Slashdot Mirror
Sony's Official Statement Regarding PS3 Hacking
tekgoblin writes "Sony has stepped up its stance on anyone circumventing protection of any kind on the PlayStation 3 and released a statement addressing it. Most recently Sony had barred George Hotz (Geohot) from releasing any more information about the console whatsoever. Now, Sony has their eyes set on other users that may be trying to use pirated software or modded PlayStation consoles on their network. The statement reads: 'Notice: Unauthorized circumvention devices for the PlayStation 3 system have been recently released by hackers. These devices permit the use of unauthorized or pirated software. Use of such devices or software violates the terms of the "System Software License Agreement for the PlayStation 3 System" and the "Terms of Services and User Agreement" for the PlayStation Network/Qriocity and its Community Code of Conduct provisions. Violation of the System Software Licence Agreement for the PlayStation 3 System invalidates the consumer guarantee for that system. In addition, copying or playing pirated software is a violation of International Copyright Laws. Consumers using circumvention devices or running unauthorized or pirated software will have access to the PlayStation Network and access to Qriocity services through PlayStation 3 system terminated permanently.'"
I just got a letter from Sony's lawyers regarding a particularly insidious piece of software I wrote for my PS3 entitled "Hello World". My Dad says that I have been very bad and will have to go to military school.
doubling up one's attitude regarding ANYthing, does not make that thing right, or wrong. something that is wrong, stays wrong, something that was right, stays still right.
In the cases where that thing was wrong, all that 'doubling up' accomplishes is to show the stubbornness and bastardry of the one doubling up the stance.
basically its doing wrong, and then insisting on being indignant.
Read radical news here
Firstly, just to state the obvious: I know that most people using these hacks will be running pirated games, and only the tiniest number will be using homebrew software.
But having said that...
Sony's statement refers to both pirated software AND "unauthorised" software. In that context, unauthorised must = homebrew. Software that you've written yourself, or the author intends you to use. Yet if you use it, Sony will cut you off from PlayStation Network, greatly reducing what you can do with the official games you've bought.
How is that even legal?!?!
I own my PS3. Sony shouldn't be able to take any action that prevents me from using it. If I want to pirate games (which I don't) then Sony can pursue me through the courts. They shouldn't be able to "confiscate" all of my legally-bought games as punishment, which is effectively what they're going to do.
Well, that's fixed that one then, hasn't it? With a statement like that, it's clear that piracy on the PS3 is good and dead.
Or maybe not.
Seriously, I don't see what Sony were trying to achieve here. I think anybody who mods their console (hardware or software) to run homebrew or pirated games will do so with the expectation that they will not continue to be able to use PSN features for long. All Sony have probably achieved is a minor Streisand-effect, making sure that even more people know that it's now possible to pirate PS3 games.
That said, I do applaud the policy of banning modded consoles from the PSN (and hence from the online components of PS3 games). The big attraction of console online multiplayer for me (and I suspect for quite a few others) is that playing on a locked-down system does reduce (albeit perhaps not eliminate) the scope for cheats outside of the exploitation of game-specific glitches.
Maybe he owns a Wii? /me points at AC.... HAHA!
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
I really have to say something here... I have a hard time understanding why this is such a big deal. Bear with me here...
You are buying a product that works within a closed ecosystem, including Sony's Playstation Network. If you mod your PS3, of course Sony is not going to let you play on their playground because they have no way to determine if your box is cheating or doing other non-good things while being attached to their network. Why is this so hard to understand?
Think about it this way... you are an IT manager for a large company. You manage thousands of desktops and hundreds of servers. What would you do if your employees started taking their laptops home and installing a modified or hacked OS, and then proceeded to bring those laptops to work and connected them to your managed network? Would you like that? Or would you ban those laptops from connecting to your network? This is precisely what Sony is doing and I don't disagree with it.
Note that I'm not against modding and hacking, on the contrary, I am a self-taught hacker with an electronics degree and nearly 30 years of computing experience. But even I understand that if I buy product A that comes with service B, service B may be taken away or unavailable if I modify product A. Sorry, but that's the breaks when you buy into a closed ecosystem. Same thing goes with Apple's walled-garden approach.
Now, if you want to mod your box, fine, just don't expect support or service from Sony. You don't need to use Sony's network if you don't own any games that require it. If I modded my own box, I would expect that I can no longer use any associated services. However, intentionally bricking a device is a whole other topic...
The condenced version of sonys TOS/EULA:
"We guarantee nothing, we promise nothing, we reserve the right to do anything we want or terminate this agreement at any point. You have the right to do absolutely nothing but we may decide not to punish you from doing some things if we feel like it. We also may change this agreement at any time and you shall have agreed to those changes as well automatically by agreeing to this"
it's remarkably similar to the agreement that comes with most antivirus software.
The only flaw in your reasoning? Claiming that you own a PS3. You paid a one-time leasing fee, at best; the device still belongs to Sony.
Next month Sony will announce that ownership of a PS3 w/o record of having bought any games, indicates the person is a pirate and will result in banning from PSN. (With possible legal action too.)
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
Everytime an article about hacking on the PS3 turns up on Slashdot, we get a bunch of idiots writing "Fuck you, Sony".
For the report, I don't have a problem with homebrew or hacking. I run Rockbox on my iRiver.
I do however have a problem with piracy and online cheating.
If you're hacking the console just so you can play the latest games without paying for them or so you can cheat online in Sony's PSN, then you deserve to have your console banned.
Summation 2
It's hyperbole like this that is making slashdot look foolish. It comes up any time a managed ecosystem like this comes up (PSN, Xbox Live, App Store, Tivo EPG etc) that the company in question merely "leased" the device to you and that you "don't own your own hardware".
It's nonsense, and it degrades the argument. Buying a PS3, or an Xbox, or an iPhone, or a Tivo is one thing. Having access to the services that those devices have available is entirely another.
If Sony cuts you off from the PSN for violating the ToS it is *not* analogous at all to "the device belonging to Sony".
If the arguments against closed systems like PSN or the App Store etc begin with such false statements, how can anyone take the genuine parts of the argument seriously? You're shooting yourself in the foot.
We never thought to build shore defences because our Scienticians assured Us that if We stood on the shoreline and shouted "HALT!" loudly enough, the tide would never come in.
Effective immediately, Our new Oceanic Evition policy is to execute any of Our subjects caught with damp feet. We trust that this shall bring an end to this sordid defiance of Our divine authority.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Don't they have a right to try and control what happens to their product?
No. Fortunately for Sony, this is not about the product, but about infrastructure that they themselves own and operate.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
One time leasing fee?? Just goes to show you that you need to read the fine print. If you don't agree with it, then don't buy/lease the unit. Most manufactures don't want you to read the fine print; this is the reason that it is tiny and difficult to read (legalese).
What if you were to come across a unit some other way, such as a garage sale giveaway? In this case you have agreed to nothing. Does the unit say "Not for resale. Property of Sony Corp." on it??
The one-time leasing fee is just a ploy to prevent you from marginalizing or re-purposing the hardware. Why should I not be able to build software for that platform and sell it or give it away allowing others to run it--such as a Linux distribution? For that matter, why not purchase from Sony, hack for other purpose--such as a node for parallel processing super computer, and then re-sell the units for that purpose with software included? You could make some serious money using their console. How can that be wrong or illegal?
It is not my fault that Sony chose a marketing tactic of giving the razor away to sell the blades. That is their risk and trying to get the law on their side in this matter is just plain wrong. ...I have some pretty decent blades that just happen to fit in that razor and when combined can do some very useful and valuable things.
I do not plan on buying anything from Sony again. Hopefully others will do the same. They can keep their products and services. What they are doing is just plain wrong--typical of an aging entertainment business with lobbying ties to Washington.
Why do people keep sending these greedy corporations money for products and services when they carry on like this (with the draconian fine print)??
...except they sold their product with this specific use as an advertised feature.
This means that hacking the device after that feature has been removed is much more legitimate than any other sort of jailbreaking, including jailbreaking a phone.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I get that blocking game servers but they are not just doing that. They are blocking access to PSN which stops me from legitimately purchasing anything online from them. This also blocks access to netflix for no reason I can see. When I try to load netflix, I see it open and load and connect to the netflix servers but I get a pop-up over it obstructing me from selecting anything saying I need to sign in the the PSN network.
I am now blocking my PSN from accessing the internet.
And yes, I mainly use it for homebrew stuff. You know, the stuff I used to be able to do when it still had the "other os" feature.
If the PSN isn't required for PS3, then they can ban you from it. But, why can't there be a replacement network? Up until recently, it was not technically possible to create unauthorized software (software subject to their licensing & TOS restrictions) however it is now.
Since you "own" your console, you should be able to connect it to any network. I would assert that Sony by way of only allowing only one network (PSN) is given an unfair monopoly and is engaging in anti-competitive business practices. (Same for for XBLN) Even if you agree to the ToS, the ToS is only binding on the first owner of the console (First Sale doctrine) there is no provision for Sony to continue the ToS and License agreements past the shrink-wrap seal.
Clearly, you have the right to network the unit you own and have the right to connect it to networks of your choosing. I call for Sony to publish specifications which would allow alternate, private or open networks to be functionally equivalent to the PSN, as well as the PS Store. If Sony is going to force the issue, we'll make sure the stakes get really high.
This all started when they took Linux away anyway. That in itself has to be bait and switch.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Sony could do much better working WITH the community on things like OtherOS. Instead, they've gone down the paranoid conspiracy-theorist route and look what it's gotten them - now the "pirate" scene and the homebrew scene (not always 100% separated anyways) are working on similar projects to open up the box for non-Sony code.
I doubt Sony gives a flying fuck if someone produces their own firmware to run XBMC for example. What they care about is people using modded firmware to play pirate software, cheat in multiplayer games, hack save games, hack trophies, scare off premium developers and generally screw around with something designed as a closed system.
I'm 100% in favor of detecting and banning hacked consoles from PSN. It's Sony's network and they have the fundamental right anyway, and secondly, if it keeps cheaters/hacks/aimbots/etc off the PSN, I'm 110% in favor of that.
And I'll just buy another PS3. It will remain unmodified, and I'll use that for playing games online. And my current PS3 will remain as my "hacker's delight" that runs homebrew. If Sony detects that it's modified and bans it from the PSN, that's fine.
As for everyone else, if they want a PS3 to hack I'm sure it won't take long before Sony starts detecting modified PS3s and banning them from PSN, and $100 PS3s start appearing on Kijiji/Craigslist next to the Xbox360's that are banned from XBL.
That being said, I wish Sony was more accepting of the hacker community, perhaps even facilitating it somewhat. I actually thing it'd be awesome if Sony added a feature to the PS3 where you could 100% unlock the console hardware, banning the console from PSN in the process. It'd be a lot better, and probably even cheaper for them in the long run, than continuing their current bullshit of legally shafting people like Geohot. Hey, if people want to figure out how to program your game system, you should be helping them!
The problem is that Sony, being the control-freaks that they are, will likely take steps that will punish *you*, even though you're completely innocent. Don't have your PS3 connected to the internet? Sorry, all future games require online validation before you can play them--and no refunds. Have limited hard drive space? Sorry, all games now require partial installation to the hard drive. Got an older PS3 model? Sorry, a PS3 Slim model is required to play this title. Haven't updated your system software in a while? Sorry, all games now require the latest PS3 update to run. Wondering why you're suddenly perma-banned for no reason? Sorry, we got a false positive that you were running unauthorized software--tough luck, buddy.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The NES had its own unauthorized software lockout mechanism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10NES
Your sarcasm is misplaced. What's the point of Sony going to the expense of providing services to legit users if a bunch of assholes are allowed to cheat rendering them useless? The answer is there is no point. Clearly Sony intend to shut modders out of PSN both as a deterrent and also to protect the service from vandalism, exploits, damage etc.
I would be just fine with Sony protecting their PSN by banning modded consoles. That's good for gamers and means pirates will probably not be able to play their copies for long online. The part I have a problem with is Sony's assumption that the hardware is intertwined with PSN and therefore must litigate to erase all knowledge of how to uncouple the two. Why should Sony care if I want to buy 3 consoles to start a small Pov-Ray rendering farm? There's nothing wrong with trying to erase Sony's software from the console. The bit that is wrong is trying to modify their software to allow pirated games or hacks on the PSN. Geohot did not reveal how to add infinate ammo cheats to Call Of Duty. He simply provided access to the hardware that was originally part of the design.
I liked GeoHot's rap about getting sued by Sony (here).
There is a big difference between hacking to cheat (steal games/cheat with online games) and when someone hacks to allow you to use the hardware you own. Admittedly it's hard to keep them separate, but that's what must be done if we as consumers want the right to use the hardware we paid for as we see fit.