i don't have a PS3 but :
Did the Police in various countries go to such lengths when Rootkits were placed on peoples machinery?
A German PlayStation 3 hacker has escalated his battle with Sony almost a week after the maker of the popular game console sued him for copyright infringement and had police seize his computer gear during a raid on his home. Statements made online on Monday by Alexander Egorenkov, who goes by the hacking moniker graf_chokolo, …
I want to be astonished at Sony's behaviour, but I really can't muster the fake shock. It seems like they're clawing desperately to get the genie back in the bottle. I can only guess that coolstuff.rar is floating all through the torrent-world. I'm guessing that removing Other OS isn't looking like a great idea right about now.
Still, it's not like it's new, is it? They went through a similar dance with Dark_AleX as I recall - did he not "retire" claiming too much hassle from Sony in the end?
Still, it'll probably accelerate their PS4 development plans at least if they really believe the PS3 is about to become a dead revenue stream..
The fact that none of this will have any impact on the ps3's revenue stream. The PS2 was hacked much earlier in it's life span and it still generates millions of $ of revenue Today.
This is just Sony throwing their corporate weight around just like most big corps.
If it feels like a threat to some middle management moron - sue it - regardless of the actual reality of the threat.
"Mr. Egorenkov willingly ignored a judge's order.” according to Sony's lawyer.
What is missing from the story: The police raid and subsequent upload/publicity took place on 23rd Feb. The injunction was granted the following day.
Contemporary accounts in English appear at:
Yeah! I noticed that too. How can he violate an order that hasn't been issued yet. It would be wonderful to see lawyers sued for slander when they make these slanderous statements. I don't know know if lawyers are capable of morals or not, but I bet if you start throwing them in jail they can at least be a little less fast and loose with facts.
It would also be great to see Sony's employees brought up on criminal charges and sent to prison for their countless offenses. But that could be said about every corporation on earth.
Note that this doesn't make me a card carrying communist. I am a 100% free market Randian Objectivist. But I see no conflict at all with that stance and throwing employees in prison and losing the key when they violate the law. The problem isn't that corporations don't pay enough taxes, it is that their employees are not prosecuted for the crimes they commit.
>>To show your fans what you really think of them Sony. First class. Does anybody remember when 'the customer is always right' was a business maxim?<<
By the numbers:
48 million PS3 consoles.
69 million PSN accounts. 17 million PlayStation Home accounts.
4 million MOVE controllers.
The Slim was introduced in Sept 2009. The departure of the OtherOS had no more effect on sales than than the loss of SACD and PS2 emulation.
Firmware upgrades have kept the PS3 feature-competitive with high-end DVD and Blu-Ray players.
The PS3 has become a steller platform for streaming media: Netflix at 1080p and 5.1 theater sound.
--- and it plays games.
What kind of denial pushes people to vote this guy down? He's right:
1 - People complaining will have no impact whatsoever on Sony's turnover (give or take few thousand £, if at all, but I think sony can live with that kind of noise).
2 - Besides, among all the people that say "I won't buy Sony again", many will actually buy Sony again, or where already NOT buying Sony anyway. If they do buy, they'll just deny they did or not mention it next time.
3 - Voting down a guy because he says a fact that you don't want to acknowledge doesn't make the fact untrue (i.e. if I comment "Kim Jong Il is alive", voting me down won't kill him instantly).
So get a grip: Sony will live and will keep on shafting consumers. Personally, I only buy products on their value for money (which means that I only bought Apple once and Sony twice in the last 10 years, and these were all second hand), and when I see news about "Big corporation shafts users with overpriced products and subsequently screw them on their right to use the product", I just think "Meh, doesn't affect me" and move on. Highly egoistical I'll admit, but it makes my life very bearable.
The Other OS feature was used by serious developers and hackers (in the *original* meaning of the word - people who love to work out a machine's internals etc). So to remove that feature that these *very intelligent and talented* people had paid for was likely as a red rag to a bull.
"What Sony taketh away, the hacker bringeth back with interest."
Oh, and channelling Sarah for a mo - ODFO you sad fanboi.
52m PS3's now (given the Xbox failure rate, it's certain the number of active systems PS3 is now in 2nd' place)
88m PSN accounts
9.5m PS Move controllers
I bought a launch system and it's still bang-upto date supporting 3D and latest BD Profiles 4 years later.
I can see why the Xbox trolls here are upset, having wasted so much more than that on repeat purchases and recurring Xbox Live fees of hundreds of pounds.
As for the original story, that guy must be a utter cretin, as he just made his legal position 1000x worse...
So where do you draw your line then? If Sony removes the photo viewer is that OK? The Folding@home/Life with Playstation app? MP3 playback? Blu-Ray capability? Games?
Just because it's not popular with you, or the majority, doesn't make it right. There's a Martin Niemöller quote that would work here.
@sabroni - there's your reasoned argument. Sometimes it's not required as it's just so blindingly obvious that it should go without saying, but here it is anyway..
..the argument went "sony you're horrid to your fans", "no they're not, sales would indicate most fans are happy with sony, they've added features that get a lot more use than the feature (other OS) that has been removed was used".
The second point got downvotes, I pointed out that downvoting is easy but isn't a rational argument (and got downvoted for it! Lovely irony!)
So your argument isn't really relevant to the point made. The point made was that other os removal wasn't a massive kick in the teeth to most Sony fans. It wasn't because most sony fans didn't use other OS. If sony were to remove the things you mention it would be a slap to sony fans.
Anyway, I'm not saying Sony should have removed the other os feature, though I bet they're wishing they'd never included it in the first place. I just like to play devil's advocaat sometimes....
You own the physical hardware yes.. if you want to prop a door open with it go for it.
Owning a piece of hardware doesn't automatically mean you own all the IP attached to that product.. i.e. all the trademarks, patents on the hardware, copyrights etc.. Let's make a car analogy here; If you buy a car you can take it apart and make modern art out of the parts no on cares. You can't take apart and start distributing cloned parts for the car that infringe on patents etc. You can't scan all the manuals etc and start distributing those.
I see Sony going nuts over this and using their rights given to them by various silly laws as a good thing.. hopefully it'll expose how the laws are misaligned with the feeling of the populous.
If you want open buy open.
>>Are you not free to customise it and tweak the software to your hearts content?
Messing with the ECU software, or even the software for your "GPS" will probably invalidate your warranty. Maybe some other laws would cover the software running the car.. i.e. those that stipulate that the thing has to be road worthy.
>>Are all those engine modifications and conversions illegal under DMCA law? No.
"Chipped" cars use firmware images that are modded .. i.e. they are the original firmware that has been modified,.. so copyright infringement. DMCA goes further and prohibits breaking of security systems. So this chap should feel glad he isn't in the US of A.
>>And then are you free to post these modifications onto the internet?
If you aren't infringing on patents.
>>Sell the hardware?
If you don't infringe on any patents.. which is pretty difficult not to do. Even Sony etc do it .. they have enough money to fight lengthy court cases though.
Except that Sony is going way further than just trying to prevent copyright... it is seeking to indentify people that have watched youtube videos of how to hack a PS3 - it has no evidence that they have used that information, no evidence that they have tampered with their consoles, no evidence that they have breached copyrights owned by Sony, but is still going after them in the courts.
From Sony's reaction you could be mistaken for thinking these people are terrorists. Next thing Sony will be demanding extrordinary rendition just for reading instructions on how to hack a Sony console.
I'm not saying that Sony don't have the right to protect their IP, but the methods of hacking the PS3 that have been discovered do not belong to Sony. That IP belongs to the hackers.
Side question for the legally minded: Can you/me/anyone copyright an encryption/decryption key or does the fact that it's not speach (ie it's not a creative expression) prevent it from being copyright?
You mean all I have to do to make a bundle of money is to watch a bunch of videos?
See, I don't have a Sony and there are laws in this country against malicious prosecution and Barratry; watch the videos, play with Xbox and own Sony's (ass)ets in a short period of time.
Sounds like a plan.
...yes you can do what you like with the box, make it into an attractive bird feeder, nice decorative coffee mug stand, open it up and load a new O/S or anything you fancy, you cannot however pull out the firmware, jig with it and pass it on. You own the physical box but you do not own the firmware and indeed you cannot copy any of the bits in that box without permission.
That's the big argument.
Personally SONY can get stuffed, I only ever owned a PSP about 2 years ago and sold that after a year when I got fed up with the prices of games. I definately will be avoiding SONY kit from now on wherever I can manage to.
When he brought the box, he brought a copy of the firmware too. If he wishes to modify that copy of the firmware he is welcome to. He brought it after all.
He obviously cannot modify any copies of the firmware owned by sony or other PS3 users; but he is not doing that. He is only modifying the copy he brought from Sony.
I don't understand why all these Sony fanbois/astrostaffers are getting so upset; surely they are happy that a private individual likes his copy of the firmware he purchased him so much he is modifying it?
>>When he brought the box,
I presume you mean bought? As in purchased?
>>a copy of the firmware too.
In legal jargon.. "He licensed the software". When he turned on the PS3 it brought up a massive agreement that stipulated the terms which the software was licensed to him and if that he didn't like it he should return the unit. Whether or not that stands up in court or not is another matter.
However, it is clear that Sony never said.. "You now own the complete rights to this software, do what you like with it". Geohot has a bigger problem.. the DMCA.
>>He is only modifying the copy he brought from Sony.
And distributing what Sony at least consider their IP.. To prove/disprove that his stuff has been seized.
I'm in no way a Sony fanboy. I just hate whingers... if you wanted to run Linux you should have bought a PC. These "ethical hackers" were very big headed, give themselves names like "fail overflow" and generally acted liked arses. They are now getting the living shits kicked out of them by Sony's lawyers and I'm all for that. If you want open kit buy open kit. If you buy stuff that is being made by a megacorp for a specific purpose and they've made it pretty damn clear they don't want people messing with their stuff (I.e. we'll give you OtherOS, we get a nice tax break, but its stunted for a reason,.. we don't want you to use it) you can expect them to smash you into the ground when you start lauding the fact that you broke their security system over them. In summary it doesn't matter how many followers you have on twitter or how many unfunny jokes you can make at a "hacking conference". Sony has enough money to make your life very difficult and they should have thought about that before they got on their high horses.
Has anyone from the PSJailbreak "team" been given the Sony treatment? I can see that their devices have been banned everywhere but I can't find anyone thats been dragged out of their bed and had their stuff taken... the PSJailbreak is the only reason this has all happened..
"I just hate whingers... if you wanted to run Linux you should have bought a PC."
... Aaand you have branded youself as either computer-illiterate or you're simply missing the point. PCs don't have PPC arch, much less a CellBE processor. That's the point behing OtherOS; your PS3 has much more processing power than your *current* PC because of this!
PSJailbreak and the dubious piracy stuff wouldn't have been able to work at all if the hacker community hadn't been pissed off enough to make them crack the PS3 just to get Linux running again.
>>PCs don't have PPC arch
And? PPC is dead on the desktop because it simply couldn't compete with X86.
>>your PS3 has much more processing power than your *current* PC because of this!
Really? For what application? Name a single application that you use that uses all of the Cell's co-processors and actually shows speed up from that. I bet you can't show me anything outside of number crunching..
>>PSJailbreak and the dubious piracy stuff wouldn't have been able to work at all
PSJailbreak came first. I think I have told you this before.. don't rewrite history to make it fit your version of events/opinion.
I'm taking issue with your "if you wanted to run Linux you should have bought a PC" line.
The Cell processor is interesting and different from any Intel/AMD/ARM processor that you will find in commodity PC and other hardware, and using a PS3 to run Linux was the cheapest and easiest way of getting access to it. It is not for you to say that it has no value, that is down to the person doing it. As an intellectual exercise, being able to program a Cell has serious merit to some people (I know, I have talked to some of them)
It is quite clear that Sony did something that had significant impact to a part of their customer base (even if it was only a small part), and that should be investigated. But two wrongs do not make a right, so publishing details of a hack that includes Sony IP is almost certainly against copyright legislation. But if the hack includes no Sony code or firmware, then I'm not sure whether that is illegal. If all that was published was a technique utilising an API, especially if the API was itself published, then I don't think (and IANAL) that that would actually count as copyright infringement.
What may be an issue is whether identifying the technique is against national implementations of the European Union Copyright Directive. This is actually more restrictive than DMCA when it comes to breaking a protection, but as that is not direct legislation, you need to see how any country has enacted it into their own lawbook.
I believe that of all of the European Union countries, Germany is the one that has enacted the EUCD most closely in their national legislation, so he may actually be being accused of an offence against that, rather than straight forward copyright infringement. This means that he may be on very shaky ground.
>>I'm taking issue with your "if you wanted to run Linux you should have bought a PC" line.
If you wanted to run Linux you should buy a PC. It has the most support in-kernel (Anyone that is running weird archs will know how painful that can be) and upstream from Intel, Nvidia etc....
>>The Cell processor is interesting and different from any Intel/AMD/ARM
>>processor that you will find in commodity PC and other hardware, and
>>using a PS3 to run Linux was the cheapest and easiest way of getting access to it.
So what you're really saying is that you don't want to run Linux. you want to run linux on novelty hardware. Hey I can dig that.. I have an SH4 on my desk.. some people still use m68k.
That doesn't mean that Sony should support your fetish for novelty hardware does it? And after the novelty of having a machine that can't run an awful lot because of it's limited amount of system ram what do you do then?
>> It is not for you to say that it has no value,
It has novelty value.
>>As an intellectual exercise, being able to program a Cell has serious merit to some people
IIRC there are simulators for the Cell. If you really do have a massive crazy fetish for the Cell maybe you could modify one of the existing PPC emulators out there and give it SPE's?
To be honest if I had a weird fetish for a particular processor architecture ( I actually do really like the Hitachi/Renesas H8 and SuperH chips.. thats mainly because they are nice to work with ) I wouldn't want an OS there to smooth all the naked hardware weirdness out for me. I'd want to be running my code on the hardware without hypervisors and kernels in the way. Can you do that on the PS3? Have you ever written any PPC or Cell code?
Sorry Daniel; you must have misinterpreted me or maybe you flew into such a rage at my spelling that you failed to see the truth in what I wrote.
Let me explain; when he bought(*) this, he handed over some money and in return he was given a box with a PS3 in it; The money then belongs to the Retailer (and eventually a large chunk of it belonged to Sony).
And in return the PS3 belongs to him; all he is now doing is exercising his right to modify his property as he wishes; and his right to talk about that as he wishes. It's pretty easy to comprehend if you can just get your mind around concepts like 'property' and 'buy'.
(* Actually where I live the word is 'kopen' but don't worry your pretty little head about it.)
I think this is a fallacy and rather open to miss-accounting. How much money does Sony make on each game in royalties, bearing in mind they don't write or own a lot of the titles? This has oft been said about the PS3 and other consoles, but I believe the truth is a little different. To justify this claim, they include all the development costs etc. as well, not just the build costs. So, it's a little disingenuous....... Also, it's rather irrelevant really. Their business model is up to them. Whether you should be able to modify the console is a whole other issue. Loads of business models rely on loss leaders, not least supermarkets. Doesn't mean they limit or retrospectively change the product you've bought 'under cost price'!!
IS the only way to do the accounting for the cost of the console and there is NOTHING disingenuous about doing so. While it is true that their business model is up to them, the ability to use your hardware as you see fit is quite another issue.
Now, what might be acceptable is for Sony to say if you use your PS3 for a Linux console, you can only use it for a Linux console, not both a Linux console and a PS3. But I do rather think that any system bought under the original license which said you could do both ought to continue being able to do both, and Sony ought NOT be able to change the license just by updating the firmware*. The concept of a contract has always implied some negotiations between both parties. Absent negotiations, there tend to be laws limiting the sorts of changes one unilaterally can make to the contract.
*This might be a licensing and tracking nightmare for Sony, but that's their problem, not their customers. Like selling a console below cost, it's part of the business model if they choose to undertake it.
I worry about the current generation being so obsessed with media and consumer devices that they would forget about essential liberties.
This kid probably doesn't understand what he's standing for, but really it's about freedom of speech, first-sale doctrine, and pursuit of happiness.
Bravo sir. Sony will get the last word, but one thing you are not is a spineless sheep. They will likely take away that which you love, hacking, ps3, linux, walks of the beach... etc.
Microsoft did mind the Xbox hack and is doing something to try to stop people using modded consoles from connecting to XBL. As for the Kinect, the Kinect was never hacked, someone made a driver for it that allowed PC/Mac user to take advantage of the device. The device is _not_ hacked, the driver was a hack job (ie. not official).
did everyone miss the news about Nintendo R4 seller and Xbox mod sellers being charged and taken to court? (all were lost cases but they did happen).
There is a real, easy solution to all this for the businesses in question which would be accepted by a majority of people. Make the copyright protection implementation seperate from everything else that is currently lumped with it. In other words, let people make their DVD players multi-region without removing copyright protection etc.etc. Of course, they'll never do this as it removes their restrictive practices etc. that are used to artificially shore up their profit margins. I have no problems with people being prosecuted for playing copied games etc., but do have an issue with people not being free to buy their games from wherever they like, at whatever price is available there. If that means people buy from abroad because it's cheaper, fair play.
It's the mixing of loads of other functions into the IP protection code that means any attempt to use your hardware reasonably removes the IP protection and thus results in a DMCA violation that is unfair. The firmware update on the PS3 to remove OtherOS is a classic example of outrageous behaviour. Sure, it only affects a few people, but that shouldn't matter. They advertised the feature and then deliberately removed it. It's a bit like buying a car and using it for a year and then the manufacturer comes back and removes the sixth gear.......'Sorry, we've decided not to support the 6th gear anymore and have this removed it'. Of course, you can keep the 6th gear, but only if the manufacturer can remove the engine instead!!
The interesting point here from various companies and governments, is what's considered IP infringement. It used to be ripping something off. Selling a non-Gucci item with a Gucci label. Nicking code and reusing/selling it. Creating cheap OEM copies of things etc.
Now, it seems to be 'helping' people do that in any way. So, by hacking the PS3, has he actually broken IP in the old sense? Of course not. He may have put information into the public domain that helps other people do it if they desire it, but he hasn't broken IP. Has he copied it etc.? No. The law has now been changed to make anything that 'could' be used by someone to breach copyright or IP illegal. This makes a huge amount of things now effectively illegal.
The DMCA (in US) and equivalent laws in the UK are primarily to blame. Removing a copyright protection device is not breaching IP and yet it is illegal. This is particularly bad when manufacturers mix into this copyright protection device things that protect their own markets, such as regioning etc. So, if you simply want to make your device multi-region, you potentially breach the DMCA because you have to remove the copyright protection device as well. So, whilst the DMCA is potentially reasonable in protecting copyright protection devices, it's actual implementation by big business is a blatant abuse and actually just a means of protecting their own markets and making more money at the expense of consumers and maintaining unfair market conditions.
At the moment, companies can get away with it, as consumers aren't particularly organised against it. However, times are changing and more and more consumers are getting fed up with this. Why are CD prices so high and so variables around the world. Ditto DVDs. etc.etc. The advent of the computer has introduced a huge opportunity for consumers to show civil disobediance against what they don't like. The distribution of ripped off CDs and DVDs being a classic example. Companies will feel the force of the consumer in the end, but it'll take a while.
One of the other things that will feed this backlash is the blatant disparity in the treatment of people and big companies. Sony distributes a rootkit and what happens? Nothing. People complain and the government/law makers do nothing. If a person did that, they'd be done as a virus writer and rightly so. Doesn't matter what the underlying reason for doing it was, in both cases, a virus has been written and distributed. However, big business gets away with it after a feeble apology. Pathetic. Sony executives should have been before the court with big fines etc.etc.
Microsoft DO mind if you hack Xbox, they perma-ban you.
"Hacking" Kinect is not really hacking if you just plug the USB into your PC and install 3rd party drivers.
They are laughing at you, you paid £130 for something that cost them £25 to make. It's nowhere neat the same as hacking the PS3 hardware to play pirate games.
Anyone that can't see the difference is a moron.
"They are laughing at you, you paid £130 for something that cost them £25 to make"
Yes, all MS did was stick a webcam on a motorised platform. They didn't spent millions in R&D perfecting Natal, or paying $375m for Rare, or untold amounts licencing technology from PrimeSense.
Funnily enough, if I buy a car, I'm paying a lot more than the price of the raw materials costs.
Is this another case of the Streisand Effect? Are Sony now going to lose big-style because they've cracked down on this Chocolate Zeppelin chappie, or do people here think it's just going to be forgotten soon? I favour the latter because people are generally stupid with short attention spans.
What really bugs me is that this is a guy who cracked the uncrackable (Sony claimed). He's clever, he's innovative and creative, he's went up against billions of [currency] of R&D investment and won. What would have happened if Whittle had been sued by propeller engine manufacturers for stealing their IP (twirly things providing thrust). Or Oracle suing Google for Android Java (oh wait, bad example).
We seriously need to stop this oppression of our best minds, slap him on the wrists, make your point, Sony, but give this guy a job! Applaud his innovative spirit! Learn from the experience and use it to make the PS4 even better, and more serving to your customers wants: open technologies and a bit of healthy competition between operating systems which will result in better breeds.
But possibly not, from memory the PS3 was able to play PS2 games due to the Emotion Engine chip being included on the mother board which also appeared in the PS2, this has now been removed.
Cant see why they cant do it in software though, then again... its a lost revenue stream where they can just churn them out on PSN for a few quid a pop.
I agree that when I bought a PS3 that I bought the hardware on it, and licenced the firmware.
I, like many others, did not wade through the T's and C's and carefully consider the ramifications of all the clauses before I clicked on Accept. I wanted to use my machine.
It would be helpful for corporations such as Apple, Sony and Microsoft to include a summary as an introduction to the main body of text, which can be pages and pages of fine print which they know that most of their consumers will not read.
I think that it should be made a legal requirement to summarise any and all conditions which they impose which could possibly impinge on a customer's statutory rights; such as killing off all functionality with a remote kill switch at their discretion and without telling the consumer why.
If the firmware is truly licenced and can be taken back by the corporation from who I bought my electronic device at any time, then I would like that very important point to be noted right at the top of the pages and pages of text where I can see it straight away.
I would like to be told that I can take my device back to the store for a full refund if I do not agree to that term.
As for not mucking about with the firmware in any way whatsoever which might infringe on copyright or enable others to do so, well that's obvious.
If no copyright is being infringed however, no intent to infringe or actual infringement taking place at all...then nothing should come of any mucking around with the firmware.
It shouldn't be illegal or an infringement of copyright to look at code and point out flaws in it, so long as you are not intending to use that knowledge to infringe copyright or enable others to do so.
1) I hear you about the EULA, as I wrote in the past, there really should be a legal limit to how much a company can hide in the EULA. If there is an extra program that comes with the program you are trying to install and this extra program monitor what you are doing and upload its finding somewhere. Then I want this in clear print as part of the functionality of the program and not something hidden away in the EULA.
2) as with all devices, the firmware is licensed with the device, as long as the device is working then the license is valid, if the device dies then the license expires with it.
I have not checked, but I'm fairly certain that the license is valid and legal as long as you own the device, whether it is working or not (otherwise you may not have a valid license if the device breaks and you then repair it).
One thing I am not too certain about is transfer of the license. In the Microsoft and IBM EULA's (mainly software) that I've read in the past, there are often quite stringent and restrictive rules applied to the transfer of the license. I'm not sure what happens to the license for Sony devices if you give away a device that contains licensed firmware. Does the recipient have license to use it? Do they have to accept the EULA, and if so, how do they know about it? Can they be held to something if they have no right of return of the original device? All interesting questions. Anybody any ideas?
that this guys just a sad little man and should really get out more?
Sorry, I'm a programmer and enjoy it but sad little geeks like this just give the rest of us a bad name and he deserves everything he gets. If hes so flippin talented why doesn't he put those skills to some real use... oh yeah, then he wouldn't be able to brag to all his little hacker mates who no doubt all have names like "Coderz", "Jailbrax" and "Nolife"...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019