surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
"Because a hacker can do WHATEVER they want to THEIR hardware."
Hacking software with code to put OtherOS back on the PS3 isn't hardware, dude.
That's what you people don't seem to understand, we own the hardware. We lease the software though, it's still the property of the manufacturer. All 3 consoles do this.
The last I remember no one is altering Hardware of any kind, and no one seems to be using the hacks for anything but piracy. No one seems to care if they bring back OtherOS or not.
This is coming from someone who had Yellow Dog running on his PS3.
Hacking software with code to put OtherOS back on the PS3 isn't hardware, dude.
That's what you people don't seem to understand, we own the hardware. We lease the software though, it's still the property of the manufacturer. All 3 consoles do this.
The last I remember no one is altering Hardware of any kind, and no one seems to be using the hacks for anything but piracy. No one seems to care if they bring back OtherOS or not.
This is coming from someone who had Yellow Dog running on his PS3.
In the literal sense, no, your hacking the software, but what I was trying to get at is this:
Am I allowed to simply overwrite the PS3 OS with one of my own creation, provided I don't use it for pirating? Yes, I can. I can make a custom version of linux and turn it into a PC. Or install Windows on it (legal license obviously) if I really wanted to. Or my own customized version of the PS3 OS with otherOS reenabled, PROVIDED of course that is all it does, and I am completely in my rights to do so. When you start using it for pirating however, then you don't have my sympathy.
"no one seems to be using the hacks for anything but piracy. No one seems to care if they bring back OtherOS or not. "
And that would make them pirates, or hacker/pirates. What I was trying to do is make the distinction between pirate and hacker, which are not the same thing, despite what most people on this site seem to think.
Am I allowed to simply overwrite the PS3 OS with one of my own creation, provided I don't use it for pirating? Yes, I can. I can make a custom version of linux and turn it into a PC. Or install Windows on it (legal license obviously) if I really wanted to. Or my own customized version of the PS3 OS with otherOS reenabled, PROVIDED of course that is all it does, and I am completely in my rights to do so. When you start using it for pirating however, then you don't have my sympathy.
"no one seems to be using the hacks for anything but piracy. No one seems to care if they bring back OtherOS or not. "
And that would make them pirates, or hacker/pirates. What I was trying to do is make the distinction between pirate and hacker, which are not the same thing, despite what most people on this site seem to think.
To elaborate, if I bought an HP desktop, regardless of the OS it is preinstalled with (Windows or Linux), I can remove it or change it to my liking, within certain legal boundries. And HP cannot have any say in the matter, except maybe voiding my warranty, which I'm ok with, since its a drawback I'm willing to live with.
Nyktharas pretty much nailed it. All this "The hardware is mines, I do whats I wants with it" bit is tiresome.
I'd wager like five percent of the people that say they homebrew actually homebrew and the other 95 percent are just there to pirate shit under whatever flag of reasoning they want to fly at the time. "Companies are greedy," "just for back-ups" and "as long as we're not selling it for personal profit its OK."
Pick one or make one of your own.
"Just for back-ups" always struck me as funny because the game is usually pretty safe when I place it back in its case and put it back on the shelf. Physical media doesn't corrupt that often, so that only leaves accidents, fire or theft. How often do those happen to a person to constantly need back-ups?
Anyway, the piracy discussion usually just turns into a big circle jerk. I know hackers want to keep their distinction from people who just pirate, but it seems they often enable pirates or have an interest in piracy themselves.
Real hackers are like magicians and ninjas. They work in the dark, work in secrecy, know the art of misdirection and never tell anyone how they do what they do.
I'd wager like five percent of the people that say they homebrew actually homebrew and the other 95 percent are just there to pirate shit under whatever flag of reasoning they want to fly at the time. "Companies are greedy," "just for back-ups" and "as long as we're not selling it for personal profit its OK."
Pick one or make one of your own.
"Just for back-ups" always struck me as funny because the game is usually pretty safe when I place it back in its case and put it back on the shelf. Physical media doesn't corrupt that often, so that only leaves accidents, fire or theft. How often do those happen to a person to constantly need back-ups?
Anyway, the piracy discussion usually just turns into a big circle jerk. I know hackers want to keep their distinction from people who just pirate, but it seems they often enable pirates or have an interest in piracy themselves.
Real hackers are like magicians and ninjas. They work in the dark, work in secrecy, know the art of misdirection and never tell anyone how they do what they do.
Then that 5% would be hackers, and the 95% would be pirates. I don't care what they say to justify it, they are pirates. Ergo, thieves, and I will not defend them in any way.
Enabling and stuff like that is an ethical thing, which isn't something I wanted to touch on as that is a much grayer area. For example, I personally think geohotz could have handled the whole thing alot better instead of releasing it all over the net for all to see. But legally speaking, he has done nothing wrong, because he hasn't provided tools or instructions to pirate. Just to sign any software as legit.
What anyone does with that afterwards is on their head, not his. Sony should be going after them, not him, because legally he didn't do anything wrong when he released the master key. Of course if someone were to point me in the direction of a law that explicitly states this cannot be done, then I shall reconsider my stance.
Enabling and stuff like that is an ethical thing, which isn't something I wanted to touch on as that is a much grayer area. For example, I personally think geohotz could have handled the whole thing alot better instead of releasing it all over the net for all to see. But legally speaking, he has done nothing wrong, because he hasn't provided tools or instructions to pirate. Just to sign any software as legit.
What anyone does with that afterwards is on their head, not his. Sony should be going after them, not him, because legally he didn't do anything wrong when he released the master key. Of course if someone were to point me in the direction of a law that explicitly states this cannot be done, then I shall reconsider my stance.
And to reiterate, I am not trying to defend pirates, because I'm not. Just trying to make the distinction between a pirate and a hacker, because again, they are not the same thing.
You say this as if you have power over Sony. You don't, so don't think you can. But on the matter of piracy, yeah it's illegal, we've established that.
*sigh*
Why would I think I have power over them? I know I don't. I know piracy is illegal, I am not trying to defend it. The whole purpose of this blog was to put forward the argument that pirates and hackers are not the same thing. As in hackers are doing legal things, pirates aren't.
Ergo, Sony shouldn't (my opinion, not a demand, notice the difference?) be going after them, they should be going after the people actually, you know, breaking the law.
Why would I think I have power over them? I know I don't. I know piracy is illegal, I am not trying to defend it. The whole purpose of this blog was to put forward the argument that pirates and hackers are not the same thing. As in hackers are doing legal things, pirates aren't.
Ergo, Sony shouldn't (my opinion, not a demand, notice the difference?) be going after them, they should be going after the people actually, you know, breaking the law.
@silent protagonist
your comparison is correct. white hats are very hard to come by these days. i only know 1 other white hat because we both handle a boy scouts group
your comparison is correct. white hats are very hard to come by these days. i only know 1 other white hat because we both handle a boy scouts group
There is a distinction. Hackers are the people who open things up and see if they can do things JUST to see if they can do things. Hackers are also notorious trolls. You can't really debate this, hacker culture is littered with the attitude that you're better than someone else, thus it's fully in your rights to harass and destroy that other person. We USED to call these people Crackers vs. hackers but considering all hacking nowadays either directly or indirectly (ie: PS3 hacking) breaks the Hacker Code of Ethics of old, there is really no distinction left. Whether intentional or unintentional, these hacks are causing harm.
But because the hackers are paving the way in new and exciting ways to be pricks, expect the wannabesto take the fruit of their labors and push it far too long. For example, a hacker will fuck with the code in Killzone 3 only long enought to get jetpacks always on. Maybe mess with godmode. Get a cheap thrill out of it and move onto the other thing. But he'll tell others how to do it because all information is free and anything less is simply evil man holding the population down, man. Meanwhile, groups of people looking to boost their stats or who cannot take the thought of losing a match will use these hacks, in every match, and then other players will have to use the hacks as well to level the playing field.
This exclusive club will know what's going on but what about Bob? Bob's a middle aged factory worker coming home from a long, long day and wants to relax. He logs in, bam, he's dead. "I'm just not good enough," thinks Bob. So he plays again, bam, he's dead. Next thing you know, he's gone four matches, 2 kills, 90 deaths, and his reaction is "fuck this game." Bob gets annoyed, switches games, and discovers similar problems in Hot Pursuit. Shruggingly, he moves onto Madden 2011 and loses 178 to 3 because of a very large number of 78 yard passes. Bob has officially been raped by Hackers. As much as I appreciate the intentions on Hackers on some level, the results of their labors is a horrible experience all around. The distinction is made and I understand it, I just don't like them anymore. And that's because NONE of them go by the code of ethics.
But because the hackers are paving the way in new and exciting ways to be pricks, expect the wannabesto take the fruit of their labors and push it far too long. For example, a hacker will fuck with the code in Killzone 3 only long enought to get jetpacks always on. Maybe mess with godmode. Get a cheap thrill out of it and move onto the other thing. But he'll tell others how to do it because all information is free and anything less is simply evil man holding the population down, man. Meanwhile, groups of people looking to boost their stats or who cannot take the thought of losing a match will use these hacks, in every match, and then other players will have to use the hacks as well to level the playing field.
This exclusive club will know what's going on but what about Bob? Bob's a middle aged factory worker coming home from a long, long day and wants to relax. He logs in, bam, he's dead. "I'm just not good enough," thinks Bob. So he plays again, bam, he's dead. Next thing you know, he's gone four matches, 2 kills, 90 deaths, and his reaction is "fuck this game." Bob gets annoyed, switches games, and discovers similar problems in Hot Pursuit. Shruggingly, he moves onto Madden 2011 and loses 178 to 3 because of a very large number of 78 yard passes. Bob has officially been raped by Hackers. As much as I appreciate the intentions on Hackers on some level, the results of their labors is a horrible experience all around. The distinction is made and I understand it, I just don't like them anymore. And that's because NONE of them go by the code of ethics.
True, hackers have their fair share of douches as well. For instance as much as I think Hotz is legally in the right, I don't like him. He probably did know that he was going to be enabling pirates to some degree, no one is that naive, but legally speaking he didn't create the pirating tools or the instructions to do so. So he's in the clear.
However, if he had for example gone to Sony directly and helped them fix it instead, everyone would be happy. But he didn't. Eh, I'm not sure where I'm going with this anymore. I guess I brought this up because I like opening things up and changing their innards and how they work just to prove I can do it, and I know other people like that as well, and seeing people associate that kind of person to a common thief bugs me.
However, if he had for example gone to Sony directly and helped them fix it instead, everyone would be happy. But he didn't. Eh, I'm not sure where I'm going with this anymore. I guess I brought this up because I like opening things up and changing their innards and how they work just to prove I can do it, and I know other people like that as well, and seeing people associate that kind of person to a common thief bugs me.
Sorry but I'm not inclined to accept your word on the matter. Is there any chance you could substantiate each point where you claim something to be legal or illegal? Particularly that fourth paragraph.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117
"§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs54
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."
Thats one excerpt that I found that, if my language skills don't fail me, backs up my point, but feel free to tear me a new one if I somehow misinterpreted it.
As for my line of reasoning, it goes something like this:
Say I buy a PS3 (or a PC or an xbox or any particular electronic with an OS) Then lets say I want it to do something that isn't supported out of the box but isn't illegal (like activating otherOS, which harms no ones intellectual property, or give it a different media player or browser or anything like that, ala Xbox Media Center) If I made an OS of my own that's very similar to the original but adds that functionality. As far as I am aware, I am not stealing anything. If Sony deems this reason enough to terminate my access to PSN, I have no problem with that, as it is completely within their right (same as you void a warranty when modifying any electronic)
So if a friend asked me how I did it, how is it wrong for me to tell him how? Keeping in mind that so far no intellectual laws have been broken as far as I know, then so far everything is gravy.
Now say said friend uses it for something illegal (case in point, abusing otherOS to play pirated games) For the sake or argument lets say I considered it a possibility that he would do it, but didn't tell him how and he used my work to find a wait to do this. Ethically speaking, I'm partially guilty, because I did enable him in a way, but I never pirated anything or tell anyone how to do it.
So in a court of law, who would seem the person who would logically get sued, him or me? In my opinion, it would be guy 2, seeing as he was the one who took it into illegal territory, not me.
"§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs54
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."
Thats one excerpt that I found that, if my language skills don't fail me, backs up my point, but feel free to tear me a new one if I somehow misinterpreted it.
As for my line of reasoning, it goes something like this:
Say I buy a PS3 (or a PC or an xbox or any particular electronic with an OS) Then lets say I want it to do something that isn't supported out of the box but isn't illegal (like activating otherOS, which harms no ones intellectual property, or give it a different media player or browser or anything like that, ala Xbox Media Center) If I made an OS of my own that's very similar to the original but adds that functionality. As far as I am aware, I am not stealing anything. If Sony deems this reason enough to terminate my access to PSN, I have no problem with that, as it is completely within their right (same as you void a warranty when modifying any electronic)
So if a friend asked me how I did it, how is it wrong for me to tell him how? Keeping in mind that so far no intellectual laws have been broken as far as I know, then so far everything is gravy.
Now say said friend uses it for something illegal (case in point, abusing otherOS to play pirated games) For the sake or argument lets say I considered it a possibility that he would do it, but didn't tell him how and he used my work to find a wait to do this. Ethically speaking, I'm partially guilty, because I did enable him in a way, but I never pirated anything or tell anyone how to do it.
So in a court of law, who would seem the person who would logically get sued, him or me? In my opinion, it would be guy 2, seeing as he was the one who took it into illegal territory, not me.
... what Nyktharas said.
... what Sheppy said.
... essentially Hackers can turn their PS3's into DVR's or toasters for all anyone cares... they just can't reverse engineer or alter code. This breaks the EULA.
... what Sheppy said.
... essentially Hackers can turn their PS3's into DVR's or toasters for all anyone cares... they just can't reverse engineer or alter code. This breaks the EULA.
@FM
That first exerpt states that the creation or alteration of copywritten code for purposes beyond those detailed by the copywrite holder (or in this case, as is expressed in the EULA) is an infringement (as it is in this case a non-essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is being used in other manners than expressly permitted.) It's fairly tricky to read, though, so my understanding may be wrong.
That first exerpt states that the creation or alteration of copywritten code for purposes beyond those detailed by the copywrite holder (or in this case, as is expressed in the EULA) is an infringement (as it is in this case a non-essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is being used in other manners than expressly permitted.) It's fairly tricky to read, though, so my understanding may be wrong.
As someone reminded me on another blog, this isn't the first time someone took Hotz to court over something like this. This was when he managed to jailbreak an iPhone or an iPod touch (can't remember exactly which one it was) and the court deemed it legal, since it wasn't directly enabling any illegal activity. And this is in essence the same thing. And correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that law and legal precedent trumps any company's EULA, every time.
In both cases people abused it for piracy, certainly, but it wasn't Hotz's fault, it was theirs. It's an undesirable side effect, to be sure, and I wish people didn't use it for that but in the end since they were the ones who found a way to make it work that way, I don't believe Hotz should be condemned for their actions.
And yes, law for anyone but a lawyer is incredibly difficult to understand.
In both cases people abused it for piracy, certainly, but it wasn't Hotz's fault, it was theirs. It's an undesirable side effect, to be sure, and I wish people didn't use it for that but in the end since they were the ones who found a way to make it work that way, I don't believe Hotz should be condemned for their actions.
And yes, law for anyone but a lawyer is incredibly difficult to understand.
Well, you sidestepped my point...
Anyway, from what I've gathered, Hotz' jailbreaking of the iPhone is legal as it equates to unlocking a cellphone - an act considered legal through an exemption to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
"His caution stems from the murky legal status of unlocking cellphones.
Last fall, the Librarian of Congress issued an exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, ruling that people can legally unlock their cellphones. But the ruling does not specifically apply to people like Mr. Hotz and the iPhoneSimFree group who distribute the unlocking tools."
Link
It's difficult to find a good source but this seems to be the basis for the legality of his jailbreaking of the iPhone. As you can see, the PS3 issue is too different for the same ruling to be made.
Anyway, from what I've gathered, Hotz' jailbreaking of the iPhone is legal as it equates to unlocking a cellphone - an act considered legal through an exemption to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
"His caution stems from the murky legal status of unlocking cellphones.
Last fall, the Librarian of Congress issued an exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, ruling that people can legally unlock their cellphones. But the ruling does not specifically apply to people like Mr. Hotz and the iPhoneSimFree group who distribute the unlocking tools."
Link
It's difficult to find a good source but this seems to be the basis for the legality of his jailbreaking of the iPhone. As you can see, the PS3 issue is too different for the same ruling to be made.
Link
How are they different? From what I can tell, but again I may be wrong here, is that jailbreaking and what Hotz did with the PS3 amounts to the same thing: giving a device that you own a functionality that it is capable of but isn't available as standard (or in the PS3's case, removed in a less than savory way), with both having the negative side effects of people abusing it for illegal activity which is not the fault of the guy who made it possible to jailbreak, but of the people who worked to use said jailbreaking for illegal activity.
How are they different? From what I can tell, but again I may be wrong here, is that jailbreaking and what Hotz did with the PS3 amounts to the same thing: giving a device that you own a functionality that it is capable of but isn't available as standard (or in the PS3's case, removed in a less than savory way), with both having the negative side effects of people abusing it for illegal activity which is not the fault of the guy who made it possible to jailbreak, but of the people who worked to use said jailbreaking for illegal activity.
@Nyktharas
As am I, the frontpage sometimes seems to bring out the worst in people, but the cblogs are rather soothing without all the noise. Unless its a trollblog or an uggboots ad.
As am I, the frontpage sometimes seems to bring out the worst in people, but the cblogs are rather soothing without all the noise. Unless its a trollblog or an uggboots ad.
Cheers. That certainly puts to rest my claim of each cases' separation in terms of legality of form. Although you've done a fair bit to convince me of the legality of Hotz' work, a sneaking suspicion remains that the distinction lies somewhere in the details, although I can't put my finger on it.
