PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued
geohot.com
geohot.com
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Hotz and his officers, employees, attorneys and representatives, and all other persons or entities in privity or acting in concert or participation with Defendant Hotz, be immediately temporarily restrained from:
...Offering to the public, posting online, marketing, advertising, promoting, installing, distributing, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any circumvention technology, products, services, methods, codes, software tools, devices, component or part thereof...
...Providing links from any website to any other website selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, promoting, installing, importing, exporting, offering to the public, distributing, providing, posting, or otherwise trafficking in any Circumvention Devices...
And a whole lot more. Aside fromt the fact that it seems the corporate world still hasn't heard of the Streisand Effect, the language of this document is worrying. Clearly, the laws were written with commercial theft of IP and industrial espionage/reverse engineering in mind. The linguistic contortions seem to make it clear that the DMCA and CFAA were never meant to be used against hackers, but rather against counterfeiters. It's pretty disturbing that even the courts march lockstep with corporations in stretching the law to serve corporate ends.
edit: As pointed out below, this is a proposed order, not one issued by a judge. Thus, please disregard the last bit about the courts marching in lockstep with corporate interests. I'm appending rather than editing so that the responses make sense.
> IT IS ORDERED that SCEA shall post a bond in the amount of $_______ as security...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbUVgxw1yWc (30 seconds)
Other formats here: http://events.ccc.de/congress/2010/wiki/Conference_Recording...; slides and links here: http://events.ccc.de/congress/2010/Fahrplan/events/4087.en.h...
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
Edit: I also wouldn't be surprised if these motion control addons are research for the next console generation. I've heard of people thinking of Kinect as the next generation of XBox somewhat, and it does kind of make some sense. I don't think we'll reach a stage where motion controls are integral to most games, because even in this generation with the SixAxis on the PS3, most all of the uses of it were one of gimmicks (Mirror's Edge: Use the SixAxis to balance, or just use a control stick. Uncharted: Use the SixAxis to adjust grenade arc...or again, just use a control stick. Ratchet and Clank: Use the SixAxis for two minigames).
If you mean there's no rumor of the next generation arriving soon, that's true enough. Sony in particular have always stuck to the position that the Playstation 3 is meant to last for roughly a decade, which is why they said they weren't too worried by the fact that nobody wanted a PS3 when the system first came out. We're around the five-year mark now.
Let me know when SCOURGE ( http://scourgeweb.org/tiki-browse_gallery.php?galleryId=2 ) starts impacting Diablo sales.
So, the obvious solution is to stop subsidizing consoles with title royalties.
Let the market decide whether they prefer a more expensive homebrew-friendly console or a cheaper homebrew-hostile console.
And, BTW, when it was introduced, the PS3 was an amazingly powerful computer. Now it's not. It's, at best, interesting.
Note to Sony lawyers: no doubt you're eager to rack up another billable hour by sending legal threats to me and my university. Before you go down that unhappy road, check out what happened the last time a large corporation tried to stop the mirroring of technical information here: The Gallery of CSS Descramblers. Have you learned anything in ten years?
David S. Touretzky Research Professor of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213
My understanding is that fail0verflow's exploit didn't enable piracy at all because metldr wasn't being exploited. Anyway, won't this go the way of iphone, where is was ruled that jailbreaking is legal?
My hardware, my rules...
Shame on Congress for passing the DMCA to begin with. This exploit only furthers cryptography in practice (that is, this will be a lesson in crypto textbooks for generations to come).
Morally they seem similar enough, sadly that's not the issue.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22C0+CE+FE+84+C2+27+F7+5B%22
Close that car hood citizen, there are secrets in there, don't make me taze you.
erk: C0 CE FE 84 C2 27 F7 5B D0 7A 7E B8 46 50 9F 93 B2 38 E7 70 DA CB 9F F4 A3 88 F8 12 48 2B E2 1B
riv: 47 EE 74 54 E4 77 4C C9 B8 96 0C 7B 59 F4 C1 4D
pub: C2 D4 AA F3 19 35 50 19 AF 99 D4 4E 2B 58 CA 29 25 2C 89 12 3D 11 D6 21 8F 40 B1 38 CA B2 9B 71 01 F3 AE B7 2A 97 50 19
R: 80 6E 07 8F A1 52 97 90 CE 1A AE 02 BA DD 6F AA A6 AF 74 17
n: E1 3A 7E BC 3A CC EB 1C B5 6C C8 60 FC AB DB 6A 04 8C 55 E1
K: BA 90 55 91 68 61 B9 77 ED CB ED 92 00 50 92 F6 6C 7A 3D 8D
Da: C5 B2 BF A1 A4 13 DD 16 F2 6D 31 C0 F2 ED 47 20 DC FB 06 70
>> First, the PS3 System consists of a “protected computer” because it is used in interstate commerce (e.g., the Internet.) Second, without SCEA’s authorization, Defendants intentionally accessed certain levels of the PS3 Systems by circumventing SCEA’s TPMs in the PS3 Systems. Defendants’ access to such levels in the PS3 Systems is not authorized; to the contrary, the PlayStation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement (“PSN User Agreement”) prohibits the circumvention of security features in the PS3 System.
It looks like there is a legal definition of a "protected computer" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_computer), but I can't imagine it was ever intended to apply to one's own computer. Furthermore, how is the PlayStation Network user agreement relevant here? You don't have to agree to anything to buy a PS3, only to use the optional PSN service.
Auto makers originally tried to prevent car owners from servicing their own cars or taking them to third parties to be serviced. It took a legal struggle and legislation to enshrine the rights of ownership that car owners take for granted.
Or at least took for granted. A new legal struggle is turning around the right to repair modern cars that make extensive use of processors and proprietary software.
http://blog.fosketts.net/2010/07/29/walled-gardens-gilded-ca...
It would seem better to release and wait for the ashes to settle first no?
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?..
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?
1) Motivation, attention, and energy (more people hearing about their efforts, offering their help, more passionately)
2) An area to focus their energy on (jailbreaking, or restoring access to homebrew/otheros as a goal)
Another thing to consider is that as far as I know, you should in theory be able to run the system at it's full capacity with the latest hack, whereas anything running on otheros was crippled by default.
>Then Sony's console business would go bankrupt?
The Music and Movie industries continue to stay in business even in the face of piracy. Wake me up when PS3 pirating comes close to the level of Napster. I'm not justifying piracy, just saying that Sony should be more worried about their real competitors.
Guess it's time to fork git://xbmc.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/xbmc/xbmc but I'd almost prefer to take a wait and see approach with Sony's first salvo against custom firmware users.
Would you buy an oven if there was a big label that said "IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE THIS OVEN FOR BROWNIES; ALL BROWNIE BAKERS WILL BE PROSECUTED"? Do you think laws that allow that kind of thing are good? Remember, this isn't a rented oven, you bought the whole thing outright. Why should there be laws that allow hardware makers to say "THIS COMPUTER CAN ONLY RUN MOBILE OS 5.5; ALL USERS OF NON-MOBILE OS 5.5 WILL BE PROSECUTED"?
What about (cooling it on the caps) "it is illegal to publish the words etched into the bottom of this oven. Do not read the words on the bottom of this oven"?
Copyright was originated to make the creation of intellectual property economically worthwhile so that more intellectual content could be produced and distributed. I think we crossed that threshold a long time ago and now we've gone way overboard into the other extreme; our current laws actively discourage creativity, which is the exact opposite of their purpose.
Why doesn't your post say, "It seems many companies don't believe that those that purchase their hardware have a right to use it according to their own dictates. If these companies don't believe in that, don't mass produce and sell your product to everyone!"?
Surely massive distribution with no restriction on buyers is a horrible way to keep a secret.
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 won't sell them locally; should that be allowed?
If you and I agree that I will sell you a device but you will only use it under certain circumstances, should that be allowed?
I think the government has no business in private contracts in any of the above situations. Let people make their own agreements and then let the market decide. The only role the government has herein is to enforce contracts - what good are contracts when one party can decide retroactively that they don't like the terms anymore, and oh I don't want to cancel the contract, no I want to have my pie and eat it, too?
I find the fact that a contract can be agreed to in these ways unethical, especially when they are hidden under the guise of buying a physical product.
You say the contract is 'unethical'; I understand that position and in some cases agree, to an extent. 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.
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 documents to that effect at the point of purchase. This implicit agreement stuff is nonsense.
(there are discussions over implementation details: is a eula that is only shown after you install the software which is in shrinkwrapped box and that says that breaking the shrink wrap constitutes acceptance valid, for example. Those corner cases are beside the point, the thing is that the concept of a contract that regulates the use of software is broadly accepted, to the point that the actual simplest case isn't even litigated over since it's not a point of discussion.
There is no need to sign anything to make a contract. I don't know where that idea comes from, it's so misguided I don't even know where to begin. When you go to Starbucks and order a double frappuccino latte with extra whipped cream, and the girl behind the counter gives it to you, do you then say 'I'm not paying because we don't have a contract'? Of course not, there is a contract: they offer to sell coffee, you accept by ordering, the result is an obligation on their part to deliver coffee, and an obligation on your part to pay for it. No signature or paper or whatever needed.
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.
You are being downvoted because of using a strawman argument.
I buy a PS3. It is a computer loaded up with a OS to which I have a license. I can do what I want with the hardware, but the software isn't mine. An encryption key (in my mind) is a software component.
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:
Even so, clickwrap and EULA contracts are pretty lame. If your product must be distributed where end-users are restricted from doing things, then you should create a real contract that each party takes seriously.
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.
I don't know how it works elsewhere, but in the UK there are a number of legal rights that cannot be signed away. For example, tenancy agreements with illegal clauses are simply enforceable for those clauses, whether it's signed or not. Another example; one cannot consent to Grievous Bodily Harm, even if you really want to (this one was taken all the way through the legal system when someone consented to having a nail hammered through a rather sensitive part of his body).
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 funny.)
Wikipedia has something like "The origin of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers." and similar lines.
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 allowed in the USA is, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
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.
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.
It depends. Did they sell me the oven at below cost, and their plan for not losing money overall depends on people not using the ovens for brownies? If that were the case, I'd consider buying the oven and satisfying my brownie desires some other way.
Frankly I'd much rather see the whole thing opened up and made more reasonable and competitive, into a proper market. Microsoft don't have any say over who releases what for Windows, Apple don't have a say over who releases what for OS X (though are heading down a slippery slope with the App Store following iOS...) - I see no legitimate reason for the games market to be different. If the hardware cost goes up, fine - we're still below the real-terms cost of the earlyish 16 bit era.
edit: details: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/11/8239.ars
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.
I don't want to live in a world where I become a criminal for even attempting to figure out how MY stuff works.
A gun is designed to kill people, and I can't argue against that fact by claiming that at present guns are only used to crack nuts open with their handles. Just because a gun isn't being used to kill people right now does nothing to make it any less deadly.
This is also evil in and of itself, running afoul of free speech rights.
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.
That's not really much of a defense of your position.
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 should NOT sell the device to consumers but lease/rent it, because that is the agreement they are really looking for.
I can't believe you're seriously comparing online platforms owned and operated by their creators to a hardware platform that's neither.
And also, toilet paper is used to wipe asses. Many geeks indeed do even believe that intellectual "property" is a propaganda term which was coined to make the false impression that a temporary monopoly on information is somehow similar to physical property.