Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

geohot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 104 posts

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#91

Post by tzs »

eftpotrm wrote: post #89
tzs wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the Wii hardware was sold at a profit. The PS3, though, was definitely at a loss. People took it apart, and the total cost of parts at the best prices available in available in large volume was well over the retail price (not all of which goes to Sony). edit: details: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/11/8239.ars

Interesting, particularly as it suggests the XBox 360 has been sold at a profit for at least four years now. So, of the three major home systems (as distinct from portables), at least two are being sold at a profit, further reducing the argument in favour of restricting their use due to recovering initial costs.

What makes most sense probably is for them to restrict use initially when (1) there is a shortage of hardware and (2) the hardware is often being sold at a loss per unit.

When the hardware is not being sold at a loss (which was from day one for Wii, and after years for the others) and the units are readily available so that repurposing isn't preventing gamers from getting them, then dropping all restrictions makes sense. They'll sell more units (which is good for them since the units are profitable per unit) and hence make more money.

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#92

Post by redrobot5050 »

redrobot5050 wrote: post #80
storm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there actual case law supporting the notion that I can be party to a contract on the basis of a bunch of legalese buried in a manual I'll never read, for a product I purchased through a third party? I paid for a product, I own it. If Sony wants ridiculously extended protections that turn the arrangement into some kind of conditional rental, they'd damned well better force the Walmarts of the world to have us sign…

So when you bought a physical copy of DOS 3.0 or Windows 3.1, you effective own DOS or Windows? My god man, you should assert your rights and claim your billions!

I see I'm being downvoted because HN is becoming more like reddit in terms of discussion and debate.

To make my point clearer: You can own a physical device, but the software (IP) on that device is not your property. Is anyone familiar with court cases that might set a precedent if the root key is considered a software feature or a hardware feature? My bet is Sony is claiming it to be a software feature, and thus, not part of the property you purchase when you buy a PS3.

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#93

Post by praptak »

redrobot5050 wrote: post #92
redrobot5050 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So when you bought a physical copy of DOS 3.0 or Windows 3.1, you effective own DOS or Windows? My god man, you should assert your rights and claim your billions!

I see I'm being downvoted because HN is becoming more like reddit in terms of discussion and debate. To make my point clearer: You can own a physical device, but the software (IP) on that device is not your property. Is anyone familiar with court cases that might set a precedent if the root key is considered a software feature or a hardware feature? My bet is Sony is claiming it to be a software feature, and thus, no…

"I see I'm being downvoted because HN is becoming more like reddit in terms of discussion and debate."

You are being downvoted because of using a strawman argument.

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#94

Post by parasubvert »

baddox wrote: post #21
atomical wrote: post #14

Judging from a lot of the comments on this topic and others many geeks don't believe intellectual property should be protected. When someone creates a platform (Heroku, Facebook, Apple's App Store) they have a right to lock it down. If you don't believe in that don't buy the product!

It's not just "many geeks" that don't believe intellectual property should be protected. The software engineering community in general concludes that treating software like property is illogical and perhaps harmful. At least around where I'm from, software engineers and computer scientists are explicitly taught in their ethics seminars that the entire analogy of "intellectual property" has serious logical and ethical…

Uh, no. There's no consensus on the ethical or illogical nature of IP. It would be extremely biased and wrong for CS majors or engineers to be "taught" that IP is illogical.

There's a big difference between being supportive of FOSS and believing that intellectual property should not be protected. As far as I can tell the majority of computer scientists and software engineers (even here on HN or on Slashdot) believe that some form of copyright should exist. The problem in the US and the DMCA is with the perpetual extension of term lengths, and the prohibition of tinkering. Software patents, on the other hand, are increasingly opposed in the mainstream.

Let's also not forget that there are generations of geeks that don't care for open source, and don't contribute to it. It is going to be decades before they retire.

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#95

Post by chc »

redrobot5050 wrote: post #92
redrobot5050 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So when you bought a physical copy of DOS 3.0 or Windows 3.1, you effective own DOS or Windows? My god man, you should assert your rights and claim your billions!

I see I'm being downvoted because HN is becoming more like reddit in terms of discussion and debate. To make my point clearer: You can own a physical device, but the software (IP) on that device is not your property. Is anyone familiar with court cases that might set a precedent if the root key is considered a software feature or a hardware feature? My bet is Sony is claiming it to be a software feature, and thus, no…

You're being downvoted because your comment was snarky and seemed disingenuous. Nobody's saying that buying a copy of a piece of software grants you the copyright to that software (rather than ownership of that copy of the software), and a copyright is very obviously not analogous to a PC.

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#96

Post by praptak »

roel_v wrote: post #32
cookiecaper wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a cut-and-dry matter of whether intellectual property "should be protected". I think most hackers expect some protection in the form of copyright. However, most hackers are also tinkerers and are disturbed that current IP law so heavily favors corporate interests, even to the extent where you cannot use something you rightfully own according to your own desires. Would you buy an oven if there was a big label…

EULA's have nothing to do with copyright, it's plain contract law. If you and I are neighbors and we agree that you I will pay you 250$ a month to not park you car in front of my house (while you legally have a right to do so), should that not be allowed? If I am a shoe manufacturer with local retail outlets you and I agree that I will sell you my shoes for reselling overseas, but part of the agreement is that you wo…

"I think the government has no business in private contracts in any of the above situations."

It is quite a stretch to extend rules from the above situations, which are clearly contracts between more or less equal partners to corporation/consumer retail, where the balance of power is so heavily skewed against the consumer.

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#97

Post by baddox »

parasubvert wrote: post #94
baddox wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just "many geeks" that don't believe intellectual property should be protected. The software engineering community in general concludes that treating software like property is illogical and perhaps harmful. At least around where I'm from, software engineers and computer scientists are explicitly taught in their ethics seminars that the entire analogy of "intellectual property" has serious logical and ethical…

Uh, no. There's no consensus on the ethical or illogical nature of IP. It would be extremely biased and wrong for CS majors or engineers to be "taught" that IP is illogical. There's a big difference between being supportive of FOSS and believing that intellectual property should not be protected. As far as I can tell the majority of computer scientists and software engineers (even here on HN or on Slashdot) believe t…

Firstly, what I'm saying doesn't necessarily have anything to do FOSS. In a world without IP protection, you could still release/sell software without disclosing the source code. In fact, the GPL for example relies on IP protection laws to even function.

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#98

Post by chc »

atomical wrote: post #90
chc wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument here — against the parent's position that the ideas you're advocating are poorly thought out and impractical — appears to be "I am allowed to have poorly thought-out and impractical opinions because I'm not in the government." That's not really much of a defense of your position.

It appears to be no such thing. Nowhere did I suggest my opinion was poorly thought out or impractical. I suggested that the parent's position was overstated and that people such as myself have very little to do with public policy.

He suggested that, by pointing out that if the country followed your ideas consistently, libraries would be outlawed even though they're generally regarded as a very good thing. Your rebuttal was that you aren't in the government.

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#99

Post by Natsu »

eru wrote: post #60
Natsu wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 S…

If you want a simple reason, I doubt you'll find one. Each of the people who agreed to that no doubt had their own reasons for doing so and I honestly don't know if we know what all they are. All I can point you to is what they agreed upon to give as their explanation.

Also, that wasn't the "preamble" to anything, that was the entire Copyright Clause. It's from the list of Enumerated Powers in Article I, Section 8 (the clause itself being clause 8), if you want to check for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

Anyhow, William Patry is a first-rate scholar of all things copyright. If that information isn't in one of his books, good luck finding it.

Re: PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued

#100

Post by Osmose »

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…

Upvote because I believe you raise a valid question.

The enforceability of the contract depends on many factors. I'm no lawyer, but from what I remember from my Computer Ethics course and from some quick wiki-research[1], most cases revolve around whether the user made reasonably aware that they are agreeing to the contract, and if there is a reasonable way of disagreeing with the contract and returning the product.

I can't remember if my PS3 prompted me with a EULA when it first booted up, but it probably did. And I think the ability to return the product for a refund is considered a reasonable way of disagreeing with the contract. So it may be legally sound and enforceable, and in that respect I agree.

But it's common knowledge that the pattern of presenting a EULA with a submit button is not enough to make users read the terms of the agreement. Sony is using this fact to their advantage, as do most companies with restrictive EULAs. I'm against restrictive EULAs on principle, but particularly in the case of a physical good like a PS3 restricting you from using it, learning from it, modifying it, etc.

[1] Relevant Wiki Articles on Short Notice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkwrap_contract

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap

Post reply on HN