The Other PS3 Hacker Is (Probably) Headed to Jail

[Pat8u]

I heard that in a sdyney court its legal to be your own lawyer without having the right degrees

ot:arggh sony I was begginning to enjoy online play I beginning to think that sony hates hackers since the psn incident and pls change the title to modder since that is what he was doing. hackings things like dos attacks (maybe im wrong)

 

[fractal_butterfly]

Don't worry, German Prisons ain't that bad ;-)
But I don't really think, that he will go to jail. He didn't do it for the profit (he didn't, did he?), so he will likely get about 100 Hours of civil service. Not that bad. Even if he can't afford a lawyer, he will not be ultimately doomed. In germany the lawyer is not as important as in the US, there are little important differences.

 

[adamtm]

The guy didn't hack the network, he hacked his system to restore OtherOS. That's what fail0verflow is known for.

Something that I'm not clear on: what good is putting Linux on a PS3? I can see why it would be an interesting challenge for a single hacker to take on, but aside from the aforementioned software piracy, what's the practical application? What legal uses of a hacked PS3 would there be that isn't already possible on a computer?

some examples:

http://gravity.phy.umassd.edu/ps3.html

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/213076/u-s-military-building-ps3-supercomputer/

I.e it (was) a cheap alternative to creating large clusters of machines to conduct large-scale computations and research instead of buying comparable systems like CRAY provides.

This way small research teams with tight budgets could create their own clusters in stead of having to buy or rent computational time from larger clusters all over the world.
Animation companies would also consider buying several PS3s to run their own RenderFarm instead of renting hardware, i do not know how viable it would be as the RAM requirements for that line of work would be probably higher than what the PS3 can handle but it would be worth thinking about.
A RenderBoxx solution would cost you in excess of tens of thousands of dollars while you can pick up 10 PS3s for around 3.000$, the same would be the case if you would buy Nvidias TESLA-based solutions for GPU computing.

This was very useful technology.

 

[donfuhrer]

Because YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A CAR!


I HATE that cliche saying! Fact is: You couldn't download a car.

Spoiler: sorry couldn't resist

[/spoiler]

The legal way to do this seems to be to buy 2 PS3s and update one's firmware, or they can just buy one if they just want to use it for non-game purposes. Everyone's happy right? :p

 

[RA92]

I was speaking of hackers in general. Events of late have left me somewhat unsympathetic.

There's a huge difference between hackers modifying consoles and crackers breaking into remote servers.

 

[BDNeon]

The guy didn't hack the network, he hacked his system to restore OtherOS. That's what fail0verflow is known for.

Something that I'm not clear on: what good is putting Linux on a PS3? I can see why it would be an interesting challenge for a single hacker to take on, but aside from the aforementioned software piracy, what's the practical application? What legal uses of a hacked PS3 would there be that isn't already possible on a computer?

some examples:

http://gravity.phy.umassd.edu/ps3.html

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/213076/u-s-military-building-ps3-supercomputer/

I.e it (was) a cheap alternative to creating large clusters of machines to conduct large-scale computations and research instead of buying comparable systems like CRAY provides.

This way small research teams with tight budgets could create their own clusters in stead of having to buy or rent computational time from larger clusters all over the world.
Animation companies would also consider buying several PS3s to run their own RenderFarm instead of renting hardware, i do not know how viable it would be as the RAM requirements for that line of work would be probably higher than what the PS3 can handle but it would be worth thinking about.
A RenderBoxx solution would cost you in excess of tens of thousands of dollars while you can pick up 10 PS3s for around 3.000$, the same would be the case if you would buy Nvidias TESLA-based solutions for GPU computing.

This was very useful technology.

And what part of those uses requires being able to connect to PSN and use recent games, etc? What's stopping them from continuing to use the old PS3s on old firmware without updating? Because as far as I know, nothing is. If they really do only want the PS3s as a renderfarm then why do they need modern firmware and PSN connectivity?

 

[Strazdas]

sadly, you cant sue sony for being greedy idiots. jailbreaking systems should not only be legal, it should be commendable. its merely enabling users to use the product they bought the way they should have been from the get go.

 

[Von Strimmer]

Sony would probably be better of selling a blank slate PS3. No OS on it or anything so people can do what they want with it.

Cause as it stands (like it or not) Sony has the right to dictate how it's software can be used. Same with Microsoft, Apple and any other company. You dont like it? deal with it... Or get into politics and change the system dont sit here whining and crying foul just because Sony wont bow to peoples every whim.

 

[Von Strimmer]

I heard that in a sdyney court its legal to be your own lawyer without having the right degrees

ot:arggh sony I was begginning to enjoy online play I beginning to think that sony hates hackers since the psn incident and pls change the title to modder since that is what he was doing. hackings things like dos attacks (maybe im wrong)

Pretty sure thats legit in any Australian court. It's frowned upon but it can be freely done.

 

[adamtm]

And what part of those uses requires being able to connect to PSN and use recent games, etc? What's stopping them from continuing to use the old PS3s on old firmware without updating? Because as far as I know, nothing is. If they really do only want the PS3s as a renderfarm then why do they need modern firmware and PSN connectivity?

Nothing, except you can't know which firmware you will get in the PS3 until you bought it as its not on the package.

Afaik, PS3s manufactured past 2010 have firmware 3.21+ pre-installed i.e. they have the functionality disabled by default and you can -NOT- roll back the update (unless you hack it, like the guy in the article thats going to jail for it).

This means you either have to:

A. buy second-hand hardware pre 2010 (not really an option if you are buying in bulk, also your mileage may vary with second hand consoles and their quality)
B. find a retailer that has pre 2010 PS3s in stock that he didn't get sold (unlikely and bothersome for retailers to actually check and still a gamble)

Additionally this brings with it the problem of the pre 2010s having older hardware, no support and no updates for the hardware like for example the region-free blu-ray fix in 3.30 or the SDK update leading to reduced RAM usage in the same update.
Oh also, theres only a fixed number of pre-2010 hardware manufactured, ie. if all that hardware breaks or gets used up by consumers, its game over.

Cause as it stands (like it or not) Sony has the right to dictate how it's software can be used. Same with Microsoft, Apple and any other company.

See this is the problem, its not about how its software can be used, but about how its hardware can be used. It sets a dangerous precedent of having your hardware locked down for a certain use by -means- of software, compare it to this idea:

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/23109-apple-bans-fanboys-from-filming-live-events

Wouldn't you cry foul?
Why doesn't anyone cry foul on this?

Is this your preferred future? Its not mine.

This is a battle between IP law and property law.

 

[Bostur]

The real issue from the point of view of Sony, of course is not related to piracy at all. Consoles are sold below cost, with the expectation that they cover the difference on the sale of games. So they don't want people to use the console as cheap PCs, without buying any games.

It's all about consumer lock-in. "Here have a cheap console now go buy some expensive games". The exact same thing happened with printer cartridges, and presently with cell phones.

All this could be avoided if they used transparent pricing, and the price of the devices actually was based on the cost of making them.

 

[ProjectTrinity]

"But I'm ready to stand up for everything I said and go to jail for that too. It's not important to win, more important is to show them that we are ready to fight, that they cannot scare me off easily. Yeah, I'm ready to go to jail for my believes [sic] and my principles."

You are instantly cooler than Geotroll.

However, Geotroll is the reason you hacked into your PS3 in the first place in order to get the lost function back. Not sure what that is....irony?

 

[Ranorak]

I find it hard to feel bad about these hackers.

Yes, Sony removed a feature from their console, because it enabled the easy abuse of running illegal games. Just like every other rule in history, the people that did use it properly will have to suck it up because others fucked it up.
So, if you want to blame anyone, blame the fuckers that use every opportunity to get out of paying for their games.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

Wonderful how Sony doesn't even need to win the court case, they just need to throw so much money at it that a man can't afford to defend himself.

Love how money can buy the law.

This man fixed a broken product, the PS3, which Sony deliberately broke.

It's like if your car manufacturer turned off the stereo in your car because they were worried some people might use it to play pirated music and then sent you to prison for fixing it!

Thats a stupid example. Stereo's can be easily bought at a radioshack or best buy, and replace the old one LEGALLY. Why does everyone resort to using cars as an example for software piracy.

So he bought a replacement and they sued him, the analogy still works. It doesn't matter how he did it, he restored functionality to a broken product.

A closer to home analogy, Microsoft block internet access from every windows PC because of the fact that pirates use the internet. You bought a windows PC with the expectation that you'd be able to access the internet. You circumvent that you get sued.

Edited for something that just occurred to me. You highlighted 'legally' in your post. What he did wasn't illegal, that's the whole point of this court case, to decide if a corporation has the right to stop you fixing your and others products once they've sold them to you.

Unfortunately because of how much money Sony has they don't need to prove he was in the wrong legally, he won't be able to fight his case so they win by default of being considerably richer.

Or a book you bought has no writing in it in case you show it to your friends.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

I find it hard to feel bad about these hackers.

Yes, Sony removed a feature from their console, because it enabled the easy abuse of running illegal games. Just like every other rule in history, the people that did use it properly will have to suck it up because others fucked it up.
So, if you want to blame anyone, blame the fuckers that use every opportunity to get out of paying for their games.

THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!

 

[Akisa]

Is there any way to donate money to his defense?

 

[iamultraman]

I don't know much about the situation the case resides in or the technicalities of said situation, but I think I can explain why some people think this guy should go to jail with a bit of dialogue.

"Does that mean the eco-terrorists win?"
"Yes, Stanley; this means that the eco-terrorists win."

The PS3 hackers are associated--whether directly or indirectly, or even willingly--with the PS3 crackers. And after the attacks, we're in a martial state; we can't molly-coddle criminals, or friends of criminals, or people not related to criminal activities at all. Abraham Lincoln believed this and while he's not necessarily the smartest man, he knew how to run an operation. (Also FDR did this so you can't polarize the debate between Liberals/Conservatives). I suppose this is the same as submitting to the "terror" of "terrorism" but we have to know when to pick our fights. What this man is doing is not a "clear and present danger," but a pretty solid representative of a problem we're all facing.

In other circumstances I would heavily side with the opposition. The arguments in this forum are pretty strong--car analogies aside, do we have to use anecdotal evidence?--but the times we live in does not allow for this case to be only about the case itself. It's a bit more.
Anyway I probably shouldn't say anything else, I don't really know what's going on, I think I'm going to leave the floor to everyone else.

Also there's been a long history of companies completely screwing over the macroeconomic system when they're not allowed to do what they do. Remember OSHA? .___. Just because there is an unfair practice or standard that doesn't mean it's automatically unacceptable. In fact, companies work when you let them do their mysterious work. Of course, there are then the things Apple passes which, by statement, are meant to truly mess with their users.

 

[rsvp42]

some examples:

http://gravity.phy.umassd.edu/ps3.html

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/213076/u-s-military-building-ps3-supercomputer/

I.e it (was) a cheap alternative to creating large clusters of machines to conduct large-scale computations and research instead of buying comparable systems like CRAY provides.

This way small research teams with tight budgets could create their own clusters in stead of having to buy or rent computational time from larger clusters all over the world.
Animation companies would also consider buying several PS3s to run their own RenderFarm instead of renting hardware, i do not know how viable it would be as the RAM requirements for that line of work would be probably higher than what the PS3 can handle but it would be worth thinking about.
A RenderBoxx solution would cost you in excess of tens of thousands of dollars while you can pick up 10 PS3s for around 3.000$, the same would be the case if you would buy Nvidias TESLA-based solutions for GPU computing.

This was very useful technology.

It's a shame Sony doesn't market a modified version for exactly that purpose. I can understand not wanting people to mod the PS3 because of piracy, but it's odd that some company somewhere doesn't try making a cheap system with comparable power that doesn't include the PS3 playability.

Funny that we keep running into each other, heh

 

[mike1921]

Breaking anti-piracy measures is supporting piracy you idiots.

Except when the anti piracy measures do things other than stop piracy. Also, since when is supporting piracy illegal? Piracy itself is illegal, but supporting it? If I give my friend a blank DVD that he's going to put a pirated movie on is that illegal? You keep on making gun analogies in your post so how about a different weapon now, knives. Lets say the ability to cut any flesh is removed from a popular brand of kitchen knives, would you be supporting murder if you made it so my high tech knife can now cut steak? no, ofcourse not. There are other uses for cutting flesh.

Also

it's only when you disable the protection that prevents you from running pirated content,

There is definitely a problem with that being illegal. Note that I bought a PS3, I didn't rent it. If I alter it/allow anyone else to alter their PS3s (that I say yet again they didn't rent) in anyway that isn't directly breaking a copyright law (aka: using pirated software) or something retarded like giving it a gun functionality Sony still shouldn't be able to do shit to me and any case they try to bring up should be laughed out of court.

 

[adamtm]

I can understand not wanting people to mod the PS3 because of piracy, but it's odd that some company somewhere doesn't try making a cheap system with comparable power that doesn't include the PS3 playability.

Funny that we keep running into each other, heh

The problem lies in the PS3s unique architecture, it has/had a lot of raw computing power but at the cost of not being really built like a "PC".
It uses special "Cell" chips developed by Sony and IBM, afaik patented, and sony doesnt really give them out to the competition. The next hurdle would be of course the manufacturing capacity, while Sony produced the PS3 for consumers as a non-specialized product the cost of it was way smaller (due to banking on getting the money back through licensed game-sales, thats how the console market works, you get cheaper hardware but more expensive games) so no company could even compete with this setup.

Its simple why the functionality was taken away and piracy is not even one of them. As said before the "crack" for the ps3 to play pirated games came one week before the update that turned the linux functionality off so the functionality is not the cause for the crack.
But let list the possible causes:

a. the PS3 was classified as a personal computer instead of a home console due to linux and therefore had tax-benefits, after it was approved as such, the decision is final, the functionality could be taken offline.
b. they did not want to sell PS3s in bulk to non-gaming consumers as this would offset their strategy to regain money with game-sales (i would guess they did get scared by that US military project as it could impact their business strategy if it was successful)
c. PS3s in clusters do not use PSN and are again lost sales in digital downloads/movies etc.

So to sum it all up its because of tax benefits and the fact that SONY manufactured hardware too powerful for the price it was sold at. Simply a corporation protecting their business.

But thats not what i see as the problem, the problem lies in the control over the hardware that i -own- as stated by property-law and what i can do with it. The dilemma is that SONY can exert power over my property right using Intellectual Property law (i.e. something completely out of their jurisdiction).

If i buy a chair (lets say its called "Bert") at IKEA: i can disassemble it, use the wood for another project, reverse-engineer it and create a better chair, use it as firewood, paint it a different color, i can sell it at triple the price because Obama sat on it, etc.

With IP "rights" i do not have any of those rights, i cant take a copy of Windows 7, pluck out a "leg" (the UI for example) and use it in my own OS called Doors 7 and then sell it for profit.

The whole issue with the PS3 is that the IP right bled into the property right, because its a central part of the hardware without which the machine cant run. If i take the PS3 at this moment and wipe its firmware, write my own software to run on it, i go to jail for some nebulous patent infringement and/or copyright infringement!