Sony's Case Against Geohot Has Been Settled 469
matt_gaia writes "According to Sony Computer Entertainment America, they have reached a settlement with GeoHot (George Hotz), where Hotz has consented to a permanent injunction, but still denies any wrong-doing in the whole affair. Sony said, 'Our motivation for bringing this litigation was to protect our intellectual property and our consumers. We believe this settlement and the permanent injunction achieve this goal.'"
I wonder if Anonymous will proceed with their anti-Sony campaign.
Oh, stuff it. (Score:5, Insightful)
'Our motivation for bringing this litigation was to protect our intellectual property and our consumers.'
If SCEA was ever interested in protecting consumers, they never would have brought suit against GeoHot in the first place.
Re:Oh, stuff it. (Score:5, Insightful)
That part is so they can act like part of the motivation is so people don't write hacks to their modded systems that lets them cheat at the on-line games.
I'm of the opinion that it's 99% protecting of their IP/locking down the console, and 1% protecting consumers ... and even that only as a PR thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but never publicly.
If you don't keep up the illusion that "consumers" means the end users who buy the console and the games, the rubes might actually take notice and get annoyed with you.
You can't let them know that they're just sheep and a revenue stream and that anything they want is irrelevant. They are the source of cash, after all.
Re:Oh, stuff it. (Score:4, Interesting)
It basically says that Hotz (and associates) can't mess with Sony's stuff any more (distribute a 'circumvention device') or encourage other to do so unless congress or an other court rules that Sony's terms of service aren't legal or enforceable. If he breaks this agreement then he has to pay 10k each time, up to a cap of 250k. It also says that if there are further disputes about this from Sony they will be in a California court, and from Hotz they will be in a New Jersey court.
Re:Oh, stuff it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I responded many years ago before the rootkit by not buying Sony products and by recommending Samsung, LG, or even Vizio screens for clients who need large wall-mounted screens in their offices, conference rooms, etc.
I started avoided Sony when I found their replacement parts costs to be obscene when I wanted to repair my DVP-S360 DVD player - I paid a premium for the Sony for the feature set (mainly the full-feature front-panel controls) and it turned out the entire run was bad and became known for failing just after warranty. I priced out replacement parts but by then competitors were offering DVD players that could play various mpeg4 videos and the part I needed cost more than competitor offerings, and I could even get a Sony DVD player for a few dollars more.
Another thing is in a lot of Sony products they use resistors in place of fuses, making troubleshooting more time consuming. Between that and cold solder joints in their televisions, it was obvious Sony decided to just start phoning it in, earning sales now based on their past reputation for being innovators and a quality manufacturer.
Now they engage in shameless malfeasance (installing rootkits on hard drives of legitimate paying customers), engage in fraud (sell product based on features, e.g., OtherOS, and then take it away) and then attack the consumer directly when they try to take back control of their own hardware and help others enjoy their right of first sale.
Then, in various products (from MP3 players to notebooks to cameras) they kept pushing their stupid MemoryStick form factor, despite the existence of very workable existing standards (CF, MMC/SD, or even XD), an obvious means to increase revenue through their own costly proprietary (yet slow and low capacity) sole-sourced accessories.
When did this pattern start? Remember when Sony used to be pro consumer (e.g., sony walkman, VCRs and the betamax case, dual deck cassette systems, etc)? Did their anti-consumer agenda start when Sony bought up music labels?
Frak Sony. They're not too large to fail and if enough people say ENOUGH, they will either fail or they will change their ways and bring back the Sony we once knew.
Re: (Score:2)
in the 70's and 80's, sony was a respected hardware maker. their audio gear ranged from cheap to very very fine. they made a lot of high end pro audio gear, too.
in the 90's they started to lose themselves.
in the 00's, they totally jumped the shark and I've been avoiding them and their products since.
the brand is dead to me as much as possible. I can't control any internal sony parts or chips but I can at least avoid paying for sony gear that is branded sony.
my life has not suffered one bit. there isn't
Only Sony makes Rickrolls (Score:2)
here isn't one thing sony makes that ONLY sony makes.
Only Sony makes "Never Gonna Give You Up" by Rick Astley.
you can live a sony-free life pretty easily.
How do I go into a grocery store without hearing Sony music?
Re: (Score:2)
Shop at farmers' markets. 'round here, they usually don't have music playing.
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree. The last *good* products Sony made were the Walkman's. After that they became a POS brand that replied on the reputation they built in the 80's.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is their BLuRay play is one of very FEW that have discreet on and off signals. Required for anyone that has a real home theater or for board room automation. LG being retarded removed discrete on and off ir commands. Panasonic designed all their BLuray players to be for the brain dead and hostile to automation by removing almost all discreet commands.
Only other choice is to go to a $4500.00 denon pro BluRay that does not play a bluray any better than a $199 unit.
Re: (Score:2)
That and movies. When they incorporated content into their business model, they lost their way.
Re: (Score:2)
Frak you! :P
Re:Oh, stuff it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sony could help but dismiss as fast as possible once they realized they didn't even have a shred of a case in california. I'd bet money the settlement involves paying off all of Hotz's legal fees.
It cracks me up that they state that hotz accepted a permanent injunction as a "loss" but it doesn't even say what the injunction was for.
So Sony basically ran the hell away on this. I'm actually quite surprised if Hotz agreed to keep this settlement private, as it would do wonders to not have it private.
Re: (Score:3)
This was a quick settlement to avoid a precedent.
GeoHot settlement info... (Score:3)
It basically says that Hotz (ans associates) can't mess with Sony's shit (distribute a 'circumvention device') or encourage other to do so any more unless congress or an other court rules that Sony's terms of service aren't legal or enforceable. If he does then he has to pay 10k each time, up to a cap of 250k. It also says that if there are further disputes about this from they will be California, and from Hotz they will be in New Jersey.
From BlogSpot comments...
"George
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As opposed to Slashdot, which isn't?
Just because you agree with them doesn't mean they're NOT rabid fanboys.
Re:Oh, stuff it. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's because they're people who have spent large amounts of money on a PS3 so that they can do one particular thing with it: play fucking video games. Nothing Hotz has done has helped them in any way, and most of it has hurt them. His original hack led to the OtherOS removal. Most of these people didn't really care then, although some pretended to.
Then came the real working hack. First we got slews of updates as Sony tried to stay one step ahead, which was just a giant headache for people who just wanted to play a damn game. Then cheating became rampant in all the major online games, something we used a console specifically to avoid. Then the Anonymous DDoS against PSN which meant we couldn't even sign in.
Now, you could (rightfully) claim that Hotz wasn't responsible for any of this. Sony removed OtherOS, Sony pushed out the endless updates, other wanna be crackers wrote the cheats, and Anonymous ran the DDoS without Hotz consent. But as a gamer, I don't give a fuck. A system that I truly enjoyed has become a greater and greater headache, and it all ties back directly to Hotz. And I, like a lot of gamers, just want it to go away.
Re:Oh, stuff it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything Sony did to their customers is Sony's fault. Period.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing Hotz has done has helped them in any way
His original hack led to the OtherOS removal
No, Sony removed it, because they have no respect for their customers or the countries they attempted to evade taxes in by using OtherOS to label the PS3 as a personal computer.
we got slews of updates as Sony tried to stay one step ahead, which was just a giant headache for people who just wanted to play a damn game.
Sounds like Sony is to blame for the headache. Frankly, not blaming Sony for botching their ECDSA implementation and opening the door to a simple cryptanalytic a
Re:Oh, stuff it. (Score:4, Insightful)
The rational nature of your logic is truly astounding sir.
When presented with a rational explanation of how an invested but uninterested third party would desire simply that disruptions to their service be resolved, you've parried with the Booo-fucking-hoooo defense. Bravo. Surely this sets the stage for further meaningful discussion.
For the record, I totally agree with the GP. I bought a PS3 for a streamlined walled garden online gaming experience. I don't want script kiddies messing with my games, and I don't want to have to sit through a 20 minute update process whenever I want to play. Which, as a result of my twice a month gaming habit, happens to be every goddamn time I turn the thing on.
Re: (Score:2)
The walled garden is a pipedream. Face it. And no amount of legislation, no amount of corporate security, no amount of whining by the gaming community is going to change that.
Re:Oh, stuff it. (Score:5, Funny)
So we should just give up on the prospect of a "clean" gaming community and accept the intrusion of exploiters as inevitable? Hell no. That's like saying "Goatse's are inevitable so I might as well just make that my Christmas card".
A perfectly walled garden is unattainable. But if in the pursuit of perfection we happen to maintain a fairly well manicured garden with a minimum of intrusions, I'd accept that. And considering how much I pay for the console and game, It's not unreasonable for me to expect it.
Re:Oh, stuff it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, stuff it. (Score:4)
Except that you intentionally bought a device that is a walled garden when there are plenty of devices of the same type [wikipedia.org] that aren't walled. And then choose to bitch about it being a walled garden.
You should try this fancy process called "voting with your wallet."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oh, stuff it. (Score:5, Insightful)
They had a reason: they didn't want to support it any more.
Yes, that is a reason. It's not an acceptable reason at all. They billed OtherOS as a feature when they sold the console. Then they took it away. I don't give a damn what their reasons were, that's fraudulent.
Re:Oh, stuff it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Their motivation doesn't matter. The principle remains - Sony is trying to keep people from using their hardware how they want. While it's completely within Sony's rights to deny use of their network, the fact is that they flat-out stole a feature that was advertised as a major selling point for the hardware and are trying to blame one hacker for their own misdeeds.
I've made this analogy before but I'll make it again. If someone buys a hammer and files the ends down into sharp spikes, then goes out and starts hitting people in the head with their weaponized tool, you prosecute them for causing bodily harm to other people, not for the act of modifying a hammer. Maybe you can take the modification into account as evidence of premeditation for the actual crime, but you don't treat it as a crime itself. Same thing with the PS3. If people modify their PS3s and then use the modifications to play pirated games, game makers can go after them in civil court for pirating games. However, it should never be permitted to pro^H^Hersecute people for modifying what they own.
Re: (Score:2)
Your analogy doesn't work. In some cases, it is illegal to modify something you own. Going with the weapon theme, a sawed-off shotgun comes to mind. Even if you have a legitimate reason to make the modification, it's still illegal, in the US, to reduce the length of a shotgun to less than 26" overall and an 18" barrel. Doesn't matter if such a modification could make the weapon more useful during legal use.
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't illegal to modify the shotgun - it was illegal to modify the shotgun beyond established parameters which changes that weapon from a "shotgun" to a concealable weapon, ie, a "pistol". The shotgun owner has every right to change out the firing pin, to change the magazine, to put riflings in the barrel, to change the sites, or even to mount a laser pointer on the shotgun. He is prohibited from using it as a concealed weapon. So, your analogy falls short.
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't illegal to modify the shotgun - it was illegal to modify the shotgun beyond established parameters which changes that weapon from a "shotgun" to a concealable weapon, ie, a "pistol".
And, analogously, it's not illegal to modify your PS3 either. You can swap the hard drive, for example. It's only against the rules to modify it beyond established parameters which changes it from a game console to a device that supports piracy.
The shotgun owner has every right to change out the firing pin, to change the magazine, to put riflings in the barrel, to change the sites, or even to mount a laser pointer on the shotgun. He is prohibited from using it as a concealed weapon. So, your analogy falls short.
You know, I actually tend to agree that people should have the right to modify their consoles. I also don't see a problem with modifying your shotgun. If it's illegal to conceal a shotgun, fine, arrest someone for concealing a sawed off shotgun, but don't arrest
That's just a terribly poor analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Your analogy doesn't work. In some cases, it is illegal to modify something you own. Going with the weapon theme, a sawed-off shotgun comes to mind. Even if you have a legitimate reason to make the modification, it's still illegal, in the US, to reduce the length of a shotgun to less than 26" overall and an 18" barrel. Doesn't matter if such a modification could make the weapon more useful during legal use.
Wait a minute - you're comparing wanting to use product features that were advertised by the manufacturer and then taken away, to something that is specifically prohibited by Federal law?
Shotguns are not advertised as having the feature of being able to saw off the barrels to a shorter length. Many people do saw off the barrels to the legal length, but no shotgun manufacturer advertises this as a selling point, regardless of how useful it might be.
Sony advertised that the PS3 product could both run "Other Operating Systems" such as linux, and it could also use the PlayStation Network. Those are both useful features, and they are not violations of Federal law (which your shotgun example would be).
They then updated the software on the product (PS3) such that you could either choose to retain the Other OS functionality, or the PSN functionality, but not both. That is stealing, or if it's not, it's at least the intentional introduction of a defect into the product. Customers should either retain all the advertised functionality of the product, or be compensated for the loss of that functionality.
Here's a car analogy:
You buy a new Toyota Boringmobile. It gets cold where you live, so you buy it based on Toyota advertising that it has heated seats. They also advertise that is has the ability to safely transport you and your family from place to place. Those are two advertised features: 1. Safe transportation, 2. heated seats.
You pay money for the car. Toyota gives you title to, and possession of, the car. You drive it home. You are happy.
Toyota sends you a notice: "Bring your Boringmobile into any Toyota dealership for a free service to make sure it continues to fulfill it's promise of safe (if rather dull) transportation". There's a recall on the tires or something like that.
You visit your Toyota dealership, and they replace the tires with new ones which work exactly like the old ones, but you needed to do that for safety's sake - Toyota's notice to you more or less said so. At the same time, Toyota disables the heated seats.
Wait a minute! You paid for heated seats! But they don't work any more. Toyota says "Well, you agreed to that in the terms of service - it was on page 38 of the agreement you agreed to by driving to the dealership"
But wait a minute, contract law doesn't work like that - they can't take features back without compensating you (Generally in a contract, "consideration" i.e. money, has to change hands in exchange for taking or providing goods and/or services). You take Toyota to court (most likely as part of a class action), and get either money or your heated seat functionality back.
What has happened here is that Sony has stolen functionality from the owners of a physical product that was bought and paid for.
The proper shotgun analogy is that you had a double-barreled shotgun and you could shoot both barrels, or just use them to store two shotgun rounds if you chose to never fire the shotgun. After an update, your Sony shotgun will now only fire the first barrel. The second barrel is now just for storing a spare round. Don't like that your gun doesn't work as advertised any more? Sorry, it had to be done so that you could continue to use Sony ammunition. Except that it didn't, did it?
Re: (Score:3)
Perfectly legal to do it. Just gotta get a tax stamp from the BATFE first.
Only firearms modification that isn't legal (on a fed level) is making a full auto - that particular registry has been closed off to new additions since May 1986.
Re: (Score:2)
And the restriction is just as arbitrary and foolish as not being allowed to modify my game console.
If I'm a bad guy who is modifying a shotgun to hide in my saggy pants and rob a bodega, I'm not going to ring up the ATF and find out if its legal. This is the same as someone who modifies their console for the sole purpose of playing bootleg games.
If I'm an amateur gunsmith and tinkering with a shotgun with a mangled choke I cannot legally cut down that barrel. If I am in possession of a shortened barrel tha
Re: (Score:3)
Correct, and that law wasn't OK, either. They started with shotguns because after all, who but a bank robber would want to tinker with the barrel of a shotgun? They moved on to mandating shower heads that dribble like they belong in a Flomax commercial, water-saving toilets that have to be flushed twice, and cold medicine that requires a 14-day waiting period.
Now they've made it illegal to take your Playstation apart and tell anyone else what you see inside, but hey, as long as it stops those cheaters and
Re: (Score:3)
They moved on to mandating shower heads that dribble like they belong in a Flomax commercial, water-saving toilets...
Yeah, how dare we regulate products that use water when 80% of the country is facing a catastrophic water shortage within a couple decades...
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, how dare we regulate products that use water when 80% of the country is facing a catastrophic water shortage within a couple decades...
Funny, I remember hearing that a couple decades ago. And yet the stuff still keeps falling from the sky.
(Or maybe you meant to say something like, "Because a bunch of dumbasses built golf courses in the desert 2000 miles away, you're not allowed to own a toilet that works.")
Re: (Score:2)
The analogy that jumped into my head is that it is illegal to make certain modifications to your care that might make it unsafe to operate on the road.
Granted the public roadways are nothing like the Sony PSN, but in the sense that people have to share access and play along nicely with each other it is completely rational that we accept reasonable limitations on freedoms to ensure everyone is able to use it for its intended purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh, stuff it. (Score:4)
it should never be permitted to pro^H^Hersecute people for modifying what they own.
But in this case Sony is clearly not interested in the hardware. Sony is interested in preventing people from modifying Sony software, which the license agreement indicates the end user definitely does not own.
IP law is of course something that is hotly debated, especially with respect to software licenses. But under the current law Sony has a legal expectation that users not modify their software. If we don't like that we should work on modifying IP law. Actively seeking to violate it doesn't make hacker communities look noble, it makes us/them look like cheap teenagers looking to play pirated games for free.
Re: (Score:2)
You're way off target. The question is, who owns a playstation when it leaves the store? I say, if Geohot, or anyone else pays for it, it is THEIRS. And, Sony has no rights whatsoever to dictate how it might be used.
Stuff it? Good idea, get to stuffing.
Re: (Score:2)
Let use be honest here, most people bothering to hack their PS3 are interested in pirated games. That is their primary motivation.
If we're going to "be honest here", it should be pointed out that what finally motivated the right people to irrevocably break open the PS3 was Sony removing the OtherOS feature.
Re: (Score:3)
Parent post brought to you by Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc.
Re: (Score:2)
if thats ok I suppose if I get a copy of your house key I should be able to take whatever I want.
Well, for your analogy to be accurate: If you get yourself a house identical to mine, find pictures of the inside of mine and decide to make copies of my furniture and other stuff at your own cost, I have absolutely no problem with it. Even if I had spent lots of money designing my interior decoration, buying the stuff, etc. If you can do it for a minute fraction of what it cost me, I'll be nothing but happy for you.
Wow.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm amazed at the comments on the linked Playstation page.
Some folks are (almost) calling for Hotz' head. And people think Apple's fans drink the KoolAid...
Re: (Score:2)
Some folks are (almost) calling for Hotz' head. And people think Apple's fans drink the KoolAid...
And I'm pretty sure that Sony isn't posting comments on their own website. Right? They would never do such a thing.
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just the PS Blog. Go to just about any gaming website and read the comments about this story and you'll see the vast majority support Sony. It's just on tech websites like /. or ars technica that you see a lot of people against Sony.
Re:Wow.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I saw someone else post this point elsewhere on the thread.
Gamers want a smooth gaming experience. Most gamers expect that to entail an online network free from hackers exploiting games and not being required to sit through 20-30 minute updates every two weeks. The majority of gamers see Hotz as opening doors for hackers/exploiters and as being responsible for Sony's prevention measures.
Outside of the pro-Linux "software should be free" crowds, most people just want to see Hotz go away.
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm amazed at the comments on the linked Playstation page.
Some folks are (almost) calling for Hotz' head. And people think Apple's fans drink the KoolAid...
You see people identify with products all over the place - and if you look closely at your life, you may be doing it too.
I've seen people base their identities on what they have; which is quite a childish thing to do if you ask a developmental psychologist - basing your identity on what you do means you're stuck in adolescence by the way.
Go to a photo site and you'll see people get all riled up if you say anything against "their" brand of camera. Same goes for power tools - you'll see Ridgid and DeWalt fanboys.
Cars - same thing.
Apple's fanboys have nothing on the Harley Davidson fanboys.
Re: (Score:3)
So true - go to any Nikon forum and you'll see Canon fans posting crap, go to Canon forums and see Nikon fans posting crap - usually in the form of gross misinformation to "prove" their choice of camera is better, completely ignoring the fact that they're just tools and there is no one single BFH that works for all situations.
It seem
Re:Wow.... (Score:4, Funny)
Apple's fanboys have nothing on the Harley Davidson fanboys.
Pshaw. Those bikers don't hold a candle to us iFanboys of the Cult of Steve. Their bikes aren't made of brushed aluminum, their carbon footprint is disgusting, and I think they might even use paint rather than anodization for their coloration process. How last century.
I'd go on, but I just got a call on my iPhone. Apparently there's a social event being put on by the local Mac User Group tonight, and I need time to load my (PRODUCT) RED iPod (to show my support for eliminating AIDS in Africa, of course) with my favorite tunes. Plus, choosing which black turtleneck to wear can be such a pain sometimes. If only there was an app for that...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All the commenters have PSN accounts and are reading what appears to be the official PS blog. In other words, they must be in KoolAid up to the ears.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason they're so out for blood is because they don't actually understand what was happening or what this case was really about.
They all assumed that Hotz was basically allowing games to be hacked and crap, ruining their online experience, when Hotz work actually had nothing to do with it.
Ignorance is leading the farmers with pitchforks and fire, like it always does.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just that those people don't care about the fact that they don't own what they've bought -- they're more afraid of being owned when playing games. The console is theirs in that they get to keep it permanently, and apart from that it's just a gateway to a games service. They were never going to use it for anything but further consumption of things they don't own. Come to think of it, Sony and Apple are pretty much the same in that regard.
Re:Wow.... (Score:4)
In their defence, the whole purpose for the vast majority of users when buying a PS3 was to have a gaming machine and some semblance of fair competition in multiplayer. The forums are naturally more full of fanboys than anywhere else. Any PS3 hack directly interferes with the notion of a fair playing session against other people. As much as it got Sony free press, PS2 linux... I'm sorry PS3 linux was only ever there to try and skirt around EU import tariffs. It didn't work. Sony really doesn't want you using PS3's for astrophysics clusters or airforce research (I helped build a cluster for astrophysics work). They sell at a loss because they want you to buy games. I'm sure the airforce cluster is great press, but the vast majority of the research just costs them money they don't get a tax break for.
All MMO's go after botters. Shouldn't I be able to run whatever software I want on my own machine?
The olympics go after people who have too much cold medication or whatever else. Shouldn't you be allowed to take whatever your doctor recommends for your health?
The US congress thought steroid use in baseball was so important they dragged barry bonds and co. to washington to talk to them. This is when they are trying to deal with a trillion dollar deficit, they're willing to waste days of peoples time on steroids in baseball. And you think sony fanboys are overreacting to a hack? At least the sony fanboys are actually participating in, and affected by cheaters directly.
Not that Sony is blameless. They should never have allowed 'other OS linux' on the PS3 in the first place, they should not have gone around threatening to sue everyone under the sun who might have been intrigued by geohot. But if you're a MMO player, you're glad to see the banhammer go out to gold farmers, botters etc. Sony is trying to balance on one hand the developers and hardcore gamers (who roughly have aligned interests in terms of security), and hacker types who should be free to toy with their own stuff, but not at the expense of the network experience of everyone else.
Lets be honest. Sure, a PS3 jailbreak hack lets you run homebrew games, and may re-enable partially functional PS2 emulation, and brings back linux support. But it also lets you mess with the memory state of your machine and hack the game as you're running and it lets you pirated games. Homebrew has no real value on a PS3. PS2 emulation, I'm not sure on, I'm betting sony didn't just take it out for the fun of it, it's probably really hard, if not impossible to do properly and provide a good experience. Linux... well it shipped with linux so I guess they should still support it. But that goes into the next problem, which is the whole network experience of 40 odd million players (obviously not all of whom actually use the network functionality) can be easily disrupted by even a handful of people hacking which is really a serious problem. Avoiding that is sort of the point of having a console in the first place, and being able to steal stuff from the playstation store isn't exactly something I support either. I don't think pirated games (blu-ray/DVD) is a huge issue, though I could be wrong, I suppose once the hack is out here some cheap PS3 game knockoff manufacturers could pose problems if they want to get into that business.
Value of homebrew (Score:2)
Homebrew has no real value on a PS3.
Could you explain why not?
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's something he cant do or incapable of learning and is worthless to him so it must be worthless to everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Suckle on the teat of the powerful for long enough, and you begin to believe that what is good for them is good for you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you're reading the PS3 blog, you're probably a gamer who has probably dealt with cheating before.
Yes, if you're reading the PS3 blog you've probably dealt with LOTS cheating before. In particular let me run down the forms you cheating you deal with on a daily basis, and the approximate percentage of each category:
Cheating category 1, 55%:
You (meaning the PS3 typical blog reader bitching about cheating) are a clueless loser and you got your ass handed to you by some player who has no-life... a player who has 500 hours of game experience... a player who has expert game knowledge. In your non-existent ga
On Anonymous (Score:2)
I'm sure Anonymous will now go away. They're known for being lenient in cases like this. Oh wait, no. You gonna get raped.
Unsuccessful discovery? (Score:5, Interesting)
Dollars to donuts says that SCEA's ridiculous discovery campaign (under the pretense of a jurisdictional dispute) either already turned up less than they'd hoped or was starting to draw enough opposition from the subpoena targets to make this an extremely expensive battle that could never possibly achieve their desired result.
Re: (Score:2)
My first thought also, this is a full retreat by sony.
Would have liked to see geohot win in court but he probably didnt want to spend years there, which is understandable...
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that Sony also didn't really want to tangle with Anonymous. Mostly because it would be inconvenient and expensive, and their customers would suffer.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the settlement involved Sony paying him to make him go away while looking like they won?
Re: (Score:3)
Why not? He doesn't get anything out of the prolonged litigation. The permanent injunction is not a loss, but just a way for Sony to save face. It's almost a way of paying Sony for crediting him and publicizing his discovery to such a wide audience. Basically a victory for Hotz and everyone who wanted to mod their hardware.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dear Sony staffer (Score:4, Insightful)
And mine too, apparently. Really cowardly way to go about supporting the company, guys.
You made an unsubstantiated, inflamatory implication in your post, accusing Sony of astroturfing their forums. As if there aren't plenty of Sony fanboys who would do that for Sony, for free.
Your comment was modded 40% Troll (and 40% Interesting and 10% Insightful, so far) as a result. You seriously think it's Sony employees/fans who are modding your Slashdot post down?
I'd speculate that the Troll mods on your post have nothing to do with supporting Sony.
And the comments on the Sony web site... (Score:2)
Wow, what a bunch of Sony fanbois.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, given that it's a self-selected sample of people who have signed up for a Sony website, and probably have accounts on the PSN, are you surprised?
I mean, if I go onto an Xbox Live forum where I'd need to have an XBox Live account (and therefore quite likely an XBox) ... I would expect fanbois to be all over that as well, and the prevailing belief would be that it's the Best Thing Ever.
It was never going to be an unbiased group, not on playstation.com -- I suspect if yo
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, what a bunch of Sony fanbois.
Well yeah. It's an official Sony blog that requires you to be signed in with your PSN tag to post. There would be no reason to go there if you weren't a fan of the products. It's like calling attendees at a Star Trek convention or customers in an Apple store fanbois.
The legal system is not your private investigator (Score:2)
Think of the children! (Score:2)
Sure, it's protecting your intellectual property. But how is something like this protecting consumers? From what?
Bullied into settlement. Nice. (Score:4, Insightful)
When you have a super-heavyweight company like Sony coming after you, issues such as "merit" simply don't matter as much as how much hurt they can put on you.
Meanwhile, Sony wouldn't have settled so easily if they didn't have something to lose in all of this. I hope our "hero" Geohot was aware of this. It was kind of like our hero, "Lindows" who fought back against Microsoft and won, for the most part, by threatening Microsoft's trademark over Windows. So I have to wonder if anyone else can pick up this ball where Geohot left it. It's not like the secret isn't out.
Re: (Score:2)
What Sony Really Said (Score:2, Funny)
[COMPELLED TRUTH=ON]'Our motivation for bringing this litigation was to protect our intellectual property from our consumers.’[/TRUTH]
looking for these? (Score:5, Informative)
erk: C0 CE FE 84 C2 27 F7 5B D0 7A 7E B8 46 50 9F 93 B2 38 E7 70 DA CB 9F F4 A3 88 F8 12 48 2B E2 1B
riv: 47 EE 74 54 E4 77 4C C9 B8 96 0C 7B 59 F4 C1 4D
pub: C2 D4 AA F3 19 35 50 19 AF 99 D4 4E 2B 58 CA 29 25 2C 89 12 3D 11 D6 21 8F 40 B1 38 CA B2 9B 71 01 F3 AE B7 2A 97 50 19
R: 80 6E 07 8F A1 52 97 90 CE 1A AE 02 BA DD 6F AA A6 AF 74 17
n: E1 3A 7E BC 3A CC EB 1C B5 6C C8 60 FC AB DB 6A 04 8C 55 E1
K: BA 90 55 91 68 61 B9 77 ED CB ED 92 00 50 92 F6 6C 7A 3D 8D
Da: C5 B2 BF A1 A4 13 DD 16 F2 6D 31 C0 F2 ED 47 20 DC FB 06 70
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mod parent down. There's no point in modding it up, because now that Sony has 'achieved [its] goal' no one will possibly be able to read the parent post nor make use of its contents, no matter how high it is moderated.
I want my donations back (Score:2)
I was hoping for some serious Sony whoop ass and was willing to donate more but looks like Sony saw the writing on the wall and "agreed to settle" to save face. Oh well back to not buying anything with Sony on it.
I can sort of understand why he settled... (Score:2)
But still, the rant, as seen on Geohot's site [geohot.com], still gives me a bit of a feeling of dealing with a hypocrite.
Then again, I'm a big hypocrite for wanting someone else to pursue something, which I would probably also settle as soon as possible.
Intimidation vs. precedent (Score:3)
I'm sure if Geohot hadn't been so diligent about his methods and avoiding the various license traps, they'd have gladly pushed this through to the bitter end and made an example out of him.
Clearly Sony is happy to use the legal system to intimidate modders, but isn't interested it taking this case far enough to establish a legal precedent that runs contrary their own interests. Must be nice to have deep enough pockets that you can throw lawyers at a problem until it goes away, or you lose interest and "settle".
Leaked PDF detailing the injunction terms (Score:5, Informative)
Didnt take long for the details to get leaked..
Here is the info you are looking for
127-stipulation.pdf [psx-scene.com]
N :)
Re: (Score:3)
So if I read that right, GeoHot is now
* bound by any Sony eula, regardless of wether he ever saw it
* prohibited from opening up any Sony product even to simply replace a fuse
Well played, Sony.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It was stated from the start that any unused donations would go to the EFF, actually.
It's a pity he settled, but given the corruption of the USA's court system compared to the free world's, and the USA's imaginary property tulipmania, it's understandable.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a pity he settled, but given the corruption of the USA's court system compared to that of the free world, [*snip*] it's understandable.
Are the court systems of the 'free world' really that much less corrupt than that of the US? It seems to me they are all dysfunctional in one way or the other and could all stand to be improved. What I learned of the court system in Italy while watching a murder trial last year made me hope I never have to stand trial for a crime there. Free world or not, the best way to be assured of the potential of a fair trial is to avoid committing any offense - the fairness goes away once you actually set foot in a
Re:So... win/win right? (Score:5, Insightful)
>> Sony gets to keep their closed system
Right. Because when Hotz settled, all the keys magically disappeared from the systems of the hackers who had already downloaded them - and fail0verflow ceased to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering what the injunction actually covers. It sounds like Geohotz has agreed to make permanent the injunction against his distributing the key and posting details of his work with regards to producing the key. It sounds like he probably agreed on the basis that it's a moot point, that particular horse is already out of the barn and drinking SCEA's milk.
Re: (Score:3)
No. The best possible outcome would have been a precedent-setting judgement against Sony. Property law -- up to and including the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA -- was on Hotz's side, but until that gets made clear in court companies like Sony will continue to pretend that their Imaginary Property rights somehow trump device owners' actual property rights. And the longer that pretense is allowed to persist, the more people might actually start to believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that his legal bills may or may not be completely covered by donations (don't know how much he actually collected). A full legal battle would have bankrupted him, almost certainly. I consider this a win, of sorts, and - as someone who donated - would be happy if he turned over any remaining funds to the EFF.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pretty nice actually (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pretty nice actually (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
EFF gets anything not used in his legal bills, as he stated long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting point.
Probably about 10^6 less than if he'd gone to them before releasing the codes.
Re: (Score:2)
Or am I missing something?
Probably something like sending a message to the other horses in case they were thinking about getting out too.
Having an injunction in this highly publicized case might make it easier for them to sue the next hacker into oblivion.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely, the court lacks the jurisdiction to go that far. He may however be barred from writing or talking about the details of what he did or how he did it with respect to the final PS3 cracking.