Sony Offline Entertainment (Hacking of PSN and SOE)

[Kiarax]

By March 31st, PlayStation users had raised over 1.31 million US dollars for Japanese relief funds through donations. And now nobody can donate because of Anonymous. Lol.

[Elcura]

And now nobody can donate because of Anonymous. Lol.

FOR THE GREATER GOOD!

[Bregor]

By March 31st, PlayStation users had raised over 1.31 million US dollars for Japanese relief funds through donations. And now nobody can donate because of Anonymous. Lol.

I'm sure Anonymous will make a sizable donation to the relief effort to counterbalance this effect.

Spoiler: show

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gPziC4xd5-...tumbleweed.jpg

[*Shinzon*]

Sony already received injunctions to force websites to stop the sale of the USB device, in Australia and a couple of other places. That for them alone was a huge victory because very few people can, despite the code being available, recreate the code that Geohotz and his collaborates created to allow the writing of custom code onto the Ps3. Again, Sony is going to try and establish that Geohotz is the primary reason that the code is now public knowledge. Again, had he not sold or worked with people who were selling the code, he'd be able to beat the wrap easily. But since the start he's thought that he's untouchable. Well Sony is convinced they can established that whether or not he asked for donations or payment he's been getting them, and once they establish that he's fucked because they'd prove that he guilty of copyright violations on several levels with the discovery and subsequent release of the code itself and the creation of the device for public consumption to circumvent anti-pirating measures.

Again the key to the case though is whether or not the key alone justifies circumvention of copyrights. Also for fucks sake stop comparing the one-time purchase and ownership of a car to the ownership of a damn ps3. When you a buy a ps3, it is useless without accessories and games, whether or not you wish to see it as such games and accessories are what makes the ps3 function and those games and accessories are licensed property to the company, and you are being allowed to use it through your purchase . When you buy a car you have all the functioning property necessary for that car to work without any continued support from the creators.

[Shuvo]

Sony is actually being pretty calm about it all. If it were Microsoft they would have had the guys parents locked in a turkish prison, his siblings deported to mexico and his dog killed in front of him while Bill Gates raped it in the ass.

Bah Microsoft being the big evil corporation is so 1990's. Ethically Sony is way worse then MS. Also Bill Gates is a freaking saint now, he's done/doing way more to help humanity then any other single living individual, e.g. right now he's using his vast resources to try to eradicate Polio + Malaria.

So fuck Sony, DDOS away! Sucks about donations, but I don't think the JP government need (or even want, knowing how prideful they are) economic help as much as they need logistical help (Fuel, ships, trucks etc), which we can't really do anything about with private donations.

[Raytheon]

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)

I guess there is something useful about PSN. I never noticed though, because I own actual hard copies of all the PS1 games I ever wanted. When I say PSN sucks, I guess I'm talking about when I use to play COD4 and shit on there.

[Senoska]

There's a lot of people here that like to make analogies without having the first idea the implication of what's going on.

I agree.

If you buy the PS3, and modify it so that others can utilize future software for free without buying it, that is not the same as buying a car and figuring out how to change the intake. Other people still have to pay for the intake and labor or do the work yourself. You're not 'copying' the intake and giving it out to other people for free. Fucking idiots.

Well, there's a few things wrong here. A: Its not against the law to make my own intake. As far as I know, its not against the law to know how to do so. I don't have to pay for the intake or labor. Assuming it works, I have every right to fashion that to my car. That's because I own the car, and everything attached to it.

So your real question should ask about the ownership of objects. Do you own computer hardware when you buy a product? If so, the car analogy works fine. If you're assuming you, for what ever reason, do not own that hardware, you can argue against it. But in saying why you don't think we own it, you must also explain why it is any different than a car.

And further more, if I had the money and distributed intakes that I made to anyone I want for free, are you going to force me to take money? If these guys own their software and are distributing software for that hardware free of cost, when it is their own software, what are you going to do? Force them to take money?

ITT: The continuation of the sense of entitlement this generation has.

I know, right?! Thinking they own something when they buy it. God damn socialists!

[dejet]

I agree.



Well, there's a few things wrong here. A: Its not against the law to make my own intake. As far as I know, its not against the law to know how to do so. I don't have to pay for the intake or labor. Assuming it works, I have every right to fashion that to my car. That's because I own the car, and everything attached to it.

So your real question should ask about the ownership of objects. Do you own computer hardware when you buy a product? If so, the car analogy works fine. If you're assuming you, for what ever reason, do not own that hardware, you can argue against it. But in saying why you don't think we own it, you must also explain why it is any different than a car.

And further more, if I had the money and distributed intakes that I made to anyone I want for free, are you going to force me to take money? If these guys own their software and are distributing software for that hardware free of cost, when it is their own software, what are you going to do? Force them to take money?



I know, right?! Thinking they own something when they buy it. God damn socialists!

you own the hardware, the real thing to ask is if you own the software, and the real answer is no. I dont get what sony is doing though. Every other company in the world would be pissed off it got hacked and just work on ways to fix it, or move on and let it go.

They got years out of the system with everyone having to buy games. Xbox was hacked in under a month, the new xbox was hacked in like a week.

the WII is hacked, the DS is hacked, the PSP is hacked(why again are they going so hard after the ps3 and not the psp?) Shit gets hacked its the way of the world lol. OK you may lose like 50,000(real) sales on a big title game. boohooo! Xbox is getting along just fine with Jtags flying around lol

It really falls back on 99.9% of the games people steal they would not have paid for anyways.

[*Shinzon*]

I agree.



Well, there's a few things wrong here. A: Its not against the law to make my own intake. As far as I know, its not against the law to know how to do so. I don't have to pay for the intake or labor. Assuming it works, I have every right to fashion that to my car. That's because I own the car, and everything attached to it.

So your real question should ask about the ownership of objects. Do you own computer hardware when you buy a product? If so, the car analogy works fine. If you're assuming you, for what ever reason, do not own that hardware, you can argue against it. But in saying why you don't think we own it, you must also explain why it is any different than a car.

And further more, if I had the money and distributed intakes that I made to anyone I want for free, are you going to force me to take money? If these guys own their software and are distributing software for that hardware free of cost, when it is their own software, what are you going to do? Force them to take money?



I know, right?! Thinking they own something when they buy it. God damn socialists!

Man, you guys still don't get it, or are trying really really hard to ignore the obvious. First whatever car analog you are attempting to make isn't going to work. This is more comparable, although still poorly, to the manufacturing of counterfeit clothing. Where an individual is responsible for creating, and then distributing a licensed, copyrighted and or trademarked item like a design. You bought say the jacket, but you didn't buy the physical design of the jacket. That design is going to be used to make other jackets and be sold everywhere. You are not entitled to, just because you own it, recreate that jacket in anyway that is unauthorized from the company who originally created it. Nor are you entitled to circumventing the company's profit by making a jacket that looks exactly like yours and sell it. In this case, they are responsible for selling a tool that directly circumvents the company's profit responsible for bringing you content. You can't buy anymore designer jackets if the company isn't making money off the ones it's trying to sell.

[Raytheon]

I agree.



Well, there's a few things wrong here. A: Its not against the law to make my own intake. As far as I know, its not against the law to know how to do so. I don't have to pay for the intake or labor. Assuming it works, I have every right to fashion that to my car. That's because I own the car, and everything attached to it.

So your real question should ask about the ownership of objects. Do you own computer hardware when you buy a product? If so, the car analogy works fine. If you're assuming you, for what ever reason, do not own that hardware, you can argue against it. But in saying why you don't think we own it, you must also explain why it is any different than a car

And further more, if I had the money and distributed intakes that I made to anyone I want for free, are you going to force me to take money? If these guys own their software and are distributing software for that hardware free of cost, when it is their own software, what are you going to do? Force them to take money?

Originally Posted by Skyylya View Post
ITT: The continuation of the sense of entitlement this generation has.

I know, right?! Thinking they own something when they buy it. God damn socialists!

You forgot to call him a 'fucking idiot', because it makes your argument more sound when you call people names, right Sky?

And the argument that, when you buy a PS3, you don't buy rights to the software is incorrect. From the guy that posted earlier that works at the small software company, they don't sell just the software, but the licenses to the software. Typically, those licenses expire after a certain period of time, and licenses will need to be repurchased. That's how his company makes money, the continual sales of licenses to use the software his company provides.

I don't remember reading ANYWHERE that I was purchasing a license agreement with Sony for use of the PS3 OS that would expire after a set period of time.

The car analogy works fine. They're both "1 time purchases". You don't pay for every version update from Sony. You don't even pay for PSN. If anything, I can buy a PS3 and never have to spend another dime on it and play all the games I want, as long as I buy/borrow/rent those games. The car, on the other hand, needs to have LICENSING and insurance every year. Much like purchasing software licenses when they expire.


As to limit the double posting:

Man, you guys still don't get it, or are trying really really hard to ignore the obvious. First whatever car analog you are attempting to make isn't going to work. This is more comparable, although still poorly, to the manufacturing of counterfeit clothing. Where an individual is responsible for creating, and then distributing a licensed, copyrighted and or trademarked item like a design. You bought say the jacket, but you didn't buy the physical design of the jacket. That design is going to be used to make other jackets and be sold everywhere. You are not entitled to, just because you own it, recreate that jacket in anyway that is unauthorized from the company who originally created it. Nor are you entitled to circumventing the company's profit by making a jacket that looks exactly like yours and sell it. In this case, they are responsible for selling a tool that directly circumvents the company's profit responsible for bringing you content. You can't buy anymore designer jackets if the company isn't making money off the ones it's trying to sell.

So you're saying I can't tear the sleeves off my jacket and turn it into a vest? And if someone else likes my stylish new vest, I can't tell them how to make one? And if they just happen to want to give me money for being a badass, I can't take it?

[gwlspr]

The visit was very useful. Visit:giftwithlove dot com/Singapore(send gifts and flowers to Singapore).

[*Shinzon*]

You forgot to call him a 'fucking idiot', because it makes your argument more sound when you call people names, right Sky?

And the argument that, when you buy a PS3, you don't buy rights to the software is incorrect. From the guy that posted earlier that works at the small software company, they don't sell just the software, but the licenses to the software. Typically, those licenses expire after a certain period of time, and licenses will need to be repurchased. That's how his company makes money, the continual sales of licenses to use the software his company provides.

I don't remember reading ANYWHERE that I was purchasing a license agreement with Sony for use of the PS3 OS that would expire after a set period of time.

The car analogy works fine. They're both "1 time purchases". You don't pay for every version update from Sony. You don't even pay for PSN. If anything, I can buy a PS3 and never have to spend another dime on it and play all the games I want, as long as I buy/borrow/rent those games. The car, on the other hand, needs to have LICENSING and insurance every year. Much like purchasing software licenses when they expire.


As to limit the double posting:




So you're saying I can't tear the sleeves off my jacket and turn it into a vest? And if someone else likes my stylish new vest, I can't tell them how to make one? And if they just happen to want to give me money for being a badass, I can't take it?

You can do whatever you want to your jacket, you can tell people what you did to get your jacket that way, you are not however entitled to turn a profit by replicating a product that exactly resembles the one your purchased. Nor are are you entitled to say, discovering the exact pattern used to make that jacket and sell it to another individual to make that jacket themselves, because you are enabling someone to create and use a trademarked, or copyrighted item without the authorization of the company which owns that trademark/copyright.

Edit: actually the first of the above statement isn't completely accurate, but it was the only way I could try to explain, the second part is more accurate.

[Qalbert]

visit the fuck out

[aurik]

Time to correct some errors.

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.

First of all, Sony can ban you from PSN. Just because it's free doesn't mean they don't retain control over the system. As long as you are on PSN, yes, you have to abide by the ToS. If you don't abide by the ToS, they have every right to kick you off the service and possibly sue you for damages caused by misuse of the service. But that's the extent of their relief.

That said, it's not a foregone conclusion that Hotz ever had a PSN account and agreed to the PSN ToS. He claims he didn't. SCEA has yet to prove he did. And, even if they do prove that he did, they have yet to show that it has any bearing on a DMCA claim. The only reason it's relevant now is that it might be sufficient to establish jurisdiction insofar as it establishes a relationship between Hotz and SCEA.

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.

This is not true. And, even if it was, the enforceability of many of the terms that find their way into a TOS is questionable. And even if those terms are enforceable, the relief in this case would be limited at most to nullification of the agreement. It would have no relevance to a DMCA claim.

You don't think that someone has used a product before in a way other than it was designed for and then tried to the sue the company when they get hurt? How do you think companies protect themselves from dumbass law suits? It works and it happens all the time. It just so happens that the process can be reversed. That's like using a blow-drier in the bath tub that doesn't have a cut off/surge protector or whatever the fuck that safety device is called and shocking your ass then trying to the sue the company because you want to blow dry your shit will in the tub.

Product liability is a far different beast than no-reverse-engineering clauses. Completely unrelated.

I repeat. You do not buy software. At most, you buy the permission to use a copy of the software. Terms of Use/Service Agreements exist for this reason. Also, to shed the developers from any responsibility of the results of your actions with their software, but mostly to establish that you AGREE not to copy, distribute, or fuck with the software. They have no business left if their software is open source. It's not yours to fuck with even though you might think so. The thing is, you can fuck with it all you want by yourself and keep it to yourself and no one would be the wiser, go you. If you're the guy who continues to post your progress in attempting to break into a company's software's authentication processes and make it public, you're a real dipshit that deserves any kind of repercussion.

You are always free to modify software as long as you don't redistribute it, the Blizzard Glider case notwithstanding (which by the way was a bullshit result caused mainly by the massive imbalance in legal spending). You are not free to distribute the modified software, nor the original software. But you are allowed to modify the software that you personally use. And, in fact, you are allowed to distribute devices that will modify software for other people within certain restrictions. See Nintendo v. Galoob.

Sony already received injunctions to force websites to stop the sale of the USB device, in Australia and a couple of other places. That for them alone was a huge victory because very few people can, despite the code being available, recreate the code that Geohotz and his collaborates created to allow the writing of custom code onto the Ps3. Again, Sony is going to try and establish that Geohotz is the primary reason that the code is now public knowledge. Again, had he not sold or worked with people who were selling the code, he'd be able to beat the wrap easily. But since the start he's thought that he's untouchable. Well Sony is convinced they can established that whether or not he asked for donations or payment he's been getting them, and once they establish that he's fucked because they'd prove that he guilty of copyright violations on several levels with the discovery and subsequent release of the code itself and the creation of the device for public consumption to circumvent anti-pirating measures.

Well, law in Australia is definitely different than law in the US. Also I don't believe those lawsuits reached a legal conclusion: the judges involved in those cases gave merit to the argument that Sony was actively being damaged by the sale of the USB devices, and thus suspended the sale of the device while the litigation over the legality of the device ran its course--the injunction is not a finding of legality.

This paragraph also contains a HUGE unproven allegation: that Hotz was directly working with people who were openly enabling and encouraging copyright infringement. If this is actually the case, yes he will be nailed to the cross. But personally I doubt he would be that dumb.

When you a buy a ps3, it is useless without accessories and games, whether or not you wish to see it as such games and accessories are what makes the ps3 function and those games and accessories are licensed property to the company, and you are being allowed to use it through your purchase . When you buy a car you have all the functioning property necessary for that car to work without any continued support from the creators.

Wrong. Holy shit this is so wrong. If you're going to continue being this wrong I'll just stop correcting you so you can go be wrong on the internet some more.

[Bregor]

That said, it's not a foregone conclusion that Hotz ever had a PSN account and agreed to the PSN ToS. He claims he didn't. SCEA has yet to prove he did. And, even if they do prove that he did, they have yet to show that it has any bearing on a DMCA claim. The only reason it's relevant now is that it might be sufficient to establish jurisdiction insofar as it establishes a relationship between Hotz and SCEA.

And also possibly backdoor him into a perjury charge since he testified under oath that he didn't, but yeah you pretty much nailed it.

[Raytheon]

You can do whatever you want to your jacket, you can tell people what you did to get your jacket that way, you are not however entitled to turn a profit by replicating a product that exactly resembles the one your purchased. Nor are are you entitled to say, discovering the exact pattern used to make that jacket and sell it to another individual to make that jacket themselves, because you are enabling someone to create and use a trademarked, or copyrighted item without the authorization of the company which owns that trademark/copyright.

Edit: actually the first of the above statement isn't completely accurate, but it was the only way I could try to explain, the second part is more accurate.

I don't think Hotz actually did any of those things though. Nor do I think he was entitled to turn a profit from it, even if he did. Do we even know if that was solely his intention from the beginning, I don't remember seeing that anywhere if that were the case.

Like someone posted earlier, every other platform has already been hacked. People are going to change things, and I think there's little Sony, or any other company for that matter, can do to stop it.


If anyone has a sense of entitlement around here, it's Sony.



Fuck Sony.

[*Shinzon*]

Time to correct some errors.



First of all, Sony can ban you from PSN. Just because it's free doesn't mean they don't retain control over the system. As long as you are on PSN, yes, you have to abide by the ToS. If you don't abide by the ToS, they have every right to kick you off the service and possibly sue you for damages caused by misuse of the service. But that's the extent of their relief.

That said, it's not a foregone conclusion that Hotz ever had a PSN account and agreed to the PSN ToS. He claims he didn't. SCEA has yet to prove he did. And, even if they do prove that he did, they have yet to show that it has any bearing on a DMCA claim. The only reason it's relevant now is that it might be sufficient to establish jurisdiction insofar as it establishes a relationship between Hotz and SCEA.



This is not true. And, even if it was, the enforceability of many of the terms that find their way into a TOS is questionable. And even if those terms are enforceable, the relief in this case would be limited at most to nullification of the agreement. It would have no relevance to a DMCA claim.



Product liability is a far different beast than no-reverse-engineering clauses. Completely unrelated.



You are always free to modify software as long as you don't redistribute it, the Blizzard Glider case notwithstanding (which by the way was a bullshit result caused mainly by the massive imbalance in legal spending). You are not free to distribute the modified software, nor the original software. But you are allowed to modify the software that you personally use. And, in fact, you are allowed to distribute devices that will modify software for other people within certain restrictions. See Nintendo v. Galoob.



Well, law in Australia is definitely different than law in the US. Also I don't believe those lawsuits reached a legal conclusion: the judges involved in those cases gave merit to the argument that Sony was actively being damaged by the sale of the USB devices, and thus suspended the sale of the device while the litigation over the legality of the device ran its course--the injunction is not a finding of legality.

This paragraph also contains a HUGE unproven allegation: that Hotz was directly working with people who were openly enabling and encouraging copyright infringement. If this is actually the case, yes he will be nailed to the cross. But personally I doubt he would be that dumb.



Wrong. Holy shit this is so wrong. If you're going to continue being this wrong I'll just stop correcting you so you can go be wrong on the internet some more.

I hate to re-quote the whole thing but, I mentioned several times that I probably didn't explain it in the best way possible, and even acknowledged the fact that you were able to correct. So I'll try to be less definitive in poor explanations so that they don't come across as me saying it's fact and obviously being wrong, fair enough? I don't mind being corrected.

To address the Hotz working with the other individuals responsible for actually distributing the USB drives used to mod the PS3, you are absolutely right in saying that it is unproven whether or not he is directly tied to these individuals. However, Sony's arguments, which are not public record because they refused to comment about the legal proceedings, seem to indicate that Sony was able to establish both a monetary link between Hotz and the others aside from the internet posts on his websites and others that covered him releasing the code. Seemingly Sony is trying to prove that even if Hotz didn't ask for any money by releasing the codes to the public and to these people, he was accepting donations given turning a profit on the release of the code. Thus Sony's request to subpoena his paypal account where the money was going. Now I don't know what the other judges in Australia decided, but I understand that the injunction against selling the products was granted like you mentioned and Sony has not yet proven that the website that was shutdown under the Australian injunction had any connection to Hotz, which is part of their case against him. That is why they were going after his paypal account records. Sony is attempting to show that link through the money it had sent Hotz as a donation of $1, and it was accepted. Which is shaky at best but then again they haven't made it public exactly what the strategy is. Most of the above is derived what people could gather from Sony's filings.

Edit: Aurik, now I'm just throwing this out there, but can a violation of the licensing agreement, active upon purchase of the item, be used together with the DMCA claim?

[Hitoshura]

This thread sucks, considering the title.

[Raytheon]

If you care enough to actually read what's in the EULA:

http://legaldoc.dl.playstation.net/p..._tosua_en.html

tl;dr: From what I read, this EULA only applies to things that involve PSN, not offline content.


The System Software License Agreement:

http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html

The part you're concerned with:

1. LICENSE GRANT

Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, all System Software is licensed to users solely for personal, non-commercial use on the PS3™ system in the country in which the PS3™ system was designed by SCE to operate. To the extent permitted by applicable law, your rights to use or access the current version of the System Software will cease upon installation of a newer version of the System Software onto your PS3™ system, whether such installation occurs through manual or automatic download by SCE through SCE's online network, or otherwise. SCE does not grant any license to System Software obtained by users in any manner other than through SCE's authorized distribution methods. Your use or access to open source software or freeware included with the System Software is subject to additional terms and conditions set forth in the instruction manual or documentation for the PS3™ system or at http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-license/index.html. Such additional terms are hereby incorporated by reference. You do not have any ownership rights or interests in the System Software. All intellectual property rights therein belong to SCE and its licensors, and all use or access to such System Software shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement and all applicable copyright and intellectual property laws. Except as expressly granted in this Agreement, SCE and its licensors reserve all rights, interests and remedies.

2. RESTRICTIONS

You may not lease, rent, sublicense, publish, modify, adapt, or translate any portion of the System Software. To the fullest extent permitted by law, you may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble any portion of the System Software, or create any derivative works, or otherwise attempt to create System Software source code from its object code. You may not (i) use any unauthorized, illegal, counterfeit, or modified hardware or software in connection with the System Software, including use of tools to bypass, disable, or circumvent any encryption, security, or authentication mechanism for the PS3™ system; (ii) violate any laws, regulations or statutes, or rights of SCE, its affiliated companies, or third parties in connection with your access to or use of the System Software, including the access, use, or distribution of any software or hardware that you know or should have known to be infringing or pirated; (iii) use any hardware or software to cause the System Software to accept or use unauthorized, illegal, or pirated software or hardware; (iv) obtain the System Software in any manner other than through SCE's authorized distribution methods; or (v) exploit the System Software in any manner other than to use it in your PS3™ system in accordance with the accompanying documentation and with authorized software or hardware, including use of the System Software to design, develop, update, or distribute unauthorized software or hardware for use in connection with the PS3™ system for any reason. Without limiting the scope of SCE's remedies, any violation of these restrictions will void the PS3™ system's warranty and affect your ability to obtain warranty services and repair services from SCE or its affiliated companies.

Shits in black and white. I don't like it, but at this point, it sounds like he may have done some of these things. Who actually reads this shit though? And when exactly do you agree to these terms? From the moment you purchase the PS3? Are you supposed to go online and agree to these terms prior to purchasing a PS3? Do you buy the PS3, turn it on, and then HAVE to agree or not play your PS3?

Meh.

[Raytheon]

This thread sucks, considering the title.

Well thank god your invaluable post saved this thread.