Sony Offline Entertainment (Hacking of PSN and SOE)

[Headspace]

Do I really own the things i buy?

[Fhqwghads]

The bottom line is the onus is on Sony to stay one step ahead of hackers. It should be 100% legal to crack open anything you own and modify the piss out of it. You bought it, you own it. Whether or not you'll get support for warranty service is a completely different scenario. But the point stands: if I wanted to turn my PS3 into a Pop-Tart toaster oven, fuck Sony right in their neck... I'll have some goddamn hot Pop-Tarts shooting out of my PS3 and Sony can suck my balls if they don't like it.

There's no way homeslice reverse-engineered Sony's hardware to spit out code that matches Sony's source. It might be functionally close, but the bottom line is he didn't hack their corporate network and gain illegal access to their source code depositories, and then post their IP on the web. If that was the case then Sony would have a right to pursue legal action. But in this instance Sony is wrong. Period.

[miokomioko]

You can do whatever the fuck you want with your PS3. You can modify it into a blu-ray playing bidet for all anyone cares because it won't affect anyone in any negative way. Chances are, no one will even know you did. However, as soon as you reveal to the public what you agreed not to, and the effects could potential reduce the effectiveness of someone else's business that's when you're infringing upon someone's intellectual property. It's not that he privately reverse-engineered their authentication hardware/software to bypass it for himself, it's that he did it with not only INTENT to share it, he shared it. If he were smart enough to not want recognition for his illegal feats, he wouldn't go around publicly announcing his progress on the topic. He's a badass at what he does, but he's an idiot about what he does with it.

Non-creative individuals tend to be really uncomfortable with the concept that ideas deserve to have monetary value.

[*Shinzon*]

The bottom line is the onus is on Sony to stay one step ahead of hackers. It should be 100% legal to crack open anything you own and modify the piss out of it. You bought it, you own it. Whether or not you'll get support for warranty service is a completely different scenario. But the point stands: if I wanted to turn my PS3 into a Pop-Tart toaster oven, fuck Sony right in their neck... I'll have some goddamn hot Pop-Tarts shooting out of my PS3 and Sony can suck my balls if they don't like it.

There's no way homeslice reverse-engineered Sony's hardware to spit out code that matches Sony's source. It might be functionally close, but the bottom line is he didn't hack their corporate network and gain illegal access to their source code depositories, and then post their IP on the web. If that was the case then Sony would have a right to pursue legal action. But in this instance Sony is wrong. Period.

This is not even remotely close to what the case is about. Here is the original store that was posted on Joystiq:

Last week, hacking group fail0verflow and well-known iPhone hacker George "GeoHot" Hotz revealed new hacks for the PS3 allowing pretty much anyone to run unsigned code on the system. Sony has yet to nullify this through "network updates" as promised, and has instead chosen to address this problem by filing temporary restraining orders against the hackers. Hotz posted the court documents on his own site after receiving them.

The court documents claim that the hacks violate the DMCA, and that "Already, pirated games are being packaged and distributed with these circumvention devices." Sony's restraining order is designed to "restrain" Hotz and the others from continuing to hack the PS3's protection measures, and from distributing their exploits.

Hotz doesn't seem worried about Sony's ire. "I would expect a company that prides itself on intellectual property to be well versed in the provisions of the law, so I am disappointed in Sony's current action," Hotz told the BBC. "I have spoken with legal counsel and I feel comfortable that Sony's action against me doesn't have any basis."

In order to for him to create a hack that allows you to run unauthorized code on ANY PS3, he hacked the ps3's security system and discovered the source code key that governs how the ps3 determines whether or not a particular item is pirated, or region authorized to run on a particular ps3. Now I'm not programmer but even I can understand how he was able to get the hack to work at a very basic level. The fact is he is altering material that a consumer is not entitled to. Just because you buy a PS3 doesn't mean you are buying the very programming that determines how the Ps3 works that technology is not your property to alter.

More on the case:

Sony's claim against hacker Georgen "geohot" Hotz will have to find another day in court, as a trial has been delayed due to questions of where the case should physically be held. Currently, the case is being reviewed in San Francisco, but district court judge Susan Illston raised questions as to whether the case should be tried in California or New Jersey, where Hotz resides. Sony's lawyers have argued that, because the hack was distributed via Twitter and YouTube (both based in California), the case should continue. In addition, Hotz supposedly received donations via PayPal, another California-based institution.

"If having a PayPal account were enough, then there would be personal jurisdiction in this court over everybody, and that just can't be right," Illston responded.

The case is delayed pending further discussions over jurisdiction, a decision Sony is likely to frown upon. Given the free availability of the hack online, it's in the company's best interest to try and secure a victory as quickly as possible -- even if it means little can be done to stop the proliferation of the hack.

Update [1/24/11]: Some of the court documents have been posted on PSX-SCENE, providing greater detail of the two sides' arguments over jurisdiction.

Keep in mind these articles are old and jurisdiction was already established.

More court documents have surfaced in the suit between Sony and PS3 hackers, mostly declarations on the part of each of Sony's lawyers in support of the restraining order against George "GeoHot" Hotz and other hackers. One document contains over 280 pages of "evidence" to provide cause for enjoining them against further hacking -- said evidence consisting of full, copy-and-pasted pages from Twitter accounts, forum posts, and news stories relating to the recent discoveries of the PS3's private and root keys.

Also included are summons for the hackers, and a document from Sony declining to bring the case before a magistrate judge, requesting a district judge instead. According to PSX-Scene, there's also evidence that Sony sent $1 to Hotz's PayPal account through his email address, in order to prove he is accepting donations, even though he hadn't actually requested donations.

NeoGAF's Sangreal also obtained responses from the lawyers representing Hotz. The opposition statement claims that the California court has no jurisdiction over Hotz or any of the other defendants, and that Hotz has no connection to the other hackers.

More substantially, Hotz's attorneys' statement asserts that "Defendant Hotz has not produced, manufactured, sold, nor does he have any intent whatsoever to produce, manufacture, or sell, any devices that facilitate piracy." It dismisses Sony's use of other piracy cases for precedent, because those cases involve hardware used to circumvent the PS3's protection, and not software. Moreover, the statement makes the point that enjoining Hotz from his programming activities won't do anything. "Sony's own pleadings admit that the code necessary to jailbreak the Sony PlayStation computer is on the internet," the statement reads. "Sony speaks of 'closing the door', but the simple fact is that there is no door to close. The code sought to be restrained will always be a Google search away."

What Sony will argue is that Hotz is the reason that code is available for public consumption.

[aurik]

Actually the only thing Hotz released was the key numbers that allow you to sign and run your own binaries on PS3.

Keep in mind that prior to the removal of the Other OS feature, you were able to natively run your own binaries on the PS3. In fact, the Other OS feature, and the ability to run homebrew was specifically a selling point of the original PS3. However, that functionality was later deliberately removed by Sony if you patched your PS3 firmware beyond a certain point.

In fact, if you want to both run your own native binaries sometimes and alternatively play the Most Recent Games sometimes, you can no longer do this as they require different firmware. I don't even think there is a downgrade path for firmware as well. So you're stuck choosing one of two deficient alternatives, a Morton's Fork, which is pretty unacceptable to begin with since Sony sold this hardware and then deliberately broke one of the features it advertised. (See: fitness for purpose)

Hotz released Sony's private signing keys for the PS3 so that anyone once again can run their own binaries, natively. Of course since they're the private keys for everything, nothing can be done to stop people from writing and distributing hacked firmware that will boot pirated games. However, Hotz himself is not distributing hacked firmware. In fact, he's not distributing anything copyrightable; the master keys are numbers generated through a mechanical algorithm, no artistic expression and thus not subject to copyright.

The allegation is that the key numbers he is distributing constitute a circumvention device under the DMCA. Of course, a lot of things are yet to be argued. Among them: are the raw numbers themselves a circumvention device? If they are, do the keys have substantial noninfringing purpose? Does SCEA even have a standing considering that the keys aren't controlling access to particular protected work?

In any case, the current legal dispute is over whether California is an appropriate venue for hearing the civil case. Given that Hotz is in New Jersey and is a private individual while Sony has lawyers everywhere, and that Hotz actions were not aimed at or performed for clients in California, the argument that compelling him to make a defense in California is pretty clearly an undue burden.

Combine that with the fact that SCEA may not even be an injured party: any EULA that Hotz has agreed to (and he claims to have not agreed to any of them), if any, would be with Sony of Japan, not SCEA which is merely a relative of the Sony family that exists to sell PS-related hardware and games in North America. They actually retain no copyright interest in the PS hardware or firmware, so it's not a given that they even have standing to bring a case.

In summary: their jurisdiction argument is pretty shaky.

[*Shinzon*]

Aurik much more eloquently dscribed what the key in question is. I just don't see how Hotz can distance himself from guilt considering he was working with the website that sold the peripherals.

[miokomioko]

The choosing of California is very obvious and strategic on Sony's part.

[Cantih]

Do I really own the things i buy?

Well, if you listen to Swampy, it hinges on if you even own the money you use to buy things!

[Raytheon]

Actually the only thing Hotz released was the key numbers that allow you to sign and run your own binaries on PS3.

Keep in mind that prior to the removal of the Other OS feature, you were able to natively run your own binaries on the PS3. In fact, the Other OS feature, and the ability to run homebrew was specifically a selling point of the original PS3. However, that functionality was later deliberately removed by Sony if you patched your PS3 firmware beyond a certain point.

In fact, if you want to both run your own native binaries sometimes and alternatively play the Most Recent Games sometimes, you can no longer do this as they require different firmware. I don't even think there is a downgrade path for firmware as well. So you're stuck choosing one of two deficient alternatives, a Morton's Fork, which is pretty unacceptable to begin with since Sony sold this hardware and then deliberately broke one of the features it advertised. (See: fitness for purpose)

Hotz released Sony's private signing keys for the PS3 so that anyone once again can run their own binaries, natively. Of course since they're the private keys for everything, nothing can be done to stop people from writing and distributing hacked firmware that will boot pirated games. However, Hotz himself is not distributing hacked firmware. In fact, he's not distributing anything copyrightable; the master keys are numbers generated through a mechanical algorithm, no artistic expression and thus not subject to copyright.

The allegation is that the key numbers he is distributing constitute a circumvention device under the DMCA. Of course, a lot of things are yet to be argued. Among them: are the raw numbers themselves a circumvention device? If they are, do the keys have substantial noninfringing purpose? Does SCEA even have a standing considering that the keys aren't controlling access to particular protected work?

In any case, the current legal dispute is over whether California is an appropriate venue for hearing the civil case. Given that Hotz is in New Jersey and is a private individual while Sony has lawyers everywhere, and that Hotz actions were not aimed at or performed for clients in California, the argument that compelling him to make a defense in California is pretty clearly an undue burden.

Combine that with the fact that SCEA may not even be an injured party: any EULA that Hotz has agreed to (and he claims to have not agreed to any of them), if any, would be with Sony of Japan, not SCEA which is merely a relative of the Sony family that exists to sell PS-related hardware and games in North America. They actually retain no copyright interest in the PS hardware or firmware, so it's not a given that they even have standing to bring a case.

In summary: their jurisdiction argument is pretty shaky.

Goddamn son. You talk fancy.


I'm with Fhq. Possession is 9/10s of the law, isn't that the saying? How you gonna sell me something but tell me not to look behind the curtain? Even Dorothy had the balls to look behind the curtain. I modded my original XBOX too, put in a new chip, took out the old 8gig HD and put in a 250gig WD, new heat sync, added fans, ran linux and every emulator and rom I could find. I couldn't get on xbox live or it would ban the xbox because the numbers on components didn't match up, but a small price to pay for what I could do with that thing.

miokomioko:

Non-creative individuals tend to be really uncomfortable with the concept that ideas deserve to have monetary value.

You're missing the fact that I ALREADY PAID for the ideas by buying a PS3 with the OS provided. What Geo did was expand on that idea. Sony didn't think of that shit, Geo did. What you're arguing is that nobody should be paid for ideas Sony MIGHT HAVE IN THE FUTURE, which is fucking lame bro.

If we had to rely on every inventor to improve upon their own ideas solely, no one else could upgrade, modify, enhance, or otherwise further the progress of ANY idea, we'd still be in the fucking stone age man.

[Raytheon]

Well, if you listen to Swampy, it hinges on if you even own the money you use to buy things!

You just blew my mind bro.

[Fhqwghads]

This is not even remotely close to what the case is about. Here is the original store that was posted on Joystiq:

What you posted is exactly what I was talking about, and is 100% related. It's up to Sony to maintain security on their side. If a consumer has circumvented the security Sony included and sold to the consumer, then Sony is SOL. The consumer owns that item, Sony is no longer entitled to tell anyone wtf to do with a product once it's sold. They can deny services, like warranties and PlayStation network, but they can eat a dick if they try to stop people from doing what they want with their own property. The big picture is if Sony wins on this, then what's to stop other corporations from enforcing their policies on merchandise consumers buy? Soon you'll be breaking the law if you apply a custom paint job on a car because the manufacturer sold it to you and said the care must remain white, because that's the way the factory made it.

[Cantih]

I can't take credit. I'm just picking up gold that's laying there, the guy's gone full Leif.

[Headspace]

You never go full leif

[*Shinzon*]

What you posted is exactly what I was talking about, and is 100% related. It's up to Sony to maintain security on their side. If a consumer has circumvented the security Sony included and sold to the consumer, then Sony is SOL. The consumer owns that item, Sony is no longer entitled to tell anyone wtf to do with a product once it's sold. They can deny services, like warranties and PlayStation network, but they can eat a dick if they try to stop people from doing what they want with their own property. The big picture is if Sony wins on this, then what's to stop other corporations from enforcing their policies on merchandise consumers buy? Soon you'll be breaking the law if you apply a custom paint job on a car because the manufacturer sold it to you and said the care must remain white, because that's the way the factory made it.

You missed the point I had awhile back. Sony does not operate a pay to use system like Xbox does. Xbox allows Microsoft to directly ban consoles from their network because of pirated software. Sony cannot because their network is free. What we are talking about is hotz literally being the individual responsible for enabling the pirating USB existing in the first place. Because without the key he discovered Sony's protection would be safe. Other companies have different ways of dealing with and addressing protection, they aren't all of a sudden going to stop.

Also, so long as you use PSN and use the playstation, actually Sony can tell you exactly what they believe you can do with the system. Everytime you use a game you agree to abide by their terms of service. That's not to say you can't turn your PS3 into a toaster if that's what gets you off, but so long as you are playing games on the ps3, what it was designed to do, then you are to play games in agreement with the terms of service laid out by sony.

Simply put you are buying something that was created by someone else. This company is going to continue to build games because it makes them money. If you're pirating their games, it cuts into their profits and they have no motivation to build more games. How the hell does that not justify fighting to protect their anti-piracy material? It's not the same as many other purchases including music.

[Raytheon]

What you posted is exactly what I was talking about, and is 100% related. It's up to Sony to maintain security on their side. If a consumer has circumvented the security Sony included and sold to the consumer, then Sony is SOL. The consumer owns that item, Sony is no longer entitled to tell anyone wtf to do with a product once it's sold. They can deny services, like warranties and PlayStation network, but they can eat a dick if they try to stop people from doing what they want with their own property. The big picture is if Sony wins on this, then what's to stop other corporations from enforcing their policies on merchandise consumers buy? Soon you'll be breaking the law if you apply a custom paint job on a car because the manufacturer sold it to you and said the care must remain white, because that's the way the factory made it.

Exactly, signing an agreement for TERMS OF SERVICE is VERY different then signing a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT. If Geo had signed an NDA, found out proprietary Sony information, and released it, THEN he would be fucked. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Geo never entered into any kind of contractual obligation with Sony to protect company secrets.

If anything, when people found out they could jailbreak iPhones, from what I witnessed firsthand, it looked like to me more people bought iPhones AFTER they found out what they could do with them. I don't see why this wouldn't have the same effect on PS3's?

Besides, what's the big deal, PS3 doesn't have any games anyway.....

[Raytheon]

You missed the point I had awhile back. Sony does not operate a pay to use system like Xbox does. Xbox allows Microsoft to directly ban consoles from their network because of pirated software. Sony cannot because their network is free. What we are talking about is hotz literally being the individual responsible for enabling the pirating USB existing in the first place. Because without the key he discovered Sony's protection would be safe. Other companies have different ways of dealing with and addressing protection, they aren't all of a sudden going to stop.

Also, so long as you use PSN and use the playstation, actually Sony can tell you exactly what they believe you can do with the system. Everytime you use a game you agree to abide by their terms of service. That's not to say you can't turn your PS3 into a toaster if that's what gets you off, but so long as you are playing games on the ps3, what it was designed to do, then you are to play games in agreement with the terms of service laid out by sony.

Dude PSN sucks anyway, if I could mod my PS3 to use XBOX Live, believe me, I'd be on it. And yes, I already own a 360, and I'd STILL put my PS3 on XBOX Live if I could....

[archibaldcrane]

You missed the point I had awhile back. Sony does not operate a pay to use system like Xbox does. Xbox allows Microsoft to directly ban consoles from their network because of pirated software. Sony cannot because their network is free. What we are talking about is hotz literally being the individual responsible for enabling the pirating USB existing in the first place. Because without the key he discovered Sony's protection would be safe. Other companies have different ways of dealing with and addressing protection, they aren't all of a sudden going to stop.

Also, so long as you use PSN and use the playstation, actually Sony can tell you exactly what they believe you can do with the system. Everytime you use a game you agree to abide by their terms of service. That's not to say you can't turn your PS3 into a toaster if that's what gets you off, but so long as you are playing games on the ps3, what it was designed to do, then you are to play games in agreement with the terms of service laid out by sony.

Simply put you are buying something that was created by someone else. This company is going to continue to build games because it makes them money. If you're pirating their games, it cuts into their profits and they have no motivation to build more games. How the hell does that not justify fighting to protect their anti-piracy material? It's not the same as many other purchases including music.

I was under the impression that he never agreed to any terms of service.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[Pirian]

Dude PSN sucks anyway, if I could mod my PS3 to use XBOX Live, believe me, I'd be on it. And yes, I already own a 360, and I'd STILL put my PS3 on XBOX Live if I could....

Hey buddy, fuck you buddy! Getting all the old ps1 games off PSN is 90% of what I use my ps3 for nowadays (other 10% being netflix)

[*Shinzon*]

I was under the impression that he never agreed to any terms of service.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

It's implicit in the use of their system and the games. You don't "actually" have to physically agree like clicking yes to use PSN for example or iTunes. Each game and the system comes with a page in every manual that tells you that by using their product you inherently agree to accepting the terms of service.

[Eliseos]

I was under the impression that he never agreed to any terms of service.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

If he ever made a PSN account he did. They don't let you sign in until you agree to the TOS. Subsequent revisions to the TOS they won't let you sign in without it. Plus I'm pretty sure there is a TOS from just purchasing the PS3 (since other major electronics also have it). I'm trying to check right now, but Playstation's website is obviously down. Google gives "Note that if you do choose to create a PSN account, you will need to agree to a separate Terms of Service and User Agreement ("ToSUA") and Privacy Policy ..." on a "terms of service ps3" search though.