Sony, Microsoft Lobby Against Right To Repair Bills (Yet Refuse To Talk About It)

from the this-bad-idea-is-for-your-own-good dept

Last week, we noted how Apple was one of several companies lobbying against a right to repair bill in Nebraska. The bill would make it easier for consumers to repair their own products and find replacement parts and tools, which is generally considered to be a good thing -- especially if the only Apple store is eighty miles away from your current location. But Apple tried to argue that Nebraska's bill would not only make the public less safe (self-immolation everywhere!), but it would also result in Nebraska becoming some kind of "mecca" for nefarious hoodie-wearing ne'er-do-well hackers.

Of course Apple, like most companies, just enjoys a repair-monopoly, which not only allows it to charge an arm and a leg for what very well may be superficial repairs, but helps prop up closed, proprietary ecosystems, hurting customers in a myriad of other ways as well.

It's not just in Nebraska where this conversation is happening (the Nebraska bill just happens to be the furthest along legislatively). Similar bills are also winding their way through New York, Minnesota, Wyoming, Tennessee, Kansas, Massachusetts, and Illinois state legislatures. And in most of these states, the companies lobbying against these laws are using the same disingenuous arguments Apple has been embracing. Usually it's the trifecta of false claims that the bills will make users less safe, pose a cybersecurity risk, and open the door to cybersecurity theft.

Game console makers Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft, long at the forefront of opposing the user right to tinker, fired off a letter last week (pdf) under the banner of the Entertainment Software Association that once again trots out all three bogeymen in taking aim at Nebraska's law:

"We are concerned that legislative Bill 67 would jeopardize consumer safety and security, is unnecessary and compromises intellectual property....Customer safety, security and privacy are fundamental goals in the design of our membership's hardware, software and services...Our free market economy already provides a wide-range of consumer choice for repair with varying levels of quality, price and convenience without the mandates in this legislation."

Note they cite a "free market economy" in the hopes you'll ignore the fact that they've effectively monopolized repair to the detriment of price and convenience. Companies like Sony and Microsoft would certainly prefer that you pay them exorbitant fees to repair what's often their own manufacturing errors that they charge upwards of $200 to fix, but could have been repaired for notably less. Both Sony and Microsoft have also long placed tamper-proof stickers on their game consoles claiming removal of the sticker violates the warranty, even though this technically violates the 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Justification for repair bill opposition is so flimsy, none of the companies opposing right to repair legislation want to really talk about it:

"After referring me to several different press representatives, Microsoft declined to comment. Sony did not respond to a request for comment. Apple has ignored repeated requests for comment. The ESA declined to comment. In two years of covering this issue, no manufacturer has ever spoken to me about it either on or off the record."

"We won't make as much money if independent, local repair shops can help customers" isn't a very compelling argument. But as usual, buying or hoodwinking a campaign-contribution-soaked Congress with a fleeting understanding of technology isn't particularly hard:

"It's very easy for the manufacturer to stand up there and say no we're the only ones who know how to do it," Kyle Wiens, CEO of iFixit, told me. "Lawmakers get spun stories by lobbyists who say the sky is falling, and it's very easy to kill legislation."..."This is not a case of right vs. left or a fringe interest group pushing it," Wiens added. "Everyone wants to be allowed to fix their stuff, and there's only a few organizations that don't want them to be able to. It's very transparent why manufacturers are against this."

In Nebraska, the right to repair bill was driven by John Deere's "authorized" repair requirements, which forced many regional farmers to pay John Deere an arm and a leg for, again, what in many instances may be relatively inexpensive and simple repairs. It's not only a monopoly over repair -- it's the cornerstone of an adversarial and utterly non-transparent relationship with the consumer. And the fact that the companies taking aim at these legislative proposals aren't even willing to publicly talk about them speaks volumes in and of itself.

Filed Under: freedom to tinker, ownership, repairs, right to repair
Companies: esa, microsoft, sony

Court Points Out Numerous Ways Using Playstation Network To Trade Child Porn Is A Bad Idea

from the doing-a-terrible-thing-badly dept

Some Playstation Network users tried to use Sony's messaging system to transfer child porn back and forth. The ad hoc Playstation Playpen was reported by users, and Sony went digging into their messages and discovered illegal images, which it then -- as it is statutorily required to do -- turned this information over to law enforcement and reported it to NCMEC (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children). Unsurprisingly, this led to the arrest of one of those trading illegal images.

So far, there's nothing surprising about this chain of events, much less the court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress. What is surprising is the court's claim that the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect PSN users' data and communications.

If you have any legally incriminating information sitting in your PSN account, don't count on the Fourth Amendment to protect it from "unreasonable search and seizure" by Sony without a warrant. A district court judge in Kansas has ruled in a recent case that information Sony finds has been downloaded to a PlayStation 3 or a PSN account is not subject to the "reasonable expectation of privacy" that usually protects evidence obtained without a warrant.

While this summation is mostly correct, the fact is that child porn is something actively policed by every service provider and whose terms of service specifically warn users against trafficking in illegal content. Even more specifically -- as is pointed out in the decision [PDF] -- users are told Sony will monitor communications and uploaded content if it feels the need to do so.

there is no requirement or expectation that [Sony] will monitor or record any online activity on PSN, including communications. However [Sony] reserves the right to monitor and record any online activity and communication throughout PSN and you give [Sony] your express consent to monitor and record your activities . . . Any data collected in this way, including the content of your communications, the time and location of your activities, your Online ID and IP address and other related information may be used by us to enforce this Agreement or protect the interests of [Sony], its users, or licensors. Such information may be disclosed to the appropriate authorities or agencies.

In this case, PSN moderators were tipped off by PSN users. This is one form of "private search," in which users spotted something violating the Terms of Service and passed it on. Sony has a legal obligation to report suspected child porn to law enforcement, so it accessed the reported accounts. This is another "private search" -- one that's completely lawful, provided for by terms agreed to by the PSN users, and, honestly, something that's so far from unexpected as to provoke wonder about the arrested user's overall experience with the internet in general.

What it isn't, however, is any sort of indication that certain user communications or data are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. There's a certain amount of data that falls under the Third Party Doctrine, which isn't subject to the Fourth Amendment. But to obtain the content of communications, or access files stored by users, the government would most likely still have to seek a warrant.

This differs from the Best Buy Geek Squad cases in that there's no evidence of an ongoing relationship between law enforcement and Sony where moderators are paid (or prompted) to seek out evidence of illegal activity, acting as a warrantless proxy for the government that violates the spirit -- if not the letter -- of the "private search" exception.

The defendant tried arguing that NMCEC's search of the files sent to it by Sony was not a private search and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court takes a look at the case cited (one we covered here previously) and finds NMCEC's search did not exceed the scope of the private search. Whether or not it acted as a government agent, it did not perform an unconstitutional search.

In Ackerman, AOL’s filter identified one of four images attached to the defendant’s email as child pornography. Id. As soon as AOL identified the hash value match, it forwarded the email in a report submitted to NCMEC. Id. The NCMEC analyst viewed the email and the four image attachments and determined that all four of the attached images—not just the one that AOL’s filter had identified—qualified as child pornography. Id. So, Ackerman’s undisputed facts established that NCMEC opened and viewed information other than the image that was the target of AOL’s hash value match and “that AOL had not previously examined.” Id. at 1306–07. NCMEC had exceeded, and did not merely repeat, AOL’s private search and the Circuit thus held that NCMEC had violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Id.

But here, the facts differ. No evidence even suggests that NCMEC exceeded the scope of Sony’s private search. Indeed, the logical inference the court draws from the undisputed facts is that NCMEC’s review did not exceed Sony’s private investigation. Mr. Meininger testified that Sony does not use a hash value matching system. It follows that all of the information Sony sent NCMEC was first reviewed by a Sony employee. Mr. Meininger testified that the Sony Moderation Team “use[s] human eyes” to review every grief report it receives. So, when the Sony Moderators received the initial grief report about Susan_14 on June 6, 2012, a Sony Moderator opened the report and viewed the message and attached image. The court finds that NCMEC did not exceed the scope of Sony’s private search when it reviewed Ms. Kawaguchi’s August 8, 2012 report and found that it did not include child pornography.

Now, the court does make the case that the user's agreement to Sony's Terms of Service somehow strips away privacy protections for PSN account holders. It can be argued, as the court does here, that agreeing to these terms means knowingly giving up your expectation of privacy. But there's still a lot of ground to be covered between Sony's statutorily-required reporting of suspected child porn and the government calling up Sony and making warrantless demands for users' communications and data. That really isn't explored in this opinion as it's not part of the underlying case.

The government did obtain a warrant to search the contents of the PS3 owned by the suspect -- something the court says has a "reduced" expectation of privacy thanks to the user's agreement with Sony's terms of service. Nowhere does the court say the expectation of privacy is eliminated entirely by the terms of service. It only says the following, and what it does say isn't written as a clear-cut determination.

The agreement also warns users that they must not use the PSN to violate any local, state, or federal laws, and that any information Sony acquires while monitoring the users’ activities may be turned over to appropriate law enforcement authorities. This agreement seemingly prevented defendant from having a reasonable expectation of privacy in information he stored on his PS3 device.

What did fall under the Third Party exception -- and the private search exception -- were the files reported to Sony, which then reported them to NMCEC and law enforcement. At no point does this chain of events suggest Sony views users' expectation of privacy in the same light the court ("seemingly") does. (The FBI doesn't view it this way either, as it obtained a warrant to search the contents of the suspect's PS3, and law enforcement tends not to get a warrant unless it absolutely has to.) The court's reading of the Fourth Amendment is limited to this case and some roughly-analogous precedent. But while it leans towards an interpretation of the Third Party Doctrine that would cover almost anything that touches Sony's Playstation Network (including files downloaded via the network), it doesn't go so far as to suggest all of it can be had without a warrant.

It also goes off on a tangent suggesting there's no expectation of privacy in communications because the contents are disclosed to the recipient... but that's clearly a completely wrong interpretation of the expectation of privacy and warrant requirements in general. Warrants still need to be sought to obtain the content of emails, etc. in most cases, no matter what sort of monitoring users agreed to when they opened their accounts. It's kind of a sloppy decision that builds on some sloppy defense arguments and reaches critical muddle at this point. At any rate, the decision will be appealed, which will hopefully clean up the district court's questionable Third Party reasoning, but is unlikely to find Sony's private search a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Monitoring networks for child porn has been around for decades. Anyone asking for or distributing child porn using a third-party messaging service is basically begging for a visit from the FBI. It plays right into the most well-known and widespread "private search" there is: the statutory requirement for platform owners to report suspected child porn to the government.

Filed Under: child porn, playstation
Companies: sony

Bug Related To HDCP DRM Is Giving New Playstation PS4 Pro Owners Headaches

from the first-do-no-harm dept

Sony recently released the slightly-more powerful Playstation 4 Pro console, a beefier version of its existing PS4 console that brings 4K and HDR functionality to customers with 4K sets. 4K was already proving to be a bit of a headache for early adopters, many of whom didn't realize that in order to get a 4K device to work, every device in the chain (particularly their audio receiver) not only needs to support 4K and the updated HDMI 2.0a standard for HDR (high dynamic range), but HDCP 2.2 -- an updated version of the copy protection standard used to try and lock down video content.

HDCP has always been a bit of a headache, like so much DRM usually causing consumers more trouble than it's worth, and then being ultimately useless in trying to prevent piracy that occurs anyway. The latest incarnation of this issue appears to be plaguing PS4 Pro owners, who are plugging their $400 console into their expensive new receiver and 4KTV only to find that the unit doesn't work as advertised. For some people, it's because they likely didn't realize (as noted above) that everything in their AV chain needs to support not only HDMI 2.0a, but the latest HDCP copy protection standard:

"HDMI 1.4 can handle 4K resolution, but its 4K support is limited to video signals at 30 Hz (or 30 frames per second). HDMI 2.0 is required in order to handle the increased bandwidth required by a 4K feed at 60 Hz. And although all PS4s — including non-Pro consoles — can deliver HDR as of mid-September’s v4.0 firmware update, HDR technically requires HDMI 2.0a and HDCP 2.2.

Which is understandable, given that the bleeding edge isn't always a pretty and simple place to reside. There's always tweaking and tinkering required on the bleeding edge, and having to dive deep into your TV's unnecessarily-confusing menus is par for the course. But as the problem persisted through last weekend, many console owners discovered that they were only able to use their new console if they disabled HDCP entirely:

"The issue appears to be related to HDCP, the digital copy protection that’s built into the HDMI connection between the PS4 Pro and the TV. Sony launched the PS4 in 2013 with HDMI 1.4, the then-current HDMI specification. The introduction of HDR has brought forth HDMI 2.0a along with HDCP 2.2, the latest version of the port and its copy protection. That’s why the PS4 Pro box includes a high-speed HDMI cable that supports HDMI 2.0."

As a PS4 Pro owner I can confirm that out of the box the device simply wouldn't properly transmit a 4K signal to my Samsung TV (you get audio, but no video). To get the console to work I had to boot into safe mode, disable the latest iteration of the HDCP 2.2 DRM, then disable HDCP in the console settings after boot. Note that while this will allow users to at least use the console to play games in 4K with HDR, it prohibits them from being able to use the console to stream video content, given that's not possible with the DRM disabled.

At this point it's not entirely clear if the problem is a bug in the PS4 Pro firmware, or a bug in the compatibility firmware embedded in most new "smart" 4K TVs. Some users over at Reddit indicate that many of the TVs impacted by manufacturers like LG have long struggled to play nice with the HDCP DRM. And while the HDCP 2.2 standard may not be the only thing contributing to these interoperability bugs, it's pretty clear at this point that the DRM -- which will inevitably be bypassed anyway -- is at least playing a starring role in consumers not being able to easily use a piece of hardware they paid for.

Filed Under: drm, hdcp, playstation, ps4
Companies: sony

Sony Wants To Patent A System For Scoring Journalists' 'Veracity'

from the the-truth-scale dept

Spotted by Eriq Gardner over at The Hollywood Reporter, Sony has applied for a patent measuring how accurate reporters are. From the patent abstract:

The methods and systems take into account a multiplicity of approaches to reputation determination and integrates them together in a way that determines not only a reputation index but a veracity scale on which to gauge that reputation. The system proposed herein will create reputation indices based on input from other participants in the ecosystem taking into account the weighting of the value of the input of the various participants based on their credibility as applied to the judgment at hand. The system will also take into account temporal components, the historical value of the work, passive input based on usage behavior, comments by casual observers as well as independent assessment in public fora. The system is able to be applied to journalists and their work to generate a veracity scale for articles.

While I'm sure many can see the value in actually rating journalists on how accurate/truthful their reporting is, the idea that a rating system like this should be patentable is fairly ridiculous. I mean: Like anyone wouldn't have come up with such a system if there wasn't patent protections?

Separately, as the EFF's Vera Ranieri asks, it's questionable whether or not granting such a patent would be consistent with the First Amendment. Remember, just a month ago, a top judge at the Federal Circuit appeals court (the place where all patent case appeals go to) noted that patents could be rejected on First Amendment grounds if "they are allowed to obstruct the essential channels of scientific, economic, and political discourse." So if this patent were granted, and (bizarrely) it excluded others from ranking the accuracy of journalists -- would that violate the First Amendment?

Hopefully the patent office rejects this patent application entirely and we never have to find out.

Filed Under: journalists, patents, scoring, uspto, veracity
Companies: sony

Sony Apparently Issuing Takedowns To Facebook For News Articles About PS4 Slim Leak

from the why? dept

Recently, Sony had let it be known that it would soon be announcing some new offerings for its PlayStation 4 console. While most of the media coverage had focused on what is suspected to be a new, more powerful version of the console, a leak this week instead revealed a different console offering, consisting of a newly slimmed down form factor PlayStation 4 with a slightly redesigned controller. As an owner of a PS4, I can join others' interest in this design, with the original console being somewhat bulky. I can also join others in having only a mild bit of surprise as a reaction, given that Microsoft had already announced a slimmed down version of its Xbox product, and given that Sony has done this with previous versions of the console as well.

But I was slightly surprised to learn that Sony has apparently been setting its lawyers on spooking gaming media sites and taking down news articles from social media accounts about the leak. Reports of the latter have just started coming in.

Now, Forbes has an annoying restriction on access to its site if you are sensibly using an ad-blocker, so I won't include the link for which the takedown was reportedly issued. That said, the post references the work Eurogamer did in visiting the leaker of the image to confirm the console is for real (it is), as well as generating its own image and even video of the console working for its story on the leak. But if you go today to the Eurogamer post about the leak, the video has been replaced by the following update.

UPDATE, 7.30pm: Upon taking legal advice, we have removed the video previously referenced in this article.

Left unsaid is whether or not any contact had been made by Sony with Eurogamer, thus prompting this "legal advice," but one can imagine that being the case, particularly given Sony's threats to social media users sharing images and reporting of Sony leaks and, more to the point, threats against any media that might report on those leaks. One can understand why a gaming website might blanch in the face of Sony's legal hounds, but it's still disappointing to see the tactic work.

Which brings us to this very moment. I imagine that the entire point behind these legal threats was to keep the news of a slimmed down PS4 from spreading prior to its official announcement. But, thanks to the Streisand Effect, here we are talking about it anyway, while simultaneously discussing the attempted coverup and questionable threats to fans and media that Sony has undertaken. So...mission accomplished?

Filed Under: journalism, playstation, ps4, takedowns
Companies: sony

Irony: Sony Pictures Sued For Failing To Stop Piracy

from the shoes-on-the-other-foot dept

For many years now, the MPAA and the various studios that make it up have filed various lawsuits against various internet platforms for not waving a magic wand and making piracy disappear. This also appears to be their big complaint against Google, which has bent over backwards trying to appease the industry and it's still not enough (of course, that may be because what the industry really wants from Google is money, not stopping piracy). But now the shoe is somewhat on the other foot as Sony Pictures is being sued for failing to stop piracy. Really.

The case stems from the infamous Sony hack from a year and a half ago, where all of Sony Pictures' emails were released onto the internet. Possibility Pictures is suing Sony claiming the hack created a breach of contract in its failure to stop piracy of its film, To Write Love On Her Arms (TWLOHA), a 2012 movie starring Kat Dennings, based on the true story of the struggles a woman went through leading to the founding of her charity (which goes by the same name as the movie). While most people focus on the emails from the hack, it should be noted that before those emails were released, the hackers released some pre-release films... including TWLOHA. And that, Possibility claims, is a breach of Sony's contract.

Reading through the full filing, the key breach appears to be of Section 16.7 of the contract, which includes an "anti-piracy authorization" stating: So that's kind of amusing, since the clause is clearly designed to give Sony the power to send out threat letters and takedowns and use DRM and other such stuff -- but Possibility is basically turning it around on Sony and arguing that its failure to stop piracy shows that it did not use "appropriate technical measures." I'm not sure a court will go for this kind of judo move in flipping the anti-piracy authorization clause around to suggest that it puts certain contractual requirements on Sony Pictures, rather than simply authorizing it to do certain things as the language is clearly designed to do.

The lawsuit goes on and on about all of the great marketing plans Possibility had for the film (Justin Bieber's mother was going to tweet about it!), but apparently that was all ruined when the hackers, whoever they were, leaked the film. It also highlights Sony's earlier security problems, focused on the famed PSN hack, even though that's an entirely separate subsidiary from Sony Pictures. And then it spends a lot of time pointing to reporters who pointed out that Sony Pictures' computer security was abysmal. That's true... but it's not clear that's against the law. Basically, this lawsuit is mostly "Sony incompetent" and then "because of that our contract was breached."

Possibility then tries to show damages from the leak of the film.

The direct and proximate result of the foreseeable and avoidable Data Breach just four months prior SPWA's planned release of the Picture was an extreme dilution of the otherwise viable market for Plaintiff's Picture. The November 2014 Data Breach resulted in the unauthorized release of the Picture on multiple sites worldwide and destroyed the audience demand for the Picture. Following the Data Breach and worldwide pirated release of the Picture, SPWA abandoned the social marketing plans and lost all interest in promoting and marketing the Picture since it was otherwise available for free as a result of its failure to maintain adequate security of the Network. As an isolated sample of the damage caused the anticipated video-on-demand ("VOD") revenue stream of the Picture, note that in the first six days alone following the Data Breach, the stolen Picture master was downloaded-for-free a reported 19,949 times (an average rate of over 3300 illegal, revenue-free downloads per day).

So... a few things on this. First, downloads don't equate to lost sales, generally speaking, so the attempt to suggest that here without further evidence is pretty silly. Second, less than 20,000 downloads is... kinda weak. It certainly suggests there wasn't much interest in the film in the first place. Third, the idea that there's no market for a movie that's available for free online is easily debunked by the numerous movies that do quite well at the box office and in the home video market despite also being pirated online.

However, the more interesting bit is that this puts Sony Pictures in the fairly awkward position of potentially having to argue that piracy isn't really that damaging to a picture. I'm guessing that Sony Pictures and the MPAA want no part of that argument ever being filed in a court, because it will boomerang back to hurt them.

Either way, the filmmakers are demanding almost $9 million:

The amount of that revenue for which we seek payment, less amounts paid to date, is $8,738,331...

For a movie that not that many people seemed interested in?

Separately, Possibility notes that Sony pointed out that there's a binding arbitration clause in their contract, and Sony has already said that if there's a dispute it must be handled by such an arbitration setup. Possibility tries to get around this, but (unfortunately!) courts have tended to accept these binding arbitration clauses as valid.

If I had to put odds on it, I wouldn't give this lawsuit much of a chance of surviving. The attempt to turn an anti-piracy authorization clause into some sort of requirement to block piracy is a massive stretch. The mandatory arbitration clause is also a problem. Plus, the overall lawsuit is pretty weak. The claim itself is not very well backed up. Chances are Sony can get this tossed out quickly -- but it will be amusing to see if it has to argue that piracy isn't really that damaging. That would be fun.

Filed Under: breach of contract, lawsuit, movies, piracy, sony hack, to write love on her arms
Companies: possibility pictures, sony, sony pictures

Sony Locks Up The PSN Account Of A Man Named 'Jihad' Because You'll Never Guess Why

from the what's-in-a-name dept

Terrorism is scary. That's the entire point of terrorism, of course. The relatively meager bodycounts of acts of terror -- compared with, say, most minor individual battles in either of the World Wars -- are actually attempting to create some kind of political or social change amongst the victims. And guess what? It totally works! After all, western nations, the bastions of freedom and puppy dogs that we are, have reacted to what is ultimately a minor threat by reporting toddlers to the authorities, freezing the bank accounts of people with dogs whose names are a couple of letters off of the scary terror-enemy, and refusing online services to people with scary (read: Islamic) sounding names. Freedom, you see, isn't free, and we have to pay for it with freedom.

And the real lesson that should be learned from pretty much the entire early part of this century is that once you start the fear-ball rolling when it comes to terrorism, it gets really hard to prevent it from trampling a great deal of innocent people in some of the dumbest ways possible. Take, for instance, Sony just flat out banning a guy's Playstation Network account because his parents named him "Jihad."

Jihad Al Mofadda, whose story shot to the front page of Reddit yesterday, said that Sony banned his account on June 7. At first, PlayStation customer support offered to switch his PSN name to something else. Then, he says, after a few days of silence, a different representative reviewed the ticket and decided to ban the account entirely, preventing Al Mofadda from accessing his stats, trophies, and all of the digital games he’s purchased. After his story exploded, Al Mofadda was able to get in touch with a Sony representative again, but he was unable to keep his original handle.

Ok, there's a lot to unpack here. Stories like this are fantastic for pointing out how easy it is for a corporate entity to try to apply some kind of language policy to its online forums and systems only to find itself hopelessly engaging in hypocrisy. For instance, Jihad is a word with a lot of discussion about what it actually means. Westerners tend to associate it with the term "holy war", and it has indeed been used in that way historically, but the word itself essentially means to persevere or struggle to keep the Islamic faith. To that end, Jihad isn't a rarity in use as a first name in Muslim circles. Meanwhile, one of my own Playstation friends has the handle HowDatDicTaste. Shall we vote on whether that handle or the one Al Mofadda used, iJihaD, is more likely to offend?

But the fact that Sony refused to allow the handle even when it was explained that Jihad was Al Moffada's first name moves this into epic levels of silliness.

One e-mail from a Sony representative read as follows: “As stated in our previous email, we have to consider the network as a whole and we need to take every ones feelings into account. I can appreciate that your name has many meanings but it has one meaning that a lot of users find offensive and there for, when a report was submitted the decision to ban your account was taken.”

Imagine for a moment that some religious sect went completely rogue somewhere in the world and carried out a series of violent attacks. And imagine that this sect decided to name these attacks "Steves." Sect members would walk into a crowded marketplace in Brazil, declare a Steveing, and set off a bomb. And let's say that these attacks received wide press coverage.

Would Sony then ban the accounts of everyone named Steve? C'mon, it's the guy's first name and he has the passport to prove it.

At the time of this writing, Sony is still refusing to allow him to use his old handle, but has allowed him to keep the purchases on his account under a different name. This means he gets his games, but loses all the friend connections he'd made as well as his game trophies. Is this the biggest deal? Of course not. But the point is that when we can't even allow people to use their own first names because we're all petrified by terrorism, things have gone a bit too far.

Filed Under: jihad, playstation, terrorism, video games
Companies: sony

Sony Settlement Gives PS3 Owners $9 After Company Made Console Less Useful Via Firmware Update

from the just-renting dept

We've noted countless times how in the modern computing era, you don't really own what you think you own. You don't really own the music or books that can arbitrarily disappear on your devices, and you no longer really own a wide variety of hardware that can be dramatically changed (often for the worse) via firmware update months or years after purchase. If you're extra lucky, you'll shell out $300 for a piece of hardware that one year later simply won't work at all. With intelligent automobiles and the rise of the internet-of-not-so-smart things, that's more true now than ever.

Case in point: back in 2010 we noted how Sony issued several firmware updates for its Playstation 3 gaming console that effectively made the console less useful. One specifically (PS3 software update 3.21) removed the console owner's ability to load alternative operating systems like Linux. But tinkerers being tinkerers, some users found ways to use the feature to expand the console's functionality in all kinds of creative ways. Fearing a loss of control and potential spike in piracy, Sony decided to make the console significantly less useful.

Sony was ultimately sued via class action for the decision. After six years of litigation, Sony has agreed to settle the dispute by doling out a whopping $9 to each console owner that bought a PS3 based on Sony's promises to provide "Other OS" functionality, and $55 to each PS3 user that managed to get Linux running on the console. Like most class actions it's the attorneys who'll reap the most benefits, Sony doling out $2.25 million in attorneys' fees for the lawyers who brought suit (though it's worth noting even this wouldn't be possible today thanks to TOS mouse print banning class actions and requiring binding arbitration).

Sony's lawyers at several points tried to claim that the update was "voluntary," refusing to acknowledge that users that refused to install the firmware couldn't actually use it for much of anything:

"...Sony said the update was voluntary. However, without updating, console owners couldn't connect to the PlayStation Network, play any games online, play any games or Blu-ray movies that required the new firmware, play any files kept on a media server, or download any future updates. Before the settlement, Sony argued that its terms of service allowed it to remove the Other OS feature and that the functionality wasn't that big of a deal for most console owners."

Part of the settlement requires that PS3 owners show "some proof of their use of the Other OS functionality" -- which after six years may not be all that easy for impacted users. While it's nice to see PS3 owners get a little something after six years of litigation, the overall trend in technology remains one where consumers can't tinker with the hardware they "own," can't be sure the hardware will adhere to day one marketing promises, have no guarantees that the gear will even work even one year down the line, and can't sue if what they own is intentionally downgraded or crippled by the manufacturer. Progress!

Filed Under: class action, firmware, linux, playstation 3, ps3, settlement
Companies: sony

Sony Finally Releases PS4 Remote Play For PC App That Isn't As Good As A Modder's App Is

from the modify-your-expectations dept

Late last year, we discussed how an application modder named Twisted had managed to push Sony, the megalith corporation, into producing a remote play PC application for its Playstation 4 console. Twisted had previously managed to crack open Sony's Android remote play application, originally designed to work only on Sony brand smartphones, so that any Android user could play the PS4 on the go. This, of course, made the PS4 product more useful and added a feature to potential console buyers that Sony had, for some reason, decided to restrict. Xperia phones, it should be noted, aren't exactly jumping off the shelves at stores, but Playstation 4 consoles certainly are. Then Twisted announced he was going to release a PC version of the app. Sony had not released any PC version of its remote play functionality. But shortly after Twisted's announcement, Sony too announced it would be releasing a remote play for PC application.

And with a PS4 update that was released on April 6th, Sony's remote play for PC is here. I've tried it out. And it's...okay? Strangely, it appears to do much of what Twisted's application does, but not everything. It's starts with the requirements:

-Windows 8.1
-Windows 10 or later
-OS X 10.10
-OS X 10.11

Whereas Twisted's app works just fine with Windows 7. I'm struggling to figure out why a guy could get it to work with the operating system that over a third of PC users are still using, but a giant company couldn't. Oh well.

But the biggest thing missing from Sony's PC application is what made Twisted's efforts so useful for those trying to do some gaming away from their console, especially when traveling or away from the home.

You can use one DualShock 4 as the controller for Remote Play, which needs to be connected to your PC / Mac via a USB cable.

"Can" should be read as "must." There doesn't appear to be any way to map controller buttons to the keyboard, no way to use your PCs mouse, and no overlay of the controller on the screen within the application. Twisted's apps have all of these options. Honestly, it's what makes gaming on the go so easy, in that you can use the touch screen of a phone or Windows tablet to play on the go.

Look, this release from Sony is a good thing. It opens up functionality that was possible but didn't exist officially before. But what's most striking about this release, to me, is that Sony's application didn't measure up to that produced by a single modder, not to mention that that same modder's efforts for Android users are still necessary because Sony hasn't realized that making an official smart phone remote play app would massively increase the value of its console overall. So, it's a step forward, but a small step.

Filed Under: modding, ps4, video games
Companies: sony

Sony On A Rampage Trademarking Common Terms: Attempted Registrations For 'Let's Play' And 'VRPG'

from the common-sense dept

It's no secret that Sony has never been shy about wielding trademark like a cudgel. That said, there seems to be something new brewing with the company in its recent attempts to trademark fairly common terms, worrying some that it would use those trademarks in the same heavy-handed way. The first of those attempts was the recent Sony filing for a trademark on the term "Let's Play", which any gamer will recognize as the term for popular YouTube videos showing games being played, often offered by well-known YouTube personalities. While the USPTO had already refused the trademark on the grounds that a prior mark for "Let'z Play" had already been registered, a law firm that specializes in gaming law jumped in to try and have the court instead declare that "Let's Play" is now a generic term.

In a blog post from the McArthur law firm, the company explained that in its letter to the USPTO it offered up fifty examples of how ‘Let’s Play’ has become a generic term. The most important part of this is that the letter needs to be taken into consideration before awarding a trademark. Sony does have time to respond to the US Patent and Trademark Office’s initial concerns with its trademark application. However, now the office also has evidence from a third-party showing why Sony shouldn’t be handed ownership of the term ‘Let’s Play’.

It would be difficult to imagine an argument against the notion that "Let's Play" is now a well-known generic term, given its widespread use by online personalities. More interesting is the attempt itself, in that Sony is certainly well aware of the term's status and use, yet it decided to try to lock up the term via trademark anyway, specifically for the uses in which it's currently employed. That isn't what trademark is for, of course, and it would be insane to see the USPTO award the mark and allow the possibility for an insane number of trademark actions based on Let's Play videos tied to advertising revenue. Blech.

But that attempt dovetails nicely with another attempted registration of a trademark by Sony, as the company has recently applied for a mark on the term "VRPG."

Filed by Sony Computer Entertainment Japan (SCEJ) back in December, the trademark filing was listed online by the Japanese Patent and Trademark Office. The document is entirely in Japanese but DualShockers states that the filing is Class 9 (which is used for games) and “includes pretty much all the standard definition for game trademarks.” Unfortunately, there’s little else to go on, but one popular theory from fans is that VRPG actually stands for Virtual Role-Playing Game and relates to a new PlayStation VR game.

It's not clear yet that this is what "VRPG" stands for, but if it is, it will provide a wonderful litmus test for exactly how sane the USPTO is, because awarding that mark would be crazy. RPG is, of course, a standard term in gaming circles, making the application essentially all about the "V", another common abbreviation for all things virtual reality. Virtual reality is itself becoming a household term in gaming circles, with the renewed interest in VR headsets such as the Oculus Rift. Allowing Sony to own a mark on a term that describes what may shortly become an entire genre of the gaming industry is tantamount to a language monopoly that, far from serving the interests of the consuming public, instead serves only to carve out very commonly used terms for sole use by certain corporate interests.

This, as in the previous case, is simply not the aim of trademark provisions. There's nothing source identifying in a mark that essentially declares a product to be a virtual reality role-playing game. That's entirely too broad. So place your bets on exactly how sane the folks at the USPTO will be.

Filed Under: let's play, trademark, vrpg
Companies: sony