9 ms·

Sony always gets what it wants. While they're not fundamentally wrong, since it's their product, they're playing whack the mole with a large hacker community. T

by rheide 16y ago

Sony always gets what it wants. While they're not fundamentally wrong, since it's their product, they're playing whack the mole with a large hacker community. This can't end well.

fingerprinter 16y ago
I'll admit that I haven't followed the story that closely, but from my understanding, he hacked his PS3 and posted what he found, right? Wouldn't we, as a reasonably logical technical community, see that as his system and he would be free to do with it what he wants (the hack, probably not the post)? Perhaps posting it is where they have a case (INAL), but I can't see any justification for going after him for merely hacking/poking around his PS3 hardware and software. I started to see this pop up in some posts recently: * apple's hardware...they have the right to do what they want * sony's hardware...they have the right to do what they want I don't exactly know when this started but I think it's worth correcting and trying to stop. No reasonable person would assume that you could buy any physical device and NOT be allowed to do whatever you want to it. There may be usage restrictions (you can't modify your car w/ a jet pack and expect to drive it on a public road...), but if you are doing something for educational/experimental purposes, I can't see how it would be illegal. Anyone care to comment? I'm open to having my position changed if someone can show me why.
- wlesieutre 16y ago
  It's BMW's car. You're not allowed to use that gas station.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    And we'll track all people who watch BMW cars that use that gas station.
    - jrockway 16y ago
      And we'll track all people who watch a youtube video of people watching BMW cars use that gas station. Land of the free indeed.
      - rapind 16y ago
        That video sounded a lot better than it was.
- jdp23 16y ago
  That's how I see it too, and I believe EFF and many others agree with you. Sony, Apple, and others who want to deny people these rights obviously see things differently.
- jarin 16y ago
  I've only seen people say "It's Apple's App Store, they have the right to do what they want with it", not "It's Apple's hardware, they have the right to do what they want with it". I don't know anyone who would question a hardware owner's right to do as they please with it.
  - lukeschlather 16y ago
    >To be clear, we believe you have every right to push forward such a policy. In our view, it’s your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any policy you like. http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/ http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/ Plenty of other examples here: http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22It%27s+Apple%27s+hardware%22 http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22It%27s+Apple%27s+hard...
    - jarin 16y ago
      Their channel? Definitely. Their hardware? Only if it's sitting on a shelf.
    - Dylan16807 16y ago
      Which I would read as server hardware in that instance.
      - lukeschlather 16y ago
        Apple's server hardware isn't the issue: Apple is asking for a 30% cut when Readability is processing and distributing content. (Maybe; I'm not sure how the Readability app specifically works. But Readability is theoretically in the same boat as Amazon, where Amazon is hosting all of the content, and Apple expects a cut because you're using an iOS device, and Apple maintains that their curator position licenses them to revenue sharing from all apps, regardless of who hosts the content.)
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- mcn 16y ago
  IANAL, but the DMCA includes a ban on circumventing access controls. Recently exceptions to this ban were issued, allowing people to jailbreak their iphones. Unfortunately the broadest exceptions were limited to "telephone handsets." The summary of the exception with respect to video games said this:[1] >(4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if: >>(i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and >>(ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law. [1]http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-1201-Statement.html http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-120...
  - metageek 16y ago
    No, the DMCA bans circumventing a measure that prevents copying. Sony needs to prove that their locks on the PS3 prevent copying. I'm not sure they do.
  - invisible 16y ago
    I guess the question is whether him giving users root access to their machine is 'facilitating copyright infringement' or not. I guess if you read it by the letter of the law he may be guilty, but thankfully the letter of the law isn't always king. This was probably meant more like, "does not actively encourage copyright infringement and facilitate that need."
  - A1kmm 16y ago
    IANAL, but it is not a general prohibition on circumventing "access controls", so he may not need to rely on an exception. 17USCs1201 (added by the DMCA) says: (a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. - (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter. So the technological measure must "effectively control access to a [Copyrighted work]". Jailbreaking a games console does not circumvent the technical measures that prevent copying - at most, it might circumvent technical measures that prevent someone from circumventing technical measures. The Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (including California) has a precedent that makes the anti-circumvention provision rather broad (more than a plain language interpretation of the law would otherwise imply); other circuit court rulings have interpreted the law to be much more narrow and not cover circumvention that doesn't allow / involve copying; presumably this is why Sony wants it heard in California and Geohot wants it heard in New Jersey (under the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit).
- johngalt 16y ago
  Morally I agree that something you buy is yours to do what you want with, but in practice there are routinely restrictions on what you can/can't do, each with their own degree of right/wrongness. For instance most people find it reasonable that you can't: -Modify/bypass emissions equipment on your car. -Saw off the barrel of your shotgun, or modify semi-auto -> Full auto -Buy one copy of a movie then show it to the whole neighborhood and charge admission
  - nkassis 16y ago
    The car one is easy, there is plenty of non street legal cars around. Race cars is just one example. The gun example is the only one I can refute Movies are licensed not sold. You own the disk, you can hack saw the disk all you want you just aren't supposed to make a copy and sell it.
    - elehack 16y ago
      I don't like the "licensed not sold" line. A copy was sold, U.S. law (generally) backs that up, and that means there are certain things you can do with it such as loan it out or give it away/resell it. You can't copy it, but that's because of copyright law, not because it's licensed-not-sold.
  - fingerprinter 16y ago
    I think in all those cases you mentioned it would be usage restrictions rather than actually being able to change the physical object you bought. And it would be the government saying you can't do something, not BMW or Colt handguns. Again, INAL, but I thought you could modify a semi-auto and saw off the barrel as long as they were used at the shooting range (for instance...probably a state by state law as well). And I'm fairly certain you can bypass the emission on the car to modify to make it a track car, for instance, or make it farm equipment. Again, not really up on the law, more anecdotes I've seen in my personal life.
    - megaframe 16y ago
      I agree... usage issue: another example is modify a phone so it transmits at non-standard frequencies I'm in my right to do it. If I'm at home or a non-public place that's shielded I can do what I want, but the public airways outside are under FCC regulation and then I'm breaking the law not for doing the modification but for using it in regulated space. It's the same way a companies tests out development phones and transmitters before getting a licence.
stcredzero 16y ago
they're playing whack the mole with a large hacker community Large companies need to realize that they're actually engaging in asymmetric warfare when they do this. The worldwide hacker community that's aware of Sony far outnumbers the internal dev group that did their security. What's more, Sony suffers from the typical company illusion of hiring the top 1%: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/01/27.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/01/27.html But groups of hackers on the internet have none of the friction that exists in corporations, and so are operating in a purer, less-diluted meritocracy. As a result, companies doing DRM are generally outnumbered by more qualified opponents. The basic rule of asymmetric warfare, is that you don't take on your opponent in a head-on fair fight. That's absolutely the worst thing to do. You need to turn the situation on its head, like the IRA did. Usually, the outlaw is in the position where, "You have to beat them every time. They only have to catch you once." But the IRA had that turned on its head. They only had to get away with something "once," and the British authorities had to catch them every time. Companies can deal with pirates, but they have to realize that they are the underdogs, not the big guy in this fight. The best thing for them to do is to figure out how to win without fighting. Failing that, they need to figure out how they can be the ones who "only have to win once." (I've been figuring this out, and yes, it can be done.)
- jevinskie 16y ago
  They're trying to "only have to win once" by going after the top PS3 hackers. All of the defendants listed so far (geohot, fail0verflow) have unequivocally condemned piracy. Sony doesn't go after the pirate developers because, so far, none of them have shown much skill in uncovering new vulnerabilities - they take and rehash what fail0verflow, geohot, et al have done to support piracy. [1] Not to mention it is a lot easier to go after geohot, a guy who believes what he is doing is right and doesn't want to live in a world where he has to hide his research, than an anonymous pirate developer. [1] The minds behind original PSJailbreak dongle (which enabled backups and piracy) do deserve credit for their brilliant USB exploit. Back to my main point, many have said that the PSJailbreak crew was only able to start their work after geohot exploited the PS3 hypervisor and documented how to do so.
  - 16y ago
lawnchair_larry 16y ago
Make no mistake, they're fundamentally wrong.

by rheide 16y ago

Sony always gets what it wants. While they're not fundamentally wrong, since it's their product, they're playing whack the mole with a large hacker community. This can't end well.

fingerprinter 16y ago

I'll admit that I haven't followed the story that closely, but from my understanding, he hacked his PS3 and posted what he found, right? Wouldn't we, as a reasonably logical technical community, see that as his system and he would be free to do with it what he wants (the hack, probably not the post)? Perhaps posting it is where they have a case (INAL), but I can't see any justification for going after him for merely hacking/poking around his PS3 hardware and software. I started to see this pop up in some posts recently: * apple's hardware...they have the right to do what they want * sony's hardware...they have the right to do what they want I don't exactly know when this started but I think it's worth correcting and trying to stop. No reasonable person would assume that you could buy any physical device and NOT be allowed to do whatever you want to it. There may be usage restrictions (you can't modify your car w/ a jet pack and expect to drive it on a public road...), but if you are doing something for educational/experimental purposes, I can't see how it would be illegal. Anyone care to comment? I'm open to having my position changed if someone can show me why.

wlesieutre 16y ago
It's BMW's car. You're not allowed to use that gas station.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  And we'll track all people who watch BMW cars that use that gas station.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    And we'll track all people who watch a youtube video of people watching BMW cars use that gas station. Land of the free indeed.
    - rapind 16y ago
      That video sounded a lot better than it was.
jdp23 16y ago
That's how I see it too, and I believe EFF and many others agree with you. Sony, Apple, and others who want to deny people these rights obviously see things differently.
jarin 16y ago
I've only seen people say "It's Apple's App Store, they have the right to do what they want with it", not "It's Apple's hardware, they have the right to do what they want with it". I don't know anyone who would question a hardware owner's right to do as they please with it.
- lukeschlather 16y ago
  >To be clear, we believe you have every right to push forward such a policy. In our view, it’s your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any policy you like. http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/ http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/ Plenty of other examples here: http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22It%27s+Apple%27s+hardware%22 http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22It%27s+Apple%27s+hard...
  - jarin 16y ago
    Their channel? Definitely. Their hardware? Only if it's sitting on a shelf.
  - Dylan16807 16y ago
    Which I would read as server hardware in that instance.
    - lukeschlather 16y ago
      Apple's server hardware isn't the issue: Apple is asking for a 30% cut when Readability is processing and distributing content. (Maybe; I'm not sure how the Readability app specifically works. But Readability is theoretically in the same boat as Amazon, where Amazon is hosting all of the content, and Apple expects a cut because you're using an iOS device, and Apple maintains that their curator position licenses them to revenue sharing from all apps, regardless of who hosts the content.)
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mcn 16y ago
IANAL, but the DMCA includes a ban on circumventing access controls. Recently exceptions to this ban were issued, allowing people to jailbreak their iphones. Unfortunately the broadest exceptions were limited to "telephone handsets." The summary of the exception with respect to video games said this:[1] >(4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if: >>(i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and >>(ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law. [1]http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-1201-Statement.html http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-120...
- metageek 16y ago
  No, the DMCA bans circumventing a measure that prevents copying. Sony needs to prove that their locks on the PS3 prevent copying. I'm not sure they do.
- invisible 16y ago
  I guess the question is whether him giving users root access to their machine is 'facilitating copyright infringement' or not. I guess if you read it by the letter of the law he may be guilty, but thankfully the letter of the law isn't always king. This was probably meant more like, "does not actively encourage copyright infringement and facilitate that need."
- A1kmm 16y ago
  IANAL, but it is not a general prohibition on circumventing "access controls", so he may not need to rely on an exception. 17USCs1201 (added by the DMCA) says: (a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. - (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter. So the technological measure must "effectively control access to a [Copyrighted work]". Jailbreaking a games console does not circumvent the technical measures that prevent copying - at most, it might circumvent technical measures that prevent someone from circumventing technical measures. The Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (including California) has a precedent that makes the anti-circumvention provision rather broad (more than a plain language interpretation of the law would otherwise imply); other circuit court rulings have interpreted the law to be much more narrow and not cover circumvention that doesn't allow / involve copying; presumably this is why Sony wants it heard in California and Geohot wants it heard in New Jersey (under the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit).
johngalt 16y ago
Morally I agree that something you buy is yours to do what you want with, but in practice there are routinely restrictions on what you can/can't do, each with their own degree of right/wrongness. For instance most people find it reasonable that you can't: -Modify/bypass emissions equipment on your car. -Saw off the barrel of your shotgun, or modify semi-auto -> Full auto -Buy one copy of a movie then show it to the whole neighborhood and charge admission
- nkassis 16y ago
  The car one is easy, there is plenty of non street legal cars around. Race cars is just one example. The gun example is the only one I can refute Movies are licensed not sold. You own the disk, you can hack saw the disk all you want you just aren't supposed to make a copy and sell it.
  - elehack 16y ago
    I don't like the "licensed not sold" line. A copy was sold, U.S. law (generally) backs that up, and that means there are certain things you can do with it such as loan it out or give it away/resell it. You can't copy it, but that's because of copyright law, not because it's licensed-not-sold.
- fingerprinter 16y ago
  I think in all those cases you mentioned it would be usage restrictions rather than actually being able to change the physical object you bought. And it would be the government saying you can't do something, not BMW or Colt handguns. Again, INAL, but I thought you could modify a semi-auto and saw off the barrel as long as they were used at the shooting range (for instance...probably a state by state law as well). And I'm fairly certain you can bypass the emission on the car to modify to make it a track car, for instance, or make it farm equipment. Again, not really up on the law, more anecdotes I've seen in my personal life.
  - megaframe 16y ago
    I agree... usage issue: another example is modify a phone so it transmits at non-standard frequencies I'm in my right to do it. If I'm at home or a non-public place that's shielded I can do what I want, but the public airways outside are under FCC regulation and then I'm breaking the law not for doing the modification but for using it in regulated space. It's the same way a companies tests out development phones and transmitters before getting a licence.

stcredzero 16y ago

they're playing whack the mole with a large hacker community Large companies need to realize that they're actually engaging in asymmetric warfare when they do this. The worldwide hacker community that's aware of Sony far outnumbers the internal dev group that did their security. What's more, Sony suffers from the typical company illusion of hiring the top 1%: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/01/27.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/01/27.html But groups of hackers on the internet have none of the friction that exists in corporations, and so are operating in a purer, less-diluted meritocracy. As a result, companies doing DRM are generally outnumbered by more qualified opponents. The basic rule of asymmetric warfare, is that you don't take on your opponent in a head-on fair fight. That's absolutely the worst thing to do. You need to turn the situation on its head, like the IRA did. Usually, the outlaw is in the position where, "You have to beat them every time. They only have to catch you once." But the IRA had that turned on its head. They only had to get away with something "once," and the British authorities had to catch them every time. Companies can deal with pirates, but they have to realize that they are the underdogs, not the big guy in this fight. The best thing for them to do is to figure out how to win without fighting. Failing that, they need to figure out how they can be the ones who "only have to win once." (I've been figuring this out, and yes, it can be done.)

jevinskie 16y ago
They're trying to "only have to win once" by going after the top PS3 hackers. All of the defendants listed so far (geohot, fail0verflow) have unequivocally condemned piracy. Sony doesn't go after the pirate developers because, so far, none of them have shown much skill in uncovering new vulnerabilities - they take and rehash what fail0verflow, geohot, et al have done to support piracy. [1] Not to mention it is a lot easier to go after geohot, a guy who believes what he is doing is right and doesn't want to live in a world where he has to hide his research, than an anonymous pirate developer. [1] The minds behind original PSJailbreak dongle (which enabled backups and piracy) do deserve credit for their brilliant USB exploit. Back to my main point, many have said that the PSJailbreak crew was only able to start their work after geohot exploited the PS3 hypervisor and documented how to do so.
- 16y ago

lawnchair_larry 16y ago

Make no mistake, they're fundamentally wrong.