GeoHot and Sony Settle PS3 Jailbreak Case

[Arachon]

See my response above to your GPU "analogy."

Alright.

Your GPU analogy doesn't hold water. Nowhere does HP or DELL attempt to prohibit you beforehand from swapping out their GPU for a non-OEM GPU. But most all software licensors do prohibit you beforehand from modifying their software. Apples and oranges.

I am not quite certain what you are getting at. My GPU "analogy" was a bit weak, I'll admit, as I tried to draw a direct parallel between hardware and software, silly me. But my hammer "analogy" was an attempt to make a point that even though some things (or technologies) can be misused, that is no reason to forbid them outright.

Thus, just because Geohot's hack can be used to run pirated games (Nota bene it does not allow a user to bypass already existing copy protection on a game, like a "crack" for a PC game does), it should not be forbidden, because it can be used to run custom software, such as homebrew games, or even other operating systems. Worthy of note is also that Geohot himself never intended for the hack to be used as a piracy tool, but simply allow the homebrew scene to have access to the system.

Now, you are partly right in your claim that "a root key doesn't allow access to the hardware". What a root key does is allow the system to run so-called "unsigned" code. This means that you can run software that is not authorized by Sony. This of course also means that it is possible to run games with modified code, such as code removing copy protection.

And it is here we arrive at the issue

I think that piracy on the PS3 will remain a relatively minor issue, as hacking the console itself is a fairly inconvenient procedure (or so I'm lead to believe). Now, let's look at the Wii. Nintendo has fought a loosing battle against hackers, yet the Wii remains the best-selling console on the market. Even the Xbox 360 has been hacked, and has not suffered immense losses due to piracy. Hell, I'd argue that the PC remains a viable platform, despite the huge amounts of piracy it sees, and how easy it is to pirate a PC game.

So, in summation, I personally believe that piracy on consoles is a minor issue, and that customer rights, and the moral issue of whether the console belongs to the consumer, or the publisher, takes priority over the relatively minor issue of console piracy.

And this is where we seem to disagree, you seem to think that the publisher (Sony in this case) can and should take every measure to stop piracy, including installing rootkits on computers (that however is a different case), and suing their own customers. I can respect your opinion, but I really don't agree with it.

 

[JDKJ]

See my response above to your GPU "analogy."

Alright.

Your GPU analogy doesn't hold water. Nowhere does HP or DELL attempt to prohibit you beforehand from swapping out their GPU for a non-OEM GPU. But most all software licensors do prohibit you beforehand from modifying their software. Apples and oranges.

I am not quite certain what you are getting at. My GPU "analogy" was a bit weak, I'll admit, as I tried to draw a direct parallel between hardware and software, silly me. But my hammer "analogy" was an attempt to make a point that even though some things (or technologies) can be misused, that is no reason to forbid them outright.

Thus, just because Geohot's hack can be used to run pirated games (Nota bene it does not allow a user to bypass already existing copy protection on a game, like a "crack" for a PC game does), it should not be forbidden, because it can be used to run custom software, such as homebrew games, or even other operating systems. Worthy of note is also that Geohot himself never intended for the hack to be used as a piracy tool, but simply allow the homebrew scene to have access to the system.

Now, you are partly right in your claim that "a root key doesn't allow access to the hardware". What a root key does is allow the system to run so-called "unsigned" code. This means that you can run software that is not authorized by Sony. This of course also means that it is possible to run games with modified code, such as code removing copy protection.

And it is here we arrive at the issue

I think that piracy on the PS3 will remain a relatively minor issue, as hacking the console itself is a fairly inconvenient procedure (or so I'm lead to believe). Now, let's look at the Wii. Nintendo has fought a loosing battle against hackers, yet the Wii remains the best-selling console on the market. Even the Xbox 360 has been hacked, and has not suffered immense losses due to piracy. Hell, I'd argue that the PC remains a viable platform, despite the huge amounts of piracy it sees, and how easy it is to pirate a PC game.

So, in summation, I personally believe that piracy on consoles is a minor issue, and that customer rights, and the moral issue of whether the console belongs to the consumer, or the publisher, takes priority over the relatively minor issue of console piracy.

And this is where we seem to disagree, you seem to think that the publisher (Sony in this case) can and should take every measure to stop piracy, including installing rootkits on computers (that however is a different case), and suing their own customers. I can respect your opinion, but I really don't agree with it.

So what if you're my customer? How would that fact in any way insulate you from suit if you're causing me injury? The only possible reason I can imagine not to sue you is if the financial gain you bring me as a customer is greater than the financial harm that you cause me as a customer. But if the harm outweighs the gain, then you can bet I'm suing you in a New York minute. I'm running a for-profit business. Emphasis on "profit." If it don't makes dollars, then it don't sense.

 

[nipsen]

(and I'm asking outta curiosity, not trying to make some rhetorical point):

If Georgie Boy's hack wasn't that useful in allowing someone to pirate games, then why were literally tens of thousands of people flocking to his weblog and downloading his hack? I don't know for certain, but my common sense tells me that tens of thousands of people ain't interested in running Linux on a PS3. I almost have to assume that more of those people than not were downloading the hack so they could pirate games. Were they victims of Georgie Boy's false advertising?

Good thing you announced on beforehand that you weren't going to throw out a slew of unsubstantiated claims in order to make a rhetorical point..

Common sense is uncommon nowadays. "I don't know much about nuclear fuel, so I probably shouldn't step in and act as the resident engineer on my own to poke around in the reactor to check myself if the fears of the representatives from the nearby animal shelter, kindergarten, soccer-team, four schools and a shopping mall - are unfounded".

Like I said - the assumption is that the hack does the same as the custom firmwares on the psp. It doesn't. But people believe a lot of things. And media-outlets don't have the courage to offend their audience. Or just have the business-sense not to.

 

[JDKJ]

(and I'm asking outta curiosity, not trying to make some rhetorical point):

If Georgie Boy's hack wasn't that useful in allowing someone to pirate games, then why were literally tens of thousands of people flocking to his weblog and downloading his hack? I don't know for certain, but my common sense tells me that tens of thousands of people ain't interested in running Linux on a PS3. I almost have to assume that more of those people than not were downloading the hack so they could pirate games. Were they victims of Georgie Boy's false advertising?

Good thing you announced on beforehand that you weren't going to throw out a slew of unsubstantiated claims in order to make a rhetorical point..

Common sense is uncommon nowadays. "I don't know much about nuclear fuel, so I probably shouldn't step in and act as the resident engineer on my own to poke around in the reactor to check myself if the fears of the representatives from the nearby animal shelter, kindergarten, soccer-team, four schools and a shopping mall - are unfounded".

Like I said - the assumption is that the hack does the same as the custom firmwares on the psp. It doesn't. But people believe a lot of things. And media-outlets don't have the courage to offend their audience. Or just have the business-sense not to.

I'm confused. What exactly does the hack do? Or, lemme ask my question more specifically: can you use it to play pirated games?

 

[nipsen]

I'm confused. What exactly does the hack do? Or, lemme ask my question more specifically: can you use it to play pirated games?

The hack by itself - no. Not as in "not by itself, you just need a screwdriver and three minutes". But as in "completely useless without signed debug-routines you can edit yourself". Those debugs should not be out there anyway.

 

[JDKJ]

I'm confused. What exactly does the hack do? Or, lemme ask my question more specifically: can you use it to play pirated games?

The hack by itself - no. Not as in "not by itself, you just need a screwdriver and three minutes". But as in "completely useless without signed debug-routines you can edit yourself". Those debugs should not be out there anyway.

I thank you for you attempt to inform me but you've lost me. Like I said, I don't really know squat about a hack and "signed debug-routines" is of a language with which I'm completely unfamiliar.

 

[nipsen]

*shrug* imagine a Calimari-cook. He makes terrific ripieni, but is very secretive about his recipe and the secret ingredients. He claims that no one can make better calimari. So, an apprentice takes a look in the kitchen and writes down all the ingredients, knives, variants of parsley, type of kettles and pots. And then release it to the public, saying: well, your secret is out old man (it's just a matter of time). Roll over and give in!

Turns out the apprentice had just been working in a sushi-restaurant, where he pushed the owner to go public with a dish, which in turn had all the other shops down the street copy it, which in turn meant free advertisement.

...you know.

 

[JDKJ]

*shrug* imagine a Calimari-cook. He makes terrific ripieni, but is very secretive about his recipe and the secret ingredients. He claims that no one can make better calimari. So, an apprentice takes a look in the kitchen and writes down all the ingredients, knives, variants of parsley, type of kettles and pots. And then release it to the public, saying: well, your secret is out old man (it's just a matter of time). Roll over and give in!

Turns out the apprentice had just been working in a sushi-restaurant, where he pushed the owner to go public with a dish, which in turn had all the other shops down the street copy it, which in turn meant free advertisement.

...you know.

You tryin' to mess wid my mind, ain't you? C'mon, man. Why you wanna do me like that?

 

[nipsen]

..if I wasn't so incurably lazy, I'd be photoshopping a geohot pic for you (the one with the comically eager and honest eyes) with a white hat, ladle in one hand and a squid in the other.

No, look. Let's just establish a few things: you don't establish guilt in a normal court based on people's intentions. You don't sentence anyone based on popular opinion of the accused either. That's just how a nation of laws should work.

Meanwhile, the implications of Sony being allowed to remove services from their products at a whim sets a bad precedent. We've seen a few major attempts before to require patching of devices in order to lock them out of content - in order to then provide the same through the ifruit-store, etc. That happened, and no one reacted.

That's one part of a motivation for "breaking open" these devices for the closed platforms. We like to believe that customers will reward a device-maker if they provide great and diverse content for it that pushes the limitations of the platform. And punish them for making bad decisions that everyone hates. But instead we find that "most people", and the ones the manufacturers target - are either scumbags, or simply like to be told what to think.

A remarkable amount of people say things like this, for example: "I think [this product] is great, because people seem to like it". They don't care about failed prototypes, and they think nothing of paying for content that used to be free (and still is in any good browser). They simply take what they're offered and are happy about it.

So one "interpretation", just as good as any other is that what Sony did - by actually dropping a service on their platform - was seen as such a negative step that it encouraged many people to wish for those limitations to become undone. That's certainly part of the reason why the jailbreak for the iPhone is so popular. And why Android is becoming more popular than any other handheld platform very quickly.

Who knows. But I do know that at least we're discussing this. And we didn't discuss it before. "Installing software yourself" - on any platform - wasn't something that was discussed for the most part not that many years ago.

 

[JDKJ]

..if I wasn't so incurably lazy, I'd be photoshopping a geohot pic for you (the one with the comically eager and honest eyes) with a white hat, ladle in one hand and a squid in the other.

No, look. Let's just establish a few things: you don't establish guilt in a normal court based on people's intentions. You don't sentence anyone based on popular opinion of the accused either. That's just how a nation of laws should work.

Meanwhile, the implications of Sony being allowed to remove services from their products at a whim sets a bad precedent. We've seen a few major attempts before to require patching of devices in order to lock them out of content - in order to then provide the same through the ifruit-store, etc. That happened, and no one reacted.

That's one part of a motivation for "breaking open" these devices for the closed platforms. We like to believe that customers will reward a device-maker if they provide great and diverse content for it that pushes the limitations of the platform. And punish them for making bad decisions that everyone hates. But instead we find that "most people", and the ones the manufacturers target - are either scumbags, or simply like to be told what to think.

A remarkable amount of people say things like this, for example: "I think [this product] is great, because people seem to like it". They don't care about failed prototypes, and they think nothing of paying for content that used to be free (and still is in any good browser). They simply take what they're offered and are happy about it.

So one "interpretation", just as good as any other is that what Sony did - by actually dropping a service on their platform - was seen as such a negative step that it encouraged many people to wish for those limitations to become undone. That's certainly part of the reason why the jailbreak for the iPhone is so popular. And why Android is becoming more popular than any other handheld platform very quickly.

Who knows. But I do know that at least we're discussing this. And we didn't discuss it before. "Installing software yourself" - on any platform - wasn't something that was discussed for the most part not that many years ago.

I've seen that picture. He looks like he's outta his mind on meth.

 

[nipsen]

hehe. I was thinking that any picture of him would do. Buy yeah.

 

[RowdyRodimus]

"For his part, Hotz seemed glad to have it all over with. "It was never my intention to cause any users trouble or to make piracy easier," said the hacking mastermind"

See this is my problem with Geohot was this line and his thinking.

1)If he didn't intend on piracy why did he give out the master key to bypass sony to make it easy

2)If he is a master mind he knows giving people freedom means some will abuse it.

1)He gave out the key so people could use their products as they should be able to, as they planned to use when they bought them, and as they were told they would be able to use them, until Sony changed their mind and made themselves liars.

2)Freedom is dangerous, no-one should be free.

If that's truly the case and Sony was on the wrong side of the dispute, then why didn't he stick to his position and prove that to be case? Why did he settle on terms most unfavorable to him? That don't make much sense.

Nazi Germany was on the wrong side of a dispute, would your stand and fight the third Reich with 4 soldiers with you or would your surrender and live to fight another day.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." -- Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies

You have owned this thread and I agree 100% with everything you have said. You have been as awesome here as the Decepticon that represents you. Goehotz is a douche and I would love to see him bloody and beaten in the street just so I could piss in his wounds in hopes of getting them infected.

 

[OutforEC]

How about the point at which, when asked if he will ever settle with Sony, he categorically and arrogantly and, as it turns out, falsely states that he will not settle with Sony but on his terms which include that Sony "[restore] OtherOS on all PS3s and apolog[ize] on the PlayStation blog for ever removing it?" I'll bet $1,000,000 that the terms of his settlement with Sony say nothing of the sort. Legally, that make him a fraudster. But in my 'hood, we just call that "a fucking liar."

I'm pretty sure Geo can't make Sony continue a suit they don't want to continue. All they have to do is tell him 'no harm, no foul, here's a non-disclosure' and that's the end of it.

 

[JDKJ]

How about the point at which, when asked if he will ever settle with Sony, he categorically and arrogantly and, as it turns out, falsely states that he will not settle with Sony but on his terms which include that Sony "[restore] OtherOS on all PS3s and apolog[ize] on the PlayStation blog for ever removing it?" I'll bet $1,000,000 that the terms of his settlement with Sony say nothing of the sort. Legally, that make him a fraudster. But in my 'hood, we just call that "a fucking liar."

I'm pretty sure Geo can't make Sony continue a suit they don't want to continue. All they have to do is tell him 'no harm, no foul, here's a non-disclosure' and that's the end of it.

He most certainly can. By simply reciting these words whenever Sony presents to him an offer of settlement that does not contain the terms he stated must be included in any settlement: "Take ya offer of settlement and blow it outta ya ass." What's Sony gonna do at that point? Voluntarily dismiss their suit against him because he refused to settle on anything other than his demanded terms? Please. They'll certainly continue to litigate.

 

[OutforEC]

How about the point at which, when asked if he will ever settle with Sony, he categorically and arrogantly and, as it turns out, falsely states that he will not settle with Sony but on his terms which include that Sony "[restore] OtherOS on all PS3s and apolog[ize] on the PlayStation blog for ever removing it?" I'll bet $1,000,000 that the terms of his settlement with Sony say nothing of the sort. Legally, that make him a fraudster. But in my 'hood, we just call that "a fucking liar."

So, where in the following statement do you see, as you put it, "states he will not settle with Sony but on his terms"

(Emphasis mine)
"Lets just say, I want the settlement terms to include OtherOS on all PS3s and an apology on the PlayStation blog for ever removing it."

If your point is that Geo acted like an idiot, offhand I'd tend to agree with you, but that's a different discussion. But as for fraud, I don't see misrepresentation, I don't see knowledge or belief that his statements were false; All I see is you reading things that aren't stated, and/or assuming things that aren't true, and that alone won't win you anything.

 

[JDKJ]

How about the point at which, when asked if he will ever settle with Sony, he categorically and arrogantly and, as it turns out, falsely states that he will not settle with Sony but on his terms which include that Sony "[restore] OtherOS on all PS3s and apolog[ize] on the PlayStation blog for ever removing it?" I'll bet $1,000,000 that the terms of his settlement with Sony say nothing of the sort. Legally, that make him a fraudster. But in my 'hood, we just call that "a fucking liar."

So, where in the following statement do you see, as you put it, "states he will not settle with Sony but on his terms"

(Emphasis mine)
"Lets just say, I want the settlement terms to include OtherOS on all PS3s and an apology on the PlayStation blog for ever removing it."

If your point is that Geo acted like an idiot, offhand I'd tend to agree with you, but that's a different discussion. But as for fraud, I don't see misrepresentation, I don't see knowledge or belief that his statements were false; All I see is you reading things that aren't stated, and/or assuming things that aren't true, and that alone won't win you anything.

As I've said before in this thread, it may not be the most clear-cut case, but I think it's colorable and certainly enough to withstand a motion for failure to state a claim. And Hotz, obvious shit-bag that he is, ain't likely to be seen sympathetically by any jury. I'm not saying I'd actually sue him, but I'd be willing to risk the filing fees, if I had to. I don't think it's a straight-up loser. But reasonable mind can differ. And probably will.

 

[Count Igor]

Good for him. He did pretty well considering his bad circumstance.

 

[OutforEC]

As I've said before in this thread, it may not be the most clear-cut case, but I think it's colorable and certainly enough to withstand a motion for failure to state a claim. And Hotz, obvious shit-bag that he is, ain't likely to be seen sympathetically by any jury. I'm not saying I'd actually sue him, but I'd be willing to risk the filing fees, if I had to. I don't think it's a straight-up loser. But reasonable mind can differ. And probably will.

I definitely agree with you there; the legal game being as it is today, there are very few straight-up losers.

Of course, the picture on the original article tends to disagree...

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

Huh. How long was the jailbreak up? How many people acquired the instructions?

I think someone out there will gladly manage to put the information back up anonymously. They may have let him slide, but this is far from over.