California Continues Protecting Hollywood: Imposes Greater Fines On Infringement Based On Faulty Reasoning

Sony Gets Restraining Order Against Guy Who Restored PS3 Feature Sony Deleted

from the make-it-stop dept

Wed, Jan 12th 2011 2:37pm — Mike Masnick

We've already noted the ridiculousness of the situation with copyright law today that makes jailbreaking your iPhone perfectly legal, but jailbreaking your computer gaming console potentially a jailable criminal offense. While some judges have noticed how ridiculous this is, it hasn't stopped console makers from going overboard.

Take, for example, Sony's reaction to a recent jailbreaking of the PS3. As you may recall, last year, Sony simply deleted a feature on the PS3 that would let users install alternative operating systems, such as Linux. This feature was used by operations such as the US Air Force to build supercomputers. Recently, a hacker by the name of George Hotz jailbroke the PS3 in order to let people bring back the "Other OS" feature that Sony had dumped.

Sony's response? To bring out the legal guns, get a restraining order against Hotz claim that he violated both the DMCA and the CFAA, and that "all circumvention technology" that Hotz used should be "impounded."

Hopefully Hotz is willing to fight this, and a court is willing to go beyond even what that last judge did, and point out that the laws, as currently written, go beyond what is Constitutional in blocking the way people can make use of their own hardware.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cfaa, copyright, dmca, hacking, jailbreak, ps3, restraining order
Companies: sony

67 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

C.T., 12 Jan 2011 @ 2:45pm

What part of the constitution prevents laws that limit permitted uses of property?
What is your theory on why the DMCA is unconstitutional?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:15pm
  
  Re: What part of the constitution prevents laws that limit permitted uses of property?
  I don�t know what your US constitution says about it, but in the civilized world, property rights are a fundamental human right. The guy buys a PS3, it becomes his property, not Sony�s. So Sony cannot limit legitimate uses of property by its legitimate owner.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 4:06pm
    
    Re: Re: What part of the constitution prevents laws that limit permitted uses of property?
    Sony shouldn't even be able to limit illegitimate uses of his personal property.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Steve R. (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 6:52pm
    
    Re: Re: What part of the constitution prevents laws that limit permitted uses of property?
    Besides the obvious issue of a "sold" product becoming the property of the buyer, is the issue of post-sale control. Companies, such as Sony should have no ability to define how you use a product after you bought it.
    
    Imagine if you buy a Ford automobile and they say that you can't install a Chevy engine in it. They find out you did it and then figuratively destroy your car!!! (Kindle removed retroactively what they claimed post-sale as unauthorized content.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:38pm
  
  Re: What part of the constitution prevents laws that limit permitted uses of property?
  Well, we're talking about the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA, not the whole document. And that clause is easily the most controversial part of the DMCA - lots of people have questioned its constitutional validity. It certainly does seem to go against the most basic notions of property.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:57pm
  
  Re: What part of the constitution prevents laws that limit permitted uses of property?
  This one talks about the takedowns, not the anti-circumvention aspects of the DMCA being unconsitutional, but I thought you might be interested anyway
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100402/1856128861.shtml
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- robert, 12 Jan 2011 @ 9:45pm
  
  Re: What part of the constitution prevents laws that limit permitted uses of property?
  How bout "persuit of happiness" If I purchase a PS3 I intend to use it for my enjoyment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 4:37am
    
    Re: Re: What part of the constitution prevents laws that limit permitted uses of property?
    lol -- that's not in the constitution
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2011 @ 1:03pm
  
  Re: What part of the constitution prevents laws that limit permitted uses of property?
  What is your theory on why the DMCA is unconstitutional?
  
  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
  
  But they can outlaw the use of any property to exercise those freedoms, eh? I don't think so.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 2:57pm

I really don't understand how any IP maximalist could look at what Sony is doing here and not say that the DMCA isn't borked.

What funny is that Sony says they could fix it...

But why bring out all of the guns against this guy when you can't prove the harm he's doing to your product?
In essence, they truly have other things to worry about such as finding uses for their gaming system, rather than going after people that seem to be finding new ways to use the technology.

If you think about it, the Kinect hacks shouldn't have happened since Microsoft threatened to sue.

But if you look, the Kinect has created an entire MARKET for demand with this specific product.

Sony needs to take note not to fight a tide but embrace it and find other avenues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:02pm

I really wish Sony had honoured their promise to allow other operating systems. I was really bummed when the reneged on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceboy, 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:03pm

It's unconstitutional because it breaks fair use. I can't rip a DVD without breaking DMCA, yet I have the right to make legal backups of all my media.

In the case of the PS3, it's a product, and as consumers we should be able to do whatever the hell we want with it. I can mod my car to make it go way faster than the speed limit, but I am not breaking any laws until I actually go over the speed limit. The Jailbreaking software adds functionality back to the PS3 that Sony stripped away, and no one should be put in jail for modding their hardware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:12pm
  
  Re:
  Just for the record, fair use isn't in the Constitution. Otherwise you're fine.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I believe the protections from fair use were used in the past as a reason as to why copyright itself does not violate the first ammendment and that the theory goes that taking them away could put you back in violation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 4:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Interesting argument but I don't really buy it. Given that both documents were penned at pretty much the same time by the same people, I think they would have just removed the copyright clause if they felt it a violation of the first amendment rather than leave a rescinded bit in.
      
      Honestly, I really don't expect they gave it much thought or it would have been given more than one sentence and would have clarified the issue at hand.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - AW, 12 Jan 2011 @ 5:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You've got to realize that the founding fathers never expected copyright to be what it is today. They also severely limited it's applicability to a maximum of 28 years where you were required to renew after 14 years and it was difficult to obtain a copyright or patent. The purpose was to promote progress, only a few years earlier under the British from whom the copyright clause was almost wholly taken, perpetual copyright was rejected and this was at a time when the average life span was far less. The reason for the rejection was that no one wanted a monopoly, which is exactly what is created under our current system. The fact that nothing that is created within my lifetime will ever expire into public domain is abhorrent and in not in line with any reasonable need for protection. To defend the IP system as it is today is a defense of naked greed. The fact of the matter is that only in the last 300 years of human existence has any need arisen for the protection of one's ideas.
        
        @AC television nowadays can most certainly control what you watch and there is a government mandated fuel governor in all cars which limits your speed to 120mph or somewhere thereabouts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 5:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not defending, just arguing semantics.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 5:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        also, it only originally applied to books, maps and charts - nothing else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 7:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, my understanding is that there were challenges about the constitutionality of copyright (not necessarily right when it was written) and that the assurances provided by fair use (that is wouldn't prevent people from making commentary, parody, yadayada) were important in arguing that it didn't violate free speech. I don't have references though so I might be talking out my ass. It makes sense to me that at least some of the fair use protections would be necessary to ensure your first amendment rights aren't violated, particularly the assurances around commentary and journalism.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        crade (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 7:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, I posted this without logging in
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 5:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ... fair use protections would be necessary to ensure your first amendment rights aren't violated...
        
        If you're looking for a reference for that idea, then Justice Ginsburg's opinion in Eldred v Ashcroft (2003) is a good one:
        
        Petitioners separately argue that the CTEA is a content-neutral regulation of speech that fails heightened judicial review under the First Amendment. We reject petitioners� plea for imposition of uncommonly strict scrutiny on a copyright scheme that incorporates its own speech-protective purposes and safeguards.�.�.�.
        
        In addition to spurring the creation and publication of new expression, copyright law contains built-in First Amendment accommodations. First .�.�.�.
        
        Second, the �fair use� defense allows the public to use not only facts and ideas contained in a copyrighted work, but also expression itself in certain circumstances.�.�.�.
        
        So, quite recently the Supreme Court has seen fair use as a safety valve for free speech in the copyright regime.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 5:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Correct, because at the time the Constitution was written such retarded concepts needing the doctrine of fair use did not exist. Nor would anyone dispute the fact that what was bought and paid for was the sole property of the purchaser.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - tracker1 (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 12:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The right to property wasn't spelled out either... we see how that has been working out... wait, I gotta sell my successful business for pennies on the dollar so you can build a strip mall?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drizzt, 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:07pm

Don't forget fail0verflow�
I actually sent that in too, when I suggest this story: Sony doesn't just threaten Mr. Hotz, but also the guys who showed at 27C3 how they broke the "security system" (only in quotes as it is really laughable if you understand the details) on which in turn Mr. Hotz built, when he publicly released the keys needed for signing homebrew software. So please don't just focus on Mr. Hotz.
Cheers,
Drizzt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Drizzt, 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:08pm
  
  Re: Don't forget fail0verflow�
  s/suggest/suggested (probably alongside others)/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Donnelly (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:08pm

It's worth noting, regardless of the merits of this particular case, that the restraining order HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED.

Sony applied for a TRO, but there has been no ruling. So don't be fooled by the "Sony Gets Restraining Order" headline. They simply filed a request.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:15pm

Good Luck with that one
From the article:

"It [Sony] also wants all mention of the circumvention removed from the Web"

Your Honor, we also respectfully request that you memory-wipe all those who may have heard of this circumvention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Invisible Hand (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:18pm
  
  Re: Good Luck with that one
  Better:
  
  Your Honor, the defense requests permission to roll on the floor and laugh hysterically for several minutes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - el_segfaulto (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 4:16pm
    
    Re: Re: Good Luck with that one
    I'm going to allow it
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 6:10pm
  
  Re: Good Luck with that one
  Starting with all Sony Reps and lawyers.
  then there will be no need to memory wipe anyone else
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- clacke, 14 Jan 2011 @ 2:05am
  
  Re: Good Luck with that one
  As long as they return the stolen DRM keys, I expect they would be in the clear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
monkyyy, 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:18pm

if i was the kid id ask for help from the air force, probaly have a great legal team who could own him a favor, im not to up to date of the air force`s ps3 computer does the pieces fall apart often?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
paperbag (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:33pm

Look at what is referenced in the order...
Oh look, we have MDY Industries vs Blizzard Entertainment used as a precedent/reference in the filing.

Didn't take long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 5:06pm
  
  Re: Look at what is referenced in the order...
  It's also not referring to the right argument. With a WOW hack, you can use it to:
  
  1. Play without paying your monthly tithe.
  2. Cheat in the game (though without PvP, I don't see where that is a problem).
  3. Potentially bring down the servers if they don't like something that your crack is feeding them.
  
  I don't see where any of those arguments is valid here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will Sizemore (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:42pm

Anyone who's jailbroken their iPhone should know that name...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
surfer, 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:44pm

now that you can get the proper value for price, I went and purchased a new console, so I can jailbreak it and install all the free file sharing games I can find.

this is also payback for the 'root kit' debacle by Sony. So for 300usd I can get every game there is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- byte^me (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:57pm
  
  Re:
  I like the way you're thinking! I've refused to buy any Sony products after the whole rootkit thing, so I just might have to try that out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 4:10pm

This should show that companies are trying aggressively to expand their control of products inside your own house.

They want to turn objects into leasing items or something.

You will own nothing and be indebt for the rest of your life if they get their way.

Imagine a blender that ask you to pay more to work on holidays?

Far fetched?

Not if they have their way. Intellectual property laws are enablers for ridiculous claims of ownership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 1:23am
  
  Consider if this were Windows
  I wonder, if Microsoft remove the ability to install any non-Microsoft product on Windows (remember, you're just licensed a copy of Windows and don't even "own" it like in PS3 context) on one update, people will file lawsuit against it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 3:22am
    
    Re: Consider if this were Windows
    Windows is software, not hardware.
    Nothing stopping you from wiping windows off of drive and installing Linux or another Operating System.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - senshikaze (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 4:43am
      
      Re: Re: Consider if this were Windows
      I think anon above meant if MS removed the ability to install 3rd part programs on the OS, people would have a fit, and they would. Welcome to anti-trust suit 2: this times it's personal.
      
      of course I'm with you, why give MS the chance? I just nuke it and go about my day.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 5:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Consider if this were Windows
      My point is that, we paid money to buy the version with certain amount of functionality, and the vendor wants to take away functionality from it after taking my money, how can it be legal.
      
      Perheps I can make better analogy... If you by a car with hi-fi music equipment, and once you take the car to authorized repair center for changing some part, they told you that they have to remove the hi-fi from your car because the vendor told them "they think listening to music during driving is dangerous so everytime from now on, if anyone go repair/changing parts here, they have to remove them or risk losing authorized service provider/dealer status."
      
      Will you accept this?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btrussell (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 6:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Consider if this were Windows
        If a company keeps screwing over its' customers the way sony does and you keep buying their product, who is to blame?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 4:17pm

Future of IP laws.
Can people see TV's that have tiered pay systems and will only stream things that you paid for in advance?

Can automakers make cars that are limited to the velocities they can go and if you want to go faster you need to "buy" a package that includes that "addon".

Can some manufactures start limiting how household appliance function lets say you need to pay more to have them work at the weekends or they only function in one geographic location?

IP law makes that all possible now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 5:07pm
  
  Re: Future of IP laws.
  No, it doesn't. The fact is that doing those things steps over the line, IP law or not. We just have to get some judges who are willing to take a stand and put the hammer down on the idiots who argue that IP law allows you to do those things.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 5:31pm
  
  Re: Future of IP laws.
  Can people see TV's that have tiered pay systems and will only stream things that you paid for in advance?
  
  well, that's basically already here, and other than being a terrible business model I don't see any problem with it. It's not really the same as your other two examples, which are spot on and chilling.
  
  Though it actually would be interesting to see someone try that with a car - the backlash from the community could be pretty severe, and might draw more attention to these issues.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 12:14am
    
    Re: Re: Future of IP laws.
    So if your TV only works 9 to 5 and stop functioning when you change rooms is that ok?
    
    Sony has a patent on geolocation for TV equipment to do just that.
    
    According to some sources somebody told the fallowing to a crowd of people "If people want to see content in their rooms that should be a premium service"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Joe (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 6:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Future of IP laws.
      Or a TV that will automatically shut off if someone other than the purchaser is in the room.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 4:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Future of IP laws.
        Or a TV the only works with certain brands.
        
        Or a car that will not accept anything it doesn't recognize as "authentic".
        
        This is real FUD. But I believe people should be worried if anything companies already have shown they are willing to go to extremes to increase their bottom line no matter the cost and IP laws are empowering them to become bolder.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 4:19pm

Future of IP laws.
Can people see TV's that have tiered pay systems and will only stream things that you paid for in advance?

Can automakers make cars that are limited to the velocities they can go and if you want to go faster you need to "buy" a package that includes that "addon".

Can some manufactures start limiting how household appliance function lets say you need to pay more to have them work at the weekends or they only function in one geographic location?

IP law makes that all possible now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 6:13pm

It's dishonest for Sony to include a feature to help sell a product and to later revoke that feature. The fact that our legal system allows this is more evidence of its corrupt nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 7:03pm

I don't think Hotz is willing to fight this since he apparently took down info on the jailbreak on his website. Regardless, even if Sony gets the order it probably won't do anything aside from drawing attention to the jailbreak anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 7:06pm
  
  Re:
  Nope he didn't take down the info.. he just changed the index file to reflect what has happened with a link included to the old index page where the data is. geohot old index
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
G Thompson (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 7:04pm

So they got there keys found out. The keys that are a permanent part of the hardware and cannot be changed by a firmware upgrade. The keys they NEVER encrypted!!!!

The key is now all over the sony hack (hack.. not hacker) scene and in its basic hex mode looks EXACTLY like this. (yep its the key)

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

I predict that this will soon be printed onto Tshirts, coffee mugs, tattoed onto peoples legs etc and will be like another KEY that had so called DMCA restrictions EVERYWHERE!

And if Sony get granted the restraining order on geohot [that link is great and click on the Old index link too[ this will not dissuade anyone else outside of the USA like myself from spreading the same information everywhere. Especially if that key allows the use of Other OS systems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
G Thompson (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 7:37pm

Update on George Hotz and failOverFlow
Found via EuroGamer

George Hotz has spoken to the BBC.

"I am a firm believer in digital rights. 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," he said.

"I have spoken with legal counsel and I feel comfortable that Sony's action against me doesn't have any basis."

Fail0verflow member Marcan, aka Hector Martin posted on Twitter, saying "Ah, so Sony decided to sue everyone under US law. Guess I won't be visiting the US in a while... No further comment on Sony, the PS3, or anything related until I can talk with a lawyer."

The Fail0verflow website also has a comment:
"Our motivation was Sony's removal of OtherOS. Our exclusive goal was, is, and always has been to get OtherOS back. We have never condoned, supported, approved of, or encouraged videogame piracy. We have not published any encryption or signing keys. We have not published any Sony code, or code derived from Sony's code."

Mathieu Hervais, front man for the PSGroove open source jailbreak team (not named in the documents), posted a range of arguments against Sony's allegations on his Twitter account, kicking off by saying, "I've just read Sony's legal document, it's full of crap and the guy who wrote that doesn't know s**t about how the PS3 works."

According to the paperwork, the first hearing is set for 9am today in California (5pm GMT) "or as soon as can be heard".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 8:19pm

The problems comes from the divorce between the material and the immaterial part of products, meaning that the immaterial part now tends to have an existence of its own. So one has less control over the immaterial part and the tendency is to try to maintain as much control over it as possible. By legal means or other ways to buy time or by "re-marrying" it to the material part.
This is worsened by the fact that there is no limit to by how much you can multiply the actual cost to get to the "price" of the immaterial. What is the cost of a Van Gogh? A Rolex? A 100 lines intelligent piece of software?
Nobody can write down how much I pay for the immaterial part of a product. So the only workaround is to dilute that part somehow, in the form of a rental, license or such, which amounts to charging as much as possible over time and, commercially this time, to re-marry the two parts.
But this is not a marriage of love.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 10:36pm

Doesn't matter what they do, the info is already out there. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle. Let them waste money chasing their tails and playing whack-a-mole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 6:18am

SONY is a BS company now and always will be. I stopped buying from them years ago and will never again.

1985 infected PCs with Rootkit on audio CDS
SECUROM infected PC with rootkits in the name of piracy.

BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT

NOT 1 MORE CENT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 6:20am

Sony's key:

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

Print , expose, share OFTEN!

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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 6:23am

Read the license! You don't own anything!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Sony, 13 Jan 2011 @ 6:39am

Sony Code
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

~geohot

props to fail0verflow for the asymmetric half
no donate link, just use this info wisely
i do not condone piracy

I made a video

it's jailbreak time
open the zip, you know how to install
3.55 only
would be pirates, don't waste your time
do not mirror file, link to geohot.com
no donations accepted right now, don't get scammed

homebrew signing source (edited by jwise: Git source tree mirrored here)
make_self_npdrm makes valid NPDRM selfs from elfs
it does not contain any info on decrypting or removing NPDRM
NPDRM is required for interoperability of our homebrew applications
package_finalize turns your debug packages into psuedoretail packages
psuedoretail packages install on a geohot jailbroken PS3

i'm excited to see what you will create
open source SDK @ PSL1GHT (edited by jwise: Git source tree mirrored here)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh, 13 Jan 2011 @ 6:49am

Heaven forbid...
Heaven forbid somebody open up their consoles so they can be made use of in different ways...

Somebody may buy a used one to put Linux on it, or even worse... repurpse their PS3 that they're not using anyways...

The horror!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:03am

Jailbreaking the PS3
So, why isn't Techdirt sponsoring a collection effort to aid Hotz in his legal defense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 12:22pm
  
  Re: Jailbreaking the PS3
  Because if they had a collection for everyone who asked for one, such as yourself, they would do nothing but collections. Techdirt isn't a collections agency.
  
  I personally wouldn't donate anyways. Although I support geohots endeavors, I don't support sony. Therefore I won't support something that requires a sony product.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 4:47pm
    
    Re: Re: Jailbreaking the PS3
    yep, I stopped buying Sony when the rootkit mess happened. I haven't seen any evidence that they've changed their basic philosophy of disrespecting their customers ever since.
    Maybe someday, but its been some years now and ... seems like every few months there's another story that doesn't reflect well on them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ronald J Riley (profile), 14 Jan 2011 @ 5:33pm

Sony is Style Without Substance
The best solution to this problem is to boycott all Sony products.

Several years ago I purchased three Sony notebooks at a total cost of about $10,000.

All three failed in less than a year, usually while I was traveling.

These computers turned out to be style without substance, the hallmark of Sony. They suffered from poor engineering, both hardware and software.

On top of that Sony service was a nightmare.

I have not purchased any Sony products since. Sony should be avoided at all costs.

Ronald J. Riley,

President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org

Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
herbert, 15 Jan 2011 @ 5:07am

what is needed is that if a company wants people to buy their product, sell it. if a company wants people to hire their product, rent it out. it is totally wrong to sell an item, regardless of what that item is, then tell people who bought it that they can only do what the seller says. once that item has been bought, a person should be able to do what they like with it. if doing something different than it was intended, as long as the person knows that the guarantee will be invalid, then so be it. also, if an item contains certain features or functions that are used in advertising to aid the selling of the item, those features or functions should not be removed by the seller unless there is specific evidence that those features and functions will cause the item to fail, not because they may allow other things to be done with the item. removing (or disabling them) them as an after thought for any other reason should be illegal. remember, this all came about because Sony sold the PS3 with the option of being able to use Linux on it, and used that information as a sales incentive. had they not removed that option, maybe, just maybe, none of this crap would have happened.
as far as Sony's customer service centers and support services are concerned, they are an absolute disgrace. once a piece of Sony equipment/hardware has been bought (usually at a higher price than equivalent from different vendors, but the same spec, simply because it says 'Sony!), the customer is completely ignored!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]