PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued • Hacker News Board

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#51

Post by narag » Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 9:47 AM UTC

roel_v wrote: post #44

Osmose wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically yes, except with a PS3 your purchase amounts to agreement with the EULA; it's tucked away in a manual that no one reads, or at best is shown to the user on a screen during setup which is simply clicked through. Most people don't realize that they aren't buying the physical machine, they're buying the right to use the physical machine in approved ways only (this may be technically untrue, but it's certainl…

Sorry but that doesn't make sense. When you buy from a supplier, you are already bound by a number of contractual stipulations, (almost) nobody reads those, either. They're still enforceable, there are mountains of jurisprudence on that. Should contracts be void because one of the parties can't be bothered to check the content of the agreement? Or should suppliers force users to read the contract to be enforceable? S…

But do you agree with me that even if it's unethical, the principle is still sound and that the contract should be both enforceable and enforced?

That's total nonsense, at least in my country. Any abusive clause would be nulified, even if the rest of the contract is valid. You can't put in a contract anything. You can't give up rights that the law gives you no matter what. I.e. you can't sign to be a slave.

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#52

Post by Prisen » Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 9:50 AM UTC

temugen wrote: post #29

Andys wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I buy physical goods, I have an expectation that I completely own it and can do with it whatever I want, and can share my experience completely with others. What Sony is trying to say is that when you buy a PS3 you are sort of renting it, and they still own what you can and can't do with it. Perhaps because they are selling it at a loss so they can make money when you buy games. I think that in this case they shou…

It may seem like renting to you, but unfortunately those licensing terms you agree to when you open a package of new hardware or install a piece of software, are legal. It is a shame, but if you don't agree to it, don't buy and use the product. Sony, in this case, has strong reasons for wanting to protect their console. Namely because of the contracts they hold with certain chip makers, and because they are expecting…

If we're only concerned about strict legality, EULAs are on very shaky legal ground. For example, EULAs that you don't sign _before_ buying the product have no legal standing at all in the EU. Sony has already tried suing PSJailbreak in Spain, they lost and had to pay damages.

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#53

Post by zzygan » Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 10:04 AM UTC

iwwr wrote: post #26

If you watched the CCC presentation on the PS3, you know these people are more interested in running their own software than breaking the console to play pirated games. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbUVgxw1yWc (30 seconds)

Although I dont agree with SECA, their point of view is that once the console can run "uncertified" software then its only a matter of time before the pirates have their day.

I think that if Sony had just left the OtherOS option in the new consoles, and not removed the support from older ones and maybe improved it by allowing access to the GPU, then this would have taken a lot lot longer since there was no motivation for the hardcore guys

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#54

Post by vog » Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 10:32 AM UTC

It is interesting to see how fast this key spreads over the net. At the moment, a quick google search shows 26,700 results:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22C0+CE+FE+84+C2+27+F7+5B%22

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#55

Post by iwwr » Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 10:35 AM UTC

zzygan wrote: post #53

iwwr wrote: post #26

If you watched the CCC presentation on the PS3, you know these people are more interested in running their own software than breaking the console to play pirated games. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbUVgxw1yWc (30 seconds)

Although I dont agree with SECA, their point of view is that once the console can run "uncertified" software then its only a matter of time before the pirates have their day. I think that if Sony had just left the OtherOS option in the new consoles, and not removed the support from older ones and maybe improved it by allowing access to the GPU, then this would have taken a lot lot longer since there was no motivation…

They may have even lasted into the release PS4 and so benefit from nearly zero piracy through the product cycle.

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#56

Post by chopsueyar » Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 10:42 AM UTC

trotsky wrote: post #10

heretoo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> In late December 2010, a hacking group called FAIL0VERFLOW discovered a way to access certain (but not all) levels of the PS3 System by circumventing the corresponding TPMs. Id. at ¶16; Bricker Decl. at ¶5, Exh. D. At that point, hackers were given the tools to run unauthorized and pirated software on the PS3 System My understanding is that fail0verflow's exploit didn't enable piracy at all because metldr wasn't…

Note that phone jail breaking was given a very narrow exemption by the Library of Congress through the terms of the DMCA. It doesn't establish any legal precedent here, and lobbying for such an exemption is a lengthy process. Morally they seem similar enough, sadly that's not the issue.

Slavery was once legal in the US, too.

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#57

Post by hjkluydefgw » Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 10:45 AM UTC

----- http://www.etradinglife.com ------

---- http://www.etradinglife.com ------

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#58

Post by chopsueyar » Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 10:47 AM UTC

loire280 wrote: post #11

heretoo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should have leaked the keys through wikileaks .. harhar.. But seriously, the fail0verlflow guys had legitimate grounds to exploit the PS3. Sony had taken away OtherOS, effectively crippling the product they had purchased, which was advertised as offering this feature. Imagine instead, what would happen if Sony had taken away the ability to play games?..

Then Sony's console business would go bankrupt? But seriously, except for scientific computing, the PS3 was a terrible Linux system, especially for the price. Is this really about restoring functionality, or is it just punishment?

My suggesting punishment is a possible motivation, you are vindicating Sony's position.

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#59

Post by hjkluydefgw » Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 10:51 AM UTC

----- http://www.etradinglife.com ------

---- http://www.etradinglife.com ------

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#60

Post by eru » Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 11:55 AM UTC

Natsu wrote: post #47

eru wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Copyright was originated to make the creation of intellectual property economically worthwhile so that more intellectual content could be produced and distributed. This is often cited as the reason for copyright. Was this the actual historical reason, or just some windowdressing after the fact? (And the wording of the law in America doesn't count. It that argument hold any water, the USA PATRIOT Act wouldn't be so…

If you want more on the history of copyright in general, I suggest looking up the works of one William Patry. He's written extensively on the subject, was the former general counsel for Google, and now writes on the subject at his blog: http://moralpanicsandthecopyrightwars.blogspot.com/ And I know it's not the first copyright law (we flaunted it for years before developing our own), but the reason copyright is allow…

I know that line from the preamble of the Copyright Clause, is cited in every discussion about copyright that involves at least one American. But I doubt it's the actual reason.

To come back to my example, the USA PATRIOT act starts with "[An act] to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, [...]" but do you think that's the only reason they passed it?

(I don't believe the USA PATRIOT act is a good example, it's just the first I could think of at the top of my head. If you look at some acts that introduce tariffs, you'll probably see more obvious hypocrisy, where it's clear that the act was introduced because some lobbyist got their say.