Price of keys...

  • (4 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

49 Replies - 6570 Views - Last Post: 08 February 2011 - 08:51 AM

#31 Choscura  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover


Reputation: 461
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,222
  • Joined: 18-October 08

Re: Price of keys...

Posted 01 February 2011 - 06:04 AM

the solution, of course, is to only jailbreak rented consoles.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#32 Creecher  Icon User is offline

  • I don't care
  • member icon

Reputation: 561
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,049
  • Joined: 06-March 10

Re: Price of keys...

Posted 01 February 2011 - 06:44 AM

Time to run a magnet through your hard drive. That or nuke it in the microwave.


Problem, ociffers?
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#33 lordofduct  Icon User is offline

  • I'm a cheeseburger
  • member icon


Reputation: 2533
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,633
  • Joined: 24-September 10

Re: Price of keys...

Posted 01 February 2011 - 08:08 AM

Ok... so Hotz didn't technically steal any copyrighted data. He wrote code that circumvented copyright protection features. Sony is suing under that clause of the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act), the very same clause that the US Gov't deemed cellphones excluded from.

This is a very gray area of the law that personally I don't think deems such a heavy hit. It's one of those bunk laws that was propped up by legislators who didn't quite understand what it was they were creating a law about.



I heard some comments about if some 14 year old hacked my software. Or any similar action taken against me and my intellectual property. To that I respond that I probably would not be happy, I would certainly take it as a learning experience, but I wouldn't go ape shit and sue the guy because I failed to do my job. If he had broken into my companies building or servers and stole the information necessary... that's one thing. He broke into my property. But if he reversed engineered my software... damn, good job sir.

That's like anything you can purchase. If I were to go and break into Acme and steal their blueprints for the "Auto-Magic Jack-Off Machine" and then go and reproduce it... that's illegal. But if I purchased an "Auto-Magic Jack-Off Machine" and take the thing apart, learn how it's made, and recreate my own version then damn you I did (with out infringing any patent laws... which is a whole other debate).

Patent laws is an issue though. But also keep in mind, Hotz isn't recreating Sony patented software. The code is his own code that happens to work in conjunction with Sony patented software.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#34 AdamSpeight2008  Icon User is offline

  • MrCupOfT
  • member icon


Reputation: 2251
  • View blog
  • Posts: 9,435
  • Joined: 29-May 08

Re: Price of keys...

Posted 01 February 2011 - 08:49 AM

I'd be careful of the Acme Auto-Magic Jack-Off Machine because a soon as it sense a Beep Beep, it'll either blow up or catapult you through the sky arcing all the way to canyon floor. Then to add insult to injure a boulder flattens you.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#35 lordofduct  Icon User is offline

  • I'm a cheeseburger
  • member icon


Reputation: 2533
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,633
  • Joined: 24-September 10

Re: Price of keys...

Posted 01 February 2011 - 08:55 AM

But at least I came.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#36 DaneAU  Icon User is offline

  • Great::Southern::Land
  • member icon

Reputation: 284
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,617
  • Joined: 15-May 08

Re: Price of keys...

Posted 02 February 2011 - 08:41 AM

The acquisition and clinical investigation into the hardware devices, storage devices and alike are no different to that of a search warrant issued by the court allowing seizing of potential evidence for crimes such as theft, heinous crimes of murder and rape, fraud and organised crime. Evidence is captured and presented in court to procure a solution or issue a judgement based on the applicable laws and the degree if any of the breach of such laws.

If anything the fact they are specifying only digital media technologies means that other propaganda cannot be used in this case. Things such as tickets to hacking conventions, financial records ( profit? ) if any for the alleged crimes.

Despite all the bullshit in the end the fact remains that Sony provide a Playstation as a hardware device to be used in conjunction with specific software designed for that device. One can in theory create software, however in doing so they will inevitably breach copyright laws on particular API's that are protected by Sony at law. In doing so Sony has obviously engineered a prickly and restrictive environment that is not in stead with the promotion of open and free software development. Which is their prerogative as a company. The inquisitive nature of the unknown will always lend itself to the slippery slope of reverse engineering, as such this has been presented in this situation. Often when i hear of these kinds of cases put up by large multinationals i try to deduce things down to the core issues and relate the alleged offences in terms of practicle common law examples. In practice this is almost certainly not the case as the laws of western countries are extremely complex.

Now for a simple example of modifying the operation of a device, engine or system that i would consider a relevant example to this particular case.

Consider a Combustion Engine. Each part is engineered to work with the next. One simple component within any engine could be a fixture such as a screw or nuts and bolt. Obviously there are optimal parts for each task specifically designed to work best within the system. Modifications on cars are as common as they come and purchasers have done so since their invention. A motor vehicle vendor cannot impose restrictions upon the purchaser as to what that car can be used for or how it can be modified. They can only void their own policies such as warranties for breaches of clearly defined rules; warranties can be challenged in court.

In fact the restrictions are limited inherently by the device and available complementary technologies for the device. The purchaser is free to modify at will in terms of the law. Now it differs in the outlined situation in that Governments can impose restrictions on what the purchaser and the vendor can do and or provide when it comes to the product. Vendors may be required at law to meet emission requirements, safety tests and engineering standards, whilst other common laws may be imposed on the purchaser to meet noise restrictions an obey speed limits.

In essence this is adaptable to Sony and the situation outlined in the first post of this topic. The vendor (Sony) is required to meet the technology and communication laws of the purchases country. Likewise the purchaser is to meet the acceptable use policies of the governing region. The vendor may then be required by law to abide by Acceptable Use Policies of the Vendor as a condition of the contract entered into upon using the product, only if that Policy is acceptable and tested at law in the given region. All these factors are the reasons why Sony takes these cases to court, they pad out a landscape of cases and precedence enabling them to further gauge the limits of their policies and restrict or for lack of a better word control how their products are used, distributed, disposed, exchanged, rented, on-sold or in this case modified if any apply.

This post has been edited by DaneAU: 02 February 2011 - 08:45 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#37 Choscura  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover


Reputation: 461
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,222
  • Joined: 18-October 08

Re: Price of keys...

Posted 02 February 2011 - 09:40 AM

Property rights are rights, not priveliges: if you buy something, you become the lawful custodian and bearer of that object, in that it is yours to have, use, hold, break, fix, and use in any way that you see fit, notwithstanding that you do not use it in such a way as to harm other people or infringe upon the free will of others.

This leads to the only common-sense leg that sony might have to stand on, and that is that if you modify a device they have produced and use it to disrupt the service that they provide to other customers, then they should legally have the right to ban you from using their service, and the courts (not sony itself) should have the option to consider taking away the modified hardware.


all of this is useless, of course, because it's all based on the world being fair, logical, and adhering to basic standards of common sense and decency, and this obviously isn't the case, as evidenced by the fact that Sony is happier taking a giant corporate shit on all of its users in order to thwart anybody that uses its products in an unintended way rather than it is with a sensible approach of... well, there are so many to choose from that I'm not sure which I should mention.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#38 DaneAU  Icon User is offline

  • Great::Southern::Land
  • member icon

Reputation: 284
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,617
  • Joined: 15-May 08

Re: Price of keys...

Posted 02 February 2011 - 08:07 PM

It depends solely on what you are buying. You are buying a product to play games and perform media tasks of a few natures. The fact you paid for a device means literally nothing in that enclosed within the device and its realms is a condition of use as part of a purchase. If you breach that you forgo the right to use the device even within its intended nature, the right is reserved to seize the device in this circumstance. I am sure if you read all the fine print there will be something to that effect.

Basically it comes down to the fact digital media has not been sufficiently tested and legislators are yet to grasp the beast in a holistic way. The laws are policies are not defined clear enough and it won't until these pioneering companies ( Sony, Apple, Microsoft, Google ) are sufficiently held to account by the people for their actions and policies, testing them in the courts and voting for modifications through the governmental channels.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#39 AdamSpeight2008  Icon User is offline

  • MrCupOfT
  • member icon


Reputation: 2251
  • View blog
  • Posts: 9,435
  • Joined: 29-May 08

Re: Price of keys...

Posted 02 February 2011 - 08:32 PM

My point is you have to buy the sealed product to read the Ts & Cs they should readable through the seal.
Next time your shopping for a product have a look at to see how many do.

Web address to them doesn't count in my opinion.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#40 DaneAU  Icon User is offline

  • Great::Southern::Land
  • member icon

Reputation: 284
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,617
  • Joined: 15-May 08

Re: Price of keys...

Posted 02 February 2011 - 09:06 PM

Yea that is true indeed AdamSpeight2008 and i agree with that 100%. It is a deceptive practice. For arguments sake a majority of people are not concerned with the T&C in that they just want to play games. Its a relatively small number of people who buy these products to modify how they operate.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#41 lordofduct  Icon User is offline

  • I'm a cheeseburger
  • member icon


Reputation: 2533
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,633
  • Joined: 24-September 10

Re: Price of keys...

Posted 03 February 2011 - 07:55 AM

WARNING - super long post ahead. This was a response to everything DaneAU said and he said a lot, so my response was a lot.



1) just because some law somewhere says that it is allowed does not mean we must agree with it. Yes the DMCA allows SCEA to legally create a license agreement that allows them to sue on these grounds (in which no copyright was broken, but instead that a piece of code was written, which would with further work allow someone else to potentially break a copyright). But that doesn't mean the laws outlined in the DMCA are right, and in my opinion, they are tilted STRONGLY in the favour of the companies.

2) This is a civil case, SCEA is SUING Hotz. Your comparing this impound of his personal hardware to that of evidence in a criminal case (like murder, rape, etc), doesn't really weight ground. Well it might in AU, but not here in the states where the case is taking place.

3) Laws restricting a users rights to alter something they own only cover one majour thing... that it doesn't restrict the rights of others (again here in the gun toting states, I don't know about kangaroo land). In some states I'm not allowed to legally drive my car on the road if I've modified the engine to spew out 3 times as much carbon dioxide... because it has the potential of harming other people.

Here's the thing though... a) driving on public roads is a privilege the state holds the right to revoke b ) this only pertains to public terrain where your state considered innability to drive pertains.

That's right, say you grew up on a huge lot of land (I did), you can freely drive your car around your pasture or field with no license, the car doesn't have to be registered or insured... though your health and home owners insurance might be annoyed, but no law exists saying saying you can't.

Even if you alter your vehicle so that it is no longer 'legal'... wait sorry, that's supposed to 'street legal'. They can ban you from driving down main street, but they can't impound your vehicle. Unless that is you drove it down main street... which that is then a criminal act. Like with Hotz's code... he wrote his code (modified his car), but he didn't use it to break copyright (drive it down main street).

Think motor parks where amateurs race... most of the rules there are either imposed by insurance companies who would otherwise refuse to cover the park, or are safety laws equivalent to that of having a certain number of fire exits. I can go there with a non-street legal car, hauled on a trailer, and race it. A monster-truck, race car, a freakin trator modified with jet engines. I can pour jet fuel into any of my vehicles if I want (hydrogen peroxide concentrates is what is commonly used)! (NASCAR might not allow it, not because it's illegal, but because it doesn't meet the guidelines of their game).

There are OTHER laws we can point out that restrict a purchasers ability to modify products they own, but they nearly always deal with either infringing on the rights of others, making some public area unsafe for others, or if the device breaks any rules granted by a limiting privilege (road use for example). For example I can't legally build a nuclear warhead... but did you know I can build a tank... it's not the tank that's a problem. It's if I load on some weapon (deadly device) that is considered illegal.

4) You bring up license agreements... that are hidden inside the packaging and a lot of people don't know they're implicitly being tethered too. They never read it, they were never told to read it, they never signed the contract... instead the contract says by purchasing the device you are bound to it... but you didn't know this until you purchased the device.... if anything, that should be illegal!

But this imposing the idea that I have to license my videogame console!? That implies that SCEA owns my video game console, and that I'm essentially renting the ability to use it in a way that fits their choices. But we don't gain any of the benefits of when one (usually companies) licenses other hardware.

5) Let's compare this to other technologies... not to cars, or to criminal acts like murder and rape. But to civil issues. There are many regulated systems out there. Tele-Communications is a big one... lets take television specifically, it has been around for awhile and has HUGE stipulations.

Cable labs - oh yey, these bastards who some how were granted the ability to to tell us what we can do and watch with the tv signals licensed to us by our cable provider. They restrict some hot topic shit... and there are laws that are punishable criminally surrounding it. Let's look at this though...

Licensed/rented hardware - you can license hardware from your cable provider. You pay a fee for it, the simpler devices sometimes come included in your service... but if you want say a DVR or an HD capable box... you might pay 2 to 10 dollars a month renting the device. This is licensing, and this is how licensing is supposed to work. I can't modify this device because I don't own it... IF I modify it though, it's not illegal. Instead my cable provider can charge me the cost of the device. It's like 400 dollars. That's it, you pay for the hardware you destroyed. This is the same as any hardware you usually license anywhere... thing is sometimes the 'cost' is massive, and you do whatever you can not to void the agreement in the license.

Purchased hardware - I can purchase the hardware. I own my own cable box, just like I own my own cable modem, I don't license my phone or tv... at a time in the past you 'could', but today that doesn't make sense. This hardware, which I own, I can modify all I want! I can take my cable box and modify it to do whatever I want. Shit if I can (with-out breaking copyright laws) make the box 'capable' of decrypting my cable signal with out me having to pay... I can. It's not until I plugged that device into the cable streaming into my house and actually perform the decryption that i begin to break the law. See cable labs can't control what I do in the house, their governance comes all the way up to where the cable enters my property. I can't go out to the street, climb the pole, and hook myself up. But if they were dumb enough to leave the cable laying in my yard... free game! It's not until I go onto their cables and actually begin to decrypt any protected signals. But the Free QAM signals on the line, those are mine to have, for free. Yep, if the cable makes it on my property for whatever reason (I pay them, or they're dumb), those Free QAM signals are mine, and I can do whatever I want to my hardware to access them.

Shit, I built my own DVR cable receiver. Tons of hobbiests do it, you just need a computer, a capture card, and some software (mythtv, windows media center, etc). Even digital signals can be had, there are tons of bits of hardware the grab clear QAM from the air or off cable lines. As for encrypted signals theres a few devices that are heavily restricted, but accept cable cards so that way I can grab a hold of the signal. This latter is a hot topic in the television hobbyist field... but in the same respect the law is still the same as the boxes above. It's not until I actually begin decrypting those copyrighted signals that I'm actually breaking the law. I can develop a device that can all I want in my own house. I just can't hook it up to my cable providers network and start decrypting their signals.




The DMCA completely changed these laws when it came to media. And personally, I feel it's unconstitutional, and well pretty fucking dickish.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 03 February 2011 - 08:10 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#42 Gorian  Icon User is offline

  • ninja DIC
  • member icon

Reputation: 120
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,681
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Re: Price of keys...

Posted 04 February 2011 - 03:12 AM

Since I can't up rep you, I will say, I enjoyed reading that. Informative, good grammar, and stated well. :)

This post has been edited by Gorian: 08 February 2011 - 02:51 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#43 Magixion  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Addict



Reputation: 26
  • View blog
  • Posts: 634
  • Joined: 12-March 09

Re: Price of keys...

Posted 04 February 2011 - 11:40 AM

lod, it seems we agree on a topic for once. :)
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#44 lordofduct  Icon User is offline

  • I'm a cheeseburger
  • member icon


Reputation: 2533
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,633
  • Joined: 24-September 10

Re: Price of keys...

Posted 04 February 2011 - 12:24 PM

I really would like to repeat my dismay with the supposed 'contracts' that basically go as:

"by purchasing this product you agree to the following terms and conditions that aren't readable until you've purchased the product"

and

Quote

Yea that is true indeed AdamSpeight2008 and i agree with that 100%. It is a deceptive practice. For arguments sake a majority of people are not concerned with the T&C in that they just want to play games. Its a relatively small number of people who buy these products to modify how they operate.


It doesn't matter if only a relatively small number are actually concerned in the Terms & Conditions. Most people when buying just about anything with a contract (car, house, insurance, etc), usually aren't concerned about that part all that much (the joke is no one completely reads the entire things). But the law still stands on those that the contract must be displayed prior to any terms that put the contract into action.

The way these consumer electronics set it up is essentially the same as saying "by reading this contract you agree to it"... no, I can't agree to it until I freakin' read it! And a contract that isn't legitimately agreed upon isn't a valid agreement... by law.

So why the fuck is it that these contracts are treated as legal!? I hope there's an explanation, I'm not in law, so the hell if I know. But whatever it is, from the end-user perspective it sounds like a dick move. Joe Blow might not read his car loan in full before signing the dotted line, but at least he was given the choice... and most importantly it was choice displayed to him. Not a choice that is placed at an external location (the website) and the purchaser is never told about it.

That's like buying a car, then being told:

"oh yeah, there's a contract that can be found in the basement of your library that says we can increase your interest rate every time you fart in our car. That's right it's still our car. You should have known to go to the library and dig through the basement before coming here... ha ha ha! Oh yeah, you think you didn't sign this contract, but the fact you drove our car makes it binding. So says the contract."




I would like to point out, I have been noticing software has recently been putting terms and conditions on the outside of their software more often. Or at least statement that "if you purchase this product you will have to agree to a EULA that can be found at such-and-such".

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 04 February 2011 - 12:34 PM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#45 modi123_1  Icon User is online

  • Suitor #2
  • member icon



Reputation: 9059
  • View blog
  • Posts: 34,014
  • Joined: 12-June 08

Re: Price of keys...

Posted 04 February 2011 - 01:05 PM

Clearly

Quote

Thereís no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so youíve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and itís far too late to start making a fuss about it now. Ö What do you mean youíve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heavenís sake, mankind, itís only four light years away, you know. Iím sorry, but if you canít be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, thatís your own lookout. Energize the demolition beams. (HGTtG)

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

  • (4 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4