test to show that she operated within her judicial discretion. Be careful throwing around phrases like "bias.. ignorance of the facts, or both" when your comment itself demonstrates, well, both. There are bad judges like there are bad programmers, bad mathematicians, and bad engineers but accusing someone of criminal misconduct due to your own ignorance is irresponsible.

Re:Self-important judiciary

[Thing 1]

Where are my fucking italics, Slashdot?

In the old system. Like others, I notice a distinct reduction in the number of comments. And responding to responses is now a lot of clicking work. Is there a competitor that based itself off the previous Slashcode?

Re:Self-important judiciary

[Schadrach]

If there was anything in the Judge's order that smelled of misconduct to me, it would be that she is hearing the case in the first place rather than in NJ (where geohot is) or somewhere with an actual Sony corporate office at the time the suit was filed.

AFAICT, the whole argument there was that they claimed one of the Does was likely to live in CA, so they had standing to sue in CA. Does that mean that I can simply add an unidentified Doe to any suit I want and move the case to whatever jurisdiction I want to pretend he’s in?

More importantly, does this mean that if that particular Doe is discovered not to be in CA that they have no claim to standing in that jurisdiction and would need to throw the case out and start over in an appropriate locale?

IANAL, so I would love some clarification on this one, because it honestly confuses me.

Re:Self-important judiciary

[jaypifer]

Great summary, StikyPad. Thanks for posting this.

Re:Self-important judiciary

[KeithIrwin]

I agree with most everything in the parent post and would also like to add that it's pretty clear that the ECDSA signing keys do not, in fact, compromise a "circumvention device or technique". Suggesting that a set of secret numbers, unto itself, forms a device or technique is stretching the meaning of the words past the breaking point. Further, the part of the order which requires him to turn over to Sony all computers, hard drives, etc. which contain circumvention devices presupposes that he actually has software which would legally be considered a circumvention device. It is not at all clear from the publicly known facts that he possesses anything which would qualify. All of the stuff which he has released has been about gaining access to the hardware without gaining access to any of Sony's software, firmware, etc. The PS3 is not, itself, a copyrighted work. The best that they can argue is that the firmware and OS which run on the PS3 are. That is a silly, but potentially successful legal argument (as the courts have previously held the communicating with running copyrighted software or firmware is a form of "gaining access to a protected work" in several cases, including the Bnetd case despite that being an idiotic interpretation of the language of the DMCA). So that would work as an argument, unless, of course, the keys you've released are the keys used to sign boot loaders and bypass loading any of Sony's firmware or software at all, which, as it happens, are exactly those keys which Geohot released.

So the question is what happens if he complies with the last part of the order by giving them an empty box and saying "I don't have circumvention devices"? Presumably, more legal fun would ensue. I'm curious if that's the tack he'll take. I probably would in his case, since turning anything over to them is tantamount to an admission of violating the DMCA.

Re:Self-important judiciary

[metacell]

To receive injunctive relief, the moving party must demonstrate "It has at least a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits."

There's a difference between "having a reasonable likelihood of success on its merits", and being "likely to succeed on its merits". The first wording is the one used in the law. The latter is a much stronger statement, and sounds somewhat bold for a judge to make before the case has even started.

The link you provide actually does not contain the phrase "likely to succeed on its merits", only the weaker wording "has at least a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits".

I don't even own a PS3

[cvtan]

And after reading this I really want the decryption keys!

Sony steals features.

[Anonymous Coward]

I want the "Other OS" feature back that was stolen! erk: C0 CE FE 84 C2 27 F7 5B D0 7A 7E B8 46 50 9F 93 B2 38 E7 70 DA CB 9F F4 A3 88 F8 12 48 2B E2 1B riv: 47 EE 74 54 E4 77 4C C9 B8 96 0C 7B 59 F4 C1 4D pub: C2 D4 AA F3 19 35 50 19 AF 99 D4 4E 2B 58 CA 29 25 2C 89 12 3D 11 D6 21 8F 40 B1 38 CA B2 9B 71 01 F3 AE B7 2A 97 50 19 R: 80 6E 07

Counter-order ?

[KreAture]

Can he file a counter restraining-order for Sony to not apply the protection to any new releases untill the case is over? Or in some other way be prevented from persuing their interests?

Sloppy Court Documentation

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

This order really doesn't say much about the ability of courts in the US to follow even basic procedures.

"Hotz is ordered to appear before the court at 10:00am on January __ 2011."

There's a scribble about parties arranging their own hearing date after that, but this is simply unacceptable. Hotz is supposed to engage with a team of Sony legal sharks and the court expects them to act honestly? They could arrange one date with the court and give him another.

I don't know where courts get off sending things like this out.

Re:Sloppy Court Documentation

[Saxophonist]

I don't know where courts get off sending things like this out.

From reading the document, it appears to have been a proposed order submitted by plaintiff's counsel. This is typical in motion practice. To save time, the Court can just use it.

IANAL, etc.

Doofus!

[sillivalley]

The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. ... John Perry Barlow

When will these people figure that out?

Sony have gone to great expense to prove that they still don't get it!

Re:Doofus!

[countertrolling]

Yeah? Let's see it route around your service providers

Suck Fony!

[korgitser]

The saga continues...

Doesn't matter.

[thisisauniqueid]

Doesn't matter. With the root key, his job is done.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[snookiex]

They just want this media circus as a way to discourage possible future hackers. It's stupid, I know.

Should have left the "Other OS" feature on

[coolsnowmen]

Sony should have left the "Other OS" feature on and just "unsupported." There was a link on /. last time this came up to a black hat conference on the trend of gameOS hacking. Sony PS3 enjoyed the longest time in recently history from launch till being compromised to be able to run custom "home brew" and pirated software (3.16 years). If you date it from when they removed the "Other OS" feature, it falls right in line with every other hacked game system (Xbox/360, game cube, wii, ps2, dreamcast...). Bottom line, if you don't allow people to install linux, enough people will be motivated to break your system to do just that, also opening the can-of-worms that is pirated software.

Re:Should have left the "Other OS" feature on

[roc97007]

> Bottom line, if you don't allow people to install linux, enough people will be motivated to break your system to do just that, also opening the can-of-worms that is pirated software.

In other words, don't mess with the penguin!

Re:Should have left the "Other OS" feature on

[interkin3tic]

Thats nonsense. Geohotz broke the hypervisor before they pulled support for the PS3 fat. They pulled support as a direct result of his hacking.

That is not an appropriate response. You don't remove features for everyone just because you don't like how someone is using them.

The slims were never advertised as supporting Other OS. No one ever lost Other OS who owned a PS3 slim.

I understand that they've essentially removed Other OS for the old, fat ones as well.

You can get a better Linux machine than the PS3 slim anyways. These hackers are not going to use the PS3 for linux after this. They are just going to move on to the next device. The break machines that people paid good money for and move on. All for a feature that no one, includeing them, uses.

Sony was the one who broke it. People did use it for homebrew, and anyway you still don't remove features from products you already sold even if no one uses them.

Re:Should have left the "Other OS" feature on

[ZombieBraintrust]

Bottom line if you break the law you can expect legal fees and harassment.

Re:Should have left the "Other OS" feature on

[roc97007]

True! That is very true, and I'm sure he's having a devil of a time right now.

But -- pay attention here -- the cat is out of the bag. And I think original poster's point is that if you don't give geeks some reasonable access to a device, to do something innocuous (install Linux) that doesn't muck with your DRM, they will break your paltry encryption and publish the hack. Regardless of the personal consequences. 'S how geeks are. And the rest of us will turn the hack into haiku and t-shirts and spread it all over the net and sundry, and you'll never EVER get that particular cat back in that particular bag.

That being the case, and acknowledging that he's in a heap 'o' trouble, and whether or not Sony has the high ground here, Sony could have saved themselves a lot of grief by just keeping the damned "Other OS" feature on. Can we agree on that?

Re:Should have left the "Other OS" feature on

[ShakaUVM]

>>Sony should have left the "Other OS" feature on and just "unsupported."

I guess. But Other OS provided limited access to the hardware (IIRC only a single stream processor), and so homebrew couldn't really run on it very well anyway. It might have been more of a coincidence, since the impetus to break into the lower access levels was always there in order to allow homebrew games to run.

You have to read the PDF

[Anonymous Coward]

No. You have to read the PDF. The summary takes a strongly pro-Sony position by saying Geohot is not allowed to .. do things we already know are prohibited by DMCA. The actual restraining order, though, has some key "including but not limited to" and "and/or" wording, such that it not only prohibits doing some things related to copyright infringement, it also prohibits him from doing some things that it isn't disputed he's done. There are actions that anyone can legally do (without violating DMCA) to defeat the TPMS in the PS3, but if he (or other people acting in concert with him) do it, he'll be violating the order.

He could even win his case, but if he does what you suggest he can do, he'll end up with a contempt charge that he'll lose.

Sony Lawyer Arrives With Bag...

[Sponge Bath]

Sorry Mr. Stringer, the cat seems to have escaped.

Let's get something straight.

[Zelgadiss]

Let's get something straight.

Geohot was the one who threw the first punch, he broke through the hypervisior using "other OS" and "bus glitching", Sony removed "other OS" in response.

Regardless whether you think that was the right response, it's not unexpected and unprovoked.

PS: This is the end of my karma I suppose.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Not the end of your karma, but I'll burn some of mine by saying that your opinion is twisted. Even if Geohot threw the first punch, Sony's reaction was completely over-the-top and illegal. One person attempting to hack your system does not give you the ethical right to screw over your entire customer base. In all fairness to both of us, Sony has burned a lot more karma.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't aware that modifying hardware that you own constitutes provoking the company that manufactured it. I would actually say that Sony deciding that they didn't like the way that paying customers using their private property then pushing out a mandatory update in order to reduce functionality down to something they thought better suited their business model is a much more provocative action. And is much more analogous to throwing, "the first punch" as you said.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[interkin3tic]

Geohot was the one who threw the first punch, he broke through the hypervisior using "other OS" and "bus glitching", Sony removed "other OS" in response.

Regardless whether you think that was the right response, it's not unexpected and unprovoked.

Why should we disregard whether or not it was an appropriate response? That matters a great deal. Taking away features from everyone is an extreme overreaction. It could be expected since consumers seem to have no rights, but that doesn't justify it.

It's kind of like saying "Those people currently protesting against their governments threw the first punch. Regardless whether you think it was the right response, police cracking down with lethal force was neither unexpected nor unprovoked." I'd say it's still unprovoked.

Expected, sure, but so what? It's still wrong.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[Chuck Chunder]

Geohot was the one who threw the first punch,

I think it takes a certain viewpoint to describe it as a "punch".

If you think about the computing world today I don't think it is overstating things to say that it would be very different if not for the fact that reverse engineering of the original IBM PC bios was permitted by law.

Geohot's tinkering may not lead to such change but his freedom to tinker with his own equipment and talk about his tinkering should nonetheless be supported. I have had Playstations, and Xbox, a Wii, a Nintendo DS, an iPhone, an iPad etc and have never thought seriousy about jailbreaking or chipping any of them. I do think other people should be able to do so with their own stuff if they want to and be free to talk about their findings.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Car analogy. You buy a shiny new car with an amazing steering wheel warmer, but you live in a warm environment. Because somebody was researching a way to use that steering wheel warmer to do something the company deemed as nefarious, it disabled that feature on every car. You may not have been affected, it may only have bothered a few dozen drivers. But that does not change the fact that an advertised feature was removed from a product. I'm not painting Geohot as a modern Robin Hood, but he didn't pull the trigger...Sony did. I won't even bother responding to your personal attack because to be honest, if you're on this site and see all geeks as basement dwelling loners then you have a lot to learn.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[Zelgadiss]

It can also be argued that they are protecting their paying customers when they removed "other OS" trying to disable geohot's hack, for said hack would open the floodgates for hacks and cheats in multiplayer ruining online play.

They were screw one way or the other, so they took what they believed was the lesser of 2 evils.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[Zelgadiss]

portray him as some sort of noble Robin Hood archetype are just..well nothing comes to mind but self-righteous loners with entitlement issues.

I too am quite annoyed at how people like him are worshipped like heroes.

Villain or not, he can be nailed as the one who started the chain of events that resulted in the clusterfuck we have now.

Sony is left scrambling to security the system to appease publishers, gamers can look forward to multiplayer being ruined by hacks (and game developers more headaches from trying to prevent said hacks) and the only ones who are happy are the handful of homebrewers.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[Zelgadiss]

Just because a bank's security isn't perfect doesnt mean you should try to break into and rob it.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[Zelgadiss]

he didn't pull the trigger...

IMO he did.

Things were fine before his hack.

Sony and the publishers were happy, gamers played multiplayer with relatively few cheats, homebrewers had "other os" - some were not happy with lack of GPU access but Sony never claimed we would be able to access the GPU; if you weren't happy with that you should have just bought a cheap PC which would be even easier to program.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[Zelgadiss]

Was just pointing out to many here who believed "other OS" was removed for no reason, that geohot was heroically restoring that functionality, when it was his actions that prompted the removal in the first place.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[Zelgadiss]

Wow this is a bit of a stretch.

So what if Sony didn't include "other OS" on the slim (which they have be upfront about), it's their product they can design it however they want and you are free to not buy it.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your language is a little twisted:

One person attempting to hack your system...

It's not Sony's system. The PS3 that Geohot hacked is his own system. When I buy a PS3, it's my system. Nobody is hacking someone else's system - except possibly Sony, when they remotely deactivated the "other OS" functionality.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[IMightB]

I'm not sure if you a troll but I would just like to say your opinion is short-sighted. To stretch an analogy (My apologies to Bad Analogy Guy). Your entire argument assumes that Sony somehow retains ownership/rights to the PS3 that you have bought and paid for. This is not a natural idea and has been pushed hard/?purchased? by the various players in the patent/copyright industry. The best example of how things should operate that I can think of is Compaq. Remember back when IBM was selling the IBM PC and the were $2-3000 a pop and 30MB MFM drives were the norm? PC's were popular but were still far too expensive for the masses. Then a company called Compaq came along and (clean room) reversed engineered the IBM BIOS. Suddenly, the race for faster/better/cheaper was on. IBM tried and lost in court (as they should have).

Compaq was on the right side of the law and we all benefited in enormous ways.... Including IBM. Geohot is not the one that you should be blaming.

I almost want to commend the industry lobbyists/marketroids, responsible for molding your thoughts like this, for a job well done, they earned their paycheck.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[rastoboy29]

Dude...are you out of your mind?  Who does the system belong to, anyway?

If I hack my microwave, am I violating the manufacturer's rights?

Don't be such a tool.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[Zelgadiss]

What made you think Sony would remove it on the fat if not for geohot?

Any idiot could see removing it would be a PR nightmare, but it was the lesser of 2 evils for them - no more homebrew vs piracy and hacks online.

As for the slim they just didn't want to sell PS3s with "other OS" anymore, it complete within their right to do so.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[iainl]

By that thinking, if I embarrass you in front of your friends by showing how poor your logic is, everyone should remember that I made the first action when you brutally murder me in response.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[marcansoft]

Sony didn't remove Other OS in response. They made it seem like that. In reality, they were just itching to get an excuse to remove it.

The proof? Sony stated that they discontinued support for Other OS on the PS3 Slim because they weren't interested in working to supporting that feature, but they lied. As it turns out, Other OS would've worked just fine on the Slim had they not removed it (which actually took more effort than just leaving it be). The only conclusion is that they wanted Other OS gone for some other reason (there were no hacks back then, so security wasn't an excuse), and that reason would logically apply to older PS3s too. Some speculate that the reason was that Sony wanted to kill off emulators running on Linux in order to push PSN-based "virtual console" games. This, by the way (lack of Other OS on the slim) is why Geohot started his efforts to break the system.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[xtracto]

Blah blah, Karma disclaimer so that I don't get modded down blah blah.

Sony's reaction was completely over-the-top and illegal.

Actually no, Sony's reaction is literally not illegal. They have the right to ask for such and such restraining orders. Even the judge agreed that it was legal (the fact that he/she gave the order shows that). That does not mean it was morally wrong; but hey, you should work to change the laws in your country.

On the other hand, what GeoHot did might be illegal in the USA. IIRC team twiizers did the "definite" work to hack the PS3 and showed it in here in Germany (where it is not illegal) and they explicitely said they won't make the key available (or something like that)... and then GeoHot came and put the key on his homepage defying Sony..."So Sue Me"; well, here you go, he got what he was looking for.

Of course I can only hope that reason will be held in court and Sony gets their ass bitch-slapped.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Let's get something straight.

Geohot was the one who threw the first punch, he broke through the hypervisior using "other OS" and "bus glitching", Sony removed "other OS" in response.

Geohot announced his intention to hack the PS3 in December of 2009 after the PS3 slim came out without the Other OS feature. This was the reason he started hacking it in the first place. Sony was the one who "threw the first punch" by removing an advertised feature from the newer PS3 models. Once he started finding cracks in their armour, they proceeded to forcibly remove it entirely via a firmware update for all PS3 models.

I'm just going to quote the Extra Credits guys here, because they hit the nail on the head: Sony? Do not tangle with the kind of people who install Linux on their PlayStations.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[man_the_king]

Your timeline is wrong. Here's the correct timeline:

1) Sony DOES NOT include OtherOS in Slim (they did not remove it) while still selling Fat PS3s until they run out of stock

2) Geohot breaks the hypervisor in Fat PS3, using the OtherOS feature to do do.

3) IN RESPONSE, Sony removes OtherOS from the PS3 Fat

Thus, Geohot threw the first punch by abusing an existing feature in the PS3 Fat to hack into it.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[isilrion]

They were screw one way or the other, so they took what they believed was the lesser of 2 evils.

Out of curiosity, do you really believe that? Given the tone of your first post ("unprovoked", "first punch", removing other OS "in response", etc), I assumed you believed/justified Sony being vindictive. But in this one, Sony is the good guy being forced to do evil by Geohot and taking the righteous path, which incidentally, meant stealing from all their paying customers. Now I'm confused. I suppose one of those is sarcastic or being devil's advocate or something, but I can't figure out which is which.

Re:Let's get something straight.

[isilrion]

Was just pointing out to many here who believed "other OS" was removed for no reason, that geohot was heroically restoring that functionality, when it was his actions that prompted the removal in the first place.

What? His actions didn't prompt anything - what happened was Sony's decision, and Sony's decision alone. Sony was well within their power to not sell a PS3 to him or anyone he might have known in the first place. (What? Sony can't see the future? Neither could him... the difference is, he was hacking his very own device, and at most teaching others to do the same if they wanted, while Sony decided to break everyone's devices). That Sony's actions aren't clearly in the wrong from a legal point of view speaks very badly of the american legal system, and that they are justified in your mind speaks badly... well, about you. Sony did, after all, take something away from their customers - they did much more than the "pirates" who only copy their stuff.

Cat's out the bag

[Ponder Stibions]

Really, Sony need to admit that once again they have lost. I keys are on Freenet for anyone willing to spend the time to set it up and wade through the spam and porn (like the normal Internet, just outrageous and in your face). The info will stay there as long as my browser keeps up auto-refreshing the page as if stays in demand, it stays stored within Freenet.

Also, while Sony is out admitting they failed again in a locked down system, maybe they could inform the other major companies still doing this it's an Arms race, and it's always only a matter of time before these keys and details are leaked...

It's pretty simple

[countertrolling]

Even something so cosmetically "robust" as the 1st amendment is a toothless tiger when confronted by copyright, or any talk of real resistance, for that matter.

Re:Selfish

[kenshin33]

I don't like this particularly, but would you care to explain what those selfish publicity seeking did to the PSP that Sony didn't do?

Re:Innocent until proven guilty?

[kenshin33]

they should sue you for that. You just cost them the profit of all your future purchased games.

Re:You don't understand how IP law works . .

[luther349]

guess you shoulda been on the iphone case witch apple lost. personaly its a bunch of bs. they lost on every console in the past yes they sued before and lost they seem to think the rules dont apple with every new system.

Off the deep end.

[westlake]

There's a cycle. First, identify the largest clearly identifiable remaining demographic. Second, piss them off. Repeat.

The PS3 has sold 41 million units. PSN has about 69 million accounts. Play Station Home, (social networking) 17 million accounts. (source: Wikipedia)

These numbers dwarf anything Slashdot has to offer.

The PS3 is one of the best rated Blu-Ray and DVD players around.

The PS3 supports Netflix and other streaming media services for which there is no Linux client - and it remains, by the way, a very good platform for console gaming.

Re:Off the deep end.

[seebs]

Oh, no! It is possible that my exaggeration for humorous effect was not strictly factually accurate! HORRORS!

Point is, I had at least two PS1s, at least two PS2s, and dozens of games for each. I haven't turned my PS3 on in over a year, even though the PS1 and PS2 systems are still getting played. Sony's managed to offend, alienate, or drive off, a surprising number of die-hard fans.

41 million units? Compare that to how many the PS2 had sold a few years in. Compare it to how many the Wii sold. Sony took a position of utter and unquestioned market dominance, where everyone knew their next system would be the #1 system just like the previous two, and managed to come in a distant third, before a lot of the recent things they've done. I used to hang out on a PS3 fan board. The day before the "40GB" unit came out, the moderators were marking any threads about the rumored loss of backwards compatibility with "debunked" because people were in such a tizzy about that insulting and obviously false rumor.

A lot of Sony fans have been made to look really, really, stupid this generation, because things they used as big examples of how awesome the PS3 was were taken away after having previously worked. Why? Because Sony is stupid.

Cohen:Call It The Digital Millenium Censorship Act

[D4C5CE]

"Call It The Digital Millenium Censorship Act" was the title of Julie E. Cohen's early warning (The New Republic, 2000) how the dreaded DMCA and other "overprotections of the lock" (i.e. Digital Restrictions Management) would turn many aspects even of one's own physical property into "Unfair Use".

Another one was http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html by RMS (Communications of the ACM, 1997).

of course

[nateand]

Fuck you, Sony.

Re:of course

[ZombieBraintrust]

Fuck you nateand. Sony is looking out for the communities interest on this one. If you want Linux there are hundreds of other ways of getting it without shitting all over the PS3 ecosystem. And that is what Geohotz and FailOverFlow did. The took a big fat dump on a lot of peoples property. If Sony can harass that jerk then good for them.

Re:of course

[nateand]

Are you kidding me? They were making it so anyone could run homebrew on their OWN consoles. What they did in no way affected anyone's PS3 who didn't want have anything to do with it. The only people taking dumps on property is Sony. They have proven time and time again that they will gladly abuse their own customers. If you want to get in line for the anal rape, have at it. Some of us have some self respect.

Re:of course

[ZombieBraintrust]

Are you kidding me? They were making it so anyone could run homebrew on their OWN consoles. What they did in no way affected anyone's PS3 who didn't want have anything to do with it. The only people taking dumps on property is Sony. They have proven time and time again that they will gladly abuse their own customers. If you want to get in line for the anal rape, have at it. Some of us have some self respect.

I see you have blinders on. Cheating effects people not involved. And it is already occurring. That happens when you break the security on other peoples devices.

http://playstationlifestyle.net/2011/01/25/modern-warfare-2-online-play-crippled-by-ps3-security-breach/ http://attackofthefanboy.com/news/trophy-hack-ps3-ruining/

I didn't buy a PS3 to play homebrew. I have a PC that runs that crap perfectly fine. I purchased a PS3 to play $30 - $60 video games. Games like Uncharted and LittleBigPlanet. Trading that for homebrew is a foolish. Sony has been good to me in the past. My PlayStation, PS2, and PS3 never had any issues. My Sony TV works great. I am hardly an abused customer. I am a Sony fanboy and I have good reason to be. I have plenty of self respect. And a firmware update that prevents me from running a twenty year old ROM of Zelda is hardly anal rape.

Re:of course

[nateand]

You're a fool. Sony sold a console advertising features that it later took away. That is completely disrespectful to their customers. And I don't really care what you want to do with YOUR ps3, that's the point. And neither you nor Sony gets to decide what I do with my personal property. If I choose to break open my ps3 so I can run homebrew on it, that's my fucking right. I bought the hardware, and have the right to use it as I wish. Just because you don't want to doesn't mean no one else does. Just because some assholes decide to cheat doesn't mean I lose my rights to my own property. Those assholes should be banned from the online services the same way Xbox Live or Steam manage the people who cheat on there. People rob banks using getaway cars, I guess we should ban cars too, right? Dumbass.

Re:of course

[mrchaotica]

Fuck you ZombieBraintrust. Sony is undermining citizens' fundamental property rights. GeoHot did nothing more than exercise his right to modify his own personal property and his right to engage in free speech. Both Sony and the judge are borderline traitorous, and the DMCA itself is unconstitutional!

Re:of course

[Jesus_666]

Sony did sell the PS3 with Other OS as an explicitly supported feature. Other OS didn't have the performance of GameOS because Sony didn't want people to distribute unlicensed games. The homebrew community decided they didn't like that and jailbroke Other OS.

This is the point where cheating became possible and this is where Sony could've prevented it altogether by having better-designed safety measures. They could've admitted defeat on the Other OS front and changed the hypervisor so that it gives people hardware access without giving them access to the bootloader and certain other aspects of the device - not stuff that homebrewers will legitimately want to use but enough to ensure that signed and unsigned code will never run at the same time. That would've kept most of the best hackers off their back as only those interested in cracking and cheating would've kept working on the PS3.

Instead, they decided to engage in a hacking war with a community known to be skilled, dedicated and resourceful. The result, predictably, is that they lost control over their console at a deeper level than before.

Sony didn't start the war (even though their crippled Other OS failed to appease the homebrewers) but their actions were directly responsible for its outcome. They could've kept their losses small; instead they tried to eliminate them entirely - which nobody had ever succeeded at before.


My recommendation for the PS4: Give the homebrewers a full-featured Other OS option and just ensure that signed and unsigned code can't talk to each other. That way the homebrewers will not be hellbent about hacking their way past the hypervisor. If Sony are afraid of homebrew games stealing the commercial games' thunder they just need to do like Microsoft did with XBox Live Arcade and turn them into a second market. They just need to avoid the usually Sony-typical control trip; those tend to work out badly.

Re:Cohen:Call It The Digital Millenium Censorship

[Thing 1]

RMS is Rights Management System? :)

Re:NEX-5

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Ok, so...

You: "Fuck you Sony! Fuck your DRM, your Other OS removal, your root kits and your lawsuits! I'm not buying anything from you ever again!"

Sony: "Here's a shiny toy."

You: "You're awesome! Here, take my money! It might come in handy while you drag the PS3 homebrew people through the courts."

Thanks.

Re:Alrighty then...

[Grishnakh]

Not just Oracle, they're planning to also merge with Microsoft, Comcast, Rogers, Qwest, Rambus, Verizon, AT&T, Facebook, Best Buy, Monsanto, ADM, Merck, Pfizer, and BP, in one giant evil conglomerate. What they don't realize is that all this evil concentrated into one entity will create a black hole and destroy the Earth.

Gamers and boycotts

[xororand]

It is well known that gamers generally possess extraordinary self-discipline when it comes to boycotts.

otherOS on ps3

[Anonymous Coward]

i waited until the phat ps3 dropped to lowest price i could afford, then bought it...
guess what? 1 month later... sony decided to remove otherOS feature...
so i waited for some expert (e.g. geohot) to add otherOS back into latest version of ps3 gameOS...
guess what? now sony has won the case and geohot cannot finish what he started...

i'll think really hard about the idea of getting psp2/ps-phone when it became available by end of this year... ...uh... make it extra hard... to convince myself...

Re:otherOS on ps3

[Computershack]

1 month later... sony decided to remove otherOS feature... so i waited for some expert (e.g. geohot) to add otherOS back into latest version of ps3 gameOS...

It is directly because of Geohot exploiting the PS3 using the OtherOS that it was removed. So you should actually be blaming HIM, not worshipping the twat.

T-Shirt

[kiwix]

Would he be allowed to sell a t-shirt similar to this one?

Ex Parte. Very nice

[russotto]

So Sony sends one of their expensive lawyers to court against an individual, and gets a broad temporary restraining order against him "ex parte"... meaning he didn't even get a _chance_ to fucking respond.

Oh, and despite this being a "temporary" restraining order, it's actually indefinite.

Fuck Sony and fuck the honorable rubberstamp Susan Yvonne Illston.

#SonySucks

[Mr. Samuel]

That is all.

I love being a console owner today

[Floritard]

I was going to play a quick game before dinner tonight. A game I legally bought. I couldn't because I had to install some shitty firmware update that provides me with no benefit and only attempts (futilely?) to close up security holes. Oh well, dinner's ready...

Re:NEX-5

[aiht]

AC did not say any of those things.
They responded to the question "when is the last time Sony marketed a product that you might actually want to buy (for it's features and/or price)?"
Y'know, the question that was explicitly asked by the parent.

Is there some actual reasoning out there?

[jonwil]

Presumably GeoHot and his lawyers argued that the information is already out there with many many mirror sites and that the injunction against distributing something that's so widely mirrored is therefore pointless.

What I want to know is what the Sony lawyer's argument as to why the injunction was required given the wide dissemination of the information and what the judge said in response to the "its already out there so the injunction is pointless" arguments.

I suspect Sony were concerned about further publications by GeoHot of currently unpublished information (such as a custom LV2/GameOS replacement that does minimal hardware init and then runs a Linux bootloader/kernel) and about GeoHot dissecting the next PS3 firmware update (the one that is going to try and shut the stable door even though the horse has already bolted) and posting its secrets online.

Re:Is there some actual reasoning out there?

[russotto]

Presumably GeoHot and his lawyers argued that the information is already out there with many many mirror sites and that the injunction against distributing something that's so widely mirrored is therefore pointless.

Nope. Check it again. GeoHot's and his lawyers were not given a chance to respond. Sony presented the proposed order to the judge, she rubber-stamped it, it's done.

Re:Is there some actual reasoning out there?

[Kakari]

Given that the court doesn't have jurisdiction over him, can he just refuse to respond (or rather, respond with a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction)? Or does that trick only work if someone brings suit against you, vice a TRO?

Re:Ex Parte. Very nice

[Dhalka226]

Regardless of how you feel about it, the TRO was proper. There is a chance that Sony could win its case and whatever damages they are alleging would certainly continue during the trial if not constrained. That's all there is to a TRO. It's only "indefinite" in the sense that the trial itself has no predictable end date.

Now of course from a purely logical standpoint the cat is already out of the bag and the TRO is pretty damn stupid, but the courts don't necessarily work on logic, just law and procedure. Sony requested the TRO, the (admittedly lax) requirements are met, they got it. Big whoop. If he wants to turn up to contest the ex parte decision he can certainly do so, but he's not going to win.

Re:Ex Parte. Very nice

[russotto]

Regardless of how you feel about it, the TRO was proper. There is a chance that Sony could win its case and whatever damages they are alleging would certainly continue during the trial if not constrained. That's all there is to a TRO. It's only "indefinite" in the sense that the trial itself has no predictable end date.

And that is indefinite enough. It's easy to drag out a case. For instance, in patent cases, the fight for the initial "temporary" injunction is usually the most important part -- and certainly not granted rubberstamp-style. A TRO is not as trivial as you make it out.

Re:Alrighty then...

[mrchaotica]

What they don't realize is that all this evil concentrated into one entity will create a black hole and destroy the Earth.

No, see, they do realize that. After all, destroying the Earth would be evil!

Stars and Stripes

[.tekrox]

and the US champions another just victory in the civil court...

Sony wins

[bored]

They probably don't care if they win or lose, by the time this gets settled no one will even know what a PS3 is.

Quick question

[lennier1]

When will car manufacturers do the same and force you to drive only on preselected roads and to never replace the steering wheels or the radio?

Re:Quick question

[Attila Dimedici]

When will car manufacturers do the same and force you to drive only on preselected roads and to never replace the steering wheels or the radio?

I am not sure about the legal precedent relative to roads, but the car manufacturers have already lost the steering wheel and radio issues quite some time back. There is established legal precedent that they cannot limit your ability to replace the radio or steering wheel with third party versions. Now, if they could get Congress to pass a new law, they might be able to open that back up. Fortunately, enough people understand cars well enough that any Congress person who proposed such a law would be unlikely to win re-election, no matter how much money the car companies gave him/her.

Re:NEX-5

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Yes he did. He bitches about the rootkits and this geohot restraining order... and then raves about their camera for a paragraph.

Re:Ex Parte. Very nice

[metacell]

So you mean all that is required to slap a restraining order on someone, is to convince a judge that you have a chance to win the case - without the defendant being heard? I believe you, I just think it sounds like a very unreasonable legal procedure.

If Geohot eventually wins after a few years, he will effectively have been prevented from exercising his legal rights to reverse-engineer a publicly available commercial product until it is already outdated. To me, that sounds like abuse of the legal system.

Devil their due

[ThatsNotPudding]

How can you have a successful on-line gaming environment if some of the users' hacked hardware makes them unbeatable? Doesn't sound like much fun. I suppose this could happen with hacked games on the PC side, so maybe mine is a silly argument.

Its because of Hotz.....

[Computershack]

It is because of Hotz exploiting the "Other OS" option to run a hack that Sony removed it. So essentially, Hotz's subsequent hacks were to re-enable something that he was responsible for getting removed

So instead of lauding Hotz as some kind of underdog hero, all those who want the ability to run Linux on their PS3 should actually be blaming him for its removal./P

Re:Its because of Hotz.....

[man_the_king]

People on Slashdot do not want to listen to that kind of logic. They would rather rant about why Sony did not include OtherOS in the Slims while disregarding the fact that if they were THAT interested in the limited homebrew offered by OtherOS, they could have bought one of the Fat PS3s. It's convenient how /.ers forget about the chronology of events while hero-worshiping Geohot for causing them to lose their OtherOS in the first place. Convenient but easily explained, given how a large number of them seem to HATE Sony (and will search for any reason to continue said hate, including the rootkit fiasco, and the hell with the fact that Sony BMG Crescendo is not the same as Sony Computer Entertainment).

Judge clearly in SONY's pocket...

[hesaigo999ca]

The judge's ruling makes absolutely no sense, sort of like Metnik back in the day, he can not come into within 50 yards of a computer for the next 5 years. Well guess what, I could say that in today's world is impossible....so how are you going to monitor all his activity, also, what if he uses a proxy such as a brother to keep it going...what you are going to force all his friends and relatives from ever posting another email on the web again.....try proving to someone you caught them doing something wrong...you need surveillance, you can't just assume he will do something. I wonder sometimes where our justice system is going.....instead of forcing SONY to come up with something that iseither better encrypted, or just make them understand that once something is bought from the shelf of a store, it no longer belongs to SONY and can be broken as needed....it's like HONDA saying, no you will not add that cold air intake, we forbid you....because we feel you are modifying the basic ideal of the car....well too bad, I own it...obviously the judge is on the take on this one....really a sad day for justice (or lack of)
justice today is truly blind.!

Re:Meh

[DrVxD]

now all I use it for is watching downloaded films and tv shows on.

There are much better/quieter/cheaper products for doing that.