PS3 Hackers Respond to Sony's Litigious Accusations

[Delusibeta]

The hack in question, if you have actually taken the time to read any of the original article, is 100% about getting Linux back on the PS3. This hack has not been used to play pirated games.

The claim of the intent, which is largely different, you mean. Sorry, I read the original article. Attempting to rationalise it doesn't make it so.

Failoverflow has done more than JUST that. Sorry.

Yeah. They also demonstrated to Linux developers how to get copies of Linux recognised on PS3s and demonstrated how awfully Sony designed the security of their console. Complain about it all you want, doesn't make it any less Sony's fault by removing OtherOS, thus prompting the hackers to try to replace it.

 

[mjc0961]

Sony's allegation that Hotz was bound by the PlayStation Network's terms of service when Hotz put in writing that he never signed up

If that is true, Sony absolutely has nothing. You can't violate an End User License Agreement if you never agreed to it in the first place.

The rest of this is Sony trying to clean up the mess of them shooting themselves in the foot when they removed Install Other OS by taking a wood saw to their leg to messily try and amputate what's left of their foot. They're just making an even bigger mess now.

 

[SurfKansas]

Sharpening a pencil with the intent of drawing thinner, clearer lines does not necessarily lead to stabbing someone; Yet it is a possibility.

I'm gonna make this pencil disappear.
SLAM!
Ta-daa! It's... it's gone.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

The hack in question, if you have actually taken the time to read any of the original article, is 100% about getting Linux back on the PS3. This hack has not been used to play pirated games.

The claim of the intent, which is largely different, you mean. Sorry, I read the original article. Attempting to rationalise it doesn't make it so.

Failoverflow has done more than JUST that. Sorry.

Link?

But if they aren't using it for piracy, Sony should lose. I paid $299 to OWN my PS3. I should be allowed to do what I want with it (aside from violating copyright and piracy and other clearly illegal activities). I don't hack my consoles, but if you want to hack your own system, you should be allowed to. As long as (a) they aren't engaging in clearly illegal activities, (b) their hacks in no way compromise the security or other aspects of PSN (e.g. using a hack to cause problems with multiplayer games etc), then I don't see how they're doing anything wrong.

 

[SurfKansas]

The hack in question, if you have actually taken the time to read any of the original article, is 100% about getting Linux back on the PS3. This hack has not been used to play pirated games.

The claim of the intent, which is largely different, you mean. Sorry, I read the original article. Attempting to rationalise it doesn't make it so.

Failoverflow has done more than JUST that. Sorry.

Actually, intent is incredibly relevant to the legal case, as is the rationalization.

Based on DMCA Section 1201, cracking hardware for purposes such as research, education, or enabling interoperability are legal...

Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

Note the part about "if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability". To get any non-signed code to run on the PS3 requires circumvention of protection.

The hackers assert:

* They are not directly pirating games
* They are not providing intentional assistance to those pirating games
* They are not knowingly profitting from pirated games
* They are providing the information for interoperability of software - in this case Linux
* This hack is necessary for said interop to work.

Those are the facts in question on this case. If the facts as presented are determined to be accurate, the hackers have legal protection under the DMCA. That protection would apply EVEN IF other hackers use their information to play pirated games.

To win, Sony would have to be able to do one of the following:

* Demonstrate that the hackers named in the suit had intent to pirate protected works or profit from piracy of protected works
* Demonstrate that the software interoperability in question was possible without hacking. (This is unlikely, since Sony's own release notes show that Linux no longer can be directly installed on the PS3).
* Demonstrate that the hackers are bound by a superceeding agreement. In this case, Sony would argue that the EULA, if agreed to by the hackers, would waive the protections of DMCA Section 1201.(f).(2).

This case, if it does go to trial, will likely focus on the third item. Sony's case on the first two options would be incredibly weak.

 

[Murderiser]

I hope Sony loses, there's no good reason for them to suppress these guys.

Other than the fact that this WILL open the floodgates to piracy? Also saying "We don't condone piracy" rings a bit hollow seeing as they posted the bloody thing ON THE INTERNET.

I am so glad I own a 360.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Other than the fact that this WILL open the floodgates to piracy? Also saying "We don't condone piracy" rings a bit hollow seeing as they posted the bloody thing ON THE INTERNET.

I am so glad I own a 360.

They specifically locked it against that use, if the pirates want copy games and play them without paying, they'll have to do it with something else.

 

[KCL]

Sony does have a leg to stand on.

Not really.

Among other things, they clearly violated the DMCA

No they didn't. Reverse-engineering and modding are protected rights in the U.S. The DMCA makes an exception for circumvention of content protection mechanisms, but this exception doesn't apply when circumvention is a necessary step in the exercise of fair use rights. See the recent U.S. Copyright Office ruling on jailbreaking. Also see the outcome of USA v. Crippen. Also see the publication history of Hacking the Xbox.

You'd think these people would have some understanding of the law if they were going to much around in lawsuit territory.

Not to be harsh, but you'd think people would have some understanding of the law if they were going to go around commenting on other people's understanding of the law.