George Hotz sued by Sony... ouch

[maturola]

In what way? In both cases, you're talking about gaining root access to a device that's been protected. Technically it's a very different process, but legally it's really not.

The problem is when you start using Copyrighted code to gain root access, on the iPhone case no Apple code is use to this propose, that's why Dev team got away from actually modifying the IPSWs (and push it to the actual user to do it). IN the case of Geohot he is using Sony's Key to sign the homebrew code that's a sticky road.

 

[macsrcool1234]

In the iPhone's case, there is a reason to jailbreak, Unlocking. On the PS3, there is no true reason, but to pirate. Yes you could argue its to enable more productivity and to have more features, but still, the general usage of the jailbreak of the PS3 overall has been for worse not better.

Wow, you're quite clueless.

It certainly is possible to package an unlock to directly unlock the iPhone without Cydia and all the other associated parts of a jailbreak.

But they willfully choose to let the users have full access to the device.

It's absolutely no different. Not only have the jailbreakers specifically have things in the jailbreak to prevent piracy, it's not going to be as rampant as IOS. Who's going to download 50 GB iso's?

 

[lucifiel]

The problem is when you start using Copyrighted code to gain root access, on the iPhone case no Apple code is use to this propose, that's why Dev team got away from actually modifying the IPSWs (and push it to the actual user to do it). IN the case of Geohot he is using Sony's Key to sign the homebrew code that's a sticky road.

It is however questionable, as a matter of copyright law, whether the Key is sufficient to attract copyright and thereby be protected...

 

[jav6454]

Wow, you're quite clueless.

It certainly is possible to package an unlock to directly unlock the iPhone without Cydia and all the other associated parts of a jailbreak.

But they willfully choose to let the users have full access to the device.

It's absolutely no different. Not only have the jailbreakers specifically have things in the jailbreak to prevent piracy, it's not going to be as rampant as IOS. Who's going to download 50 GB iso's?

You have it all wrong. If you would have been here ever since July 2007 you'd understand, but hey, you weren't.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

You have it all wrong. If you would have been here ever since July 2007 you'd understand, but hey, you weren't.

Man just give up, everyone knows you are wrong.

Jailbreaking is jailbreaking, it doesn't matter if its handheld or portable console / device.

 

[bjerkins]

Who's going to download 50 GB iso's?

Are you saying that ps3 games are all 50 gb? Then you have to check your facts again

EDIT
Plus, no need to download the game if your friend has it. omg piracy

 

[mrblack927]

In the iPhone's case, there is a reason to jailbreak, Unlocking.

I seem to remember the original jailbreak being about allowing native apps on the appstore-free 1.x.x iPhone firmware. Just like the PS3, it was about allowing homebrew software to run on the PS3. It's about adding new features to hardware that you rightfully own. One of those features happened to be an unlock, but we get many others with the iPhone jailbreak as well. I believe the same thing goes for the PS3, there might be some piracy, but also a lot of extra feature-rich homebrew applications. I think you'd have a hard time proving that there's "more bad than good". The truth is, we just don't know. Until proof of guilt arises we have to presume innocence.

 

[Farplaner]

As far as I know, this jailbreak does not enable piracy? (from what I read on engadget/gizmodo etc) I thought piracy was only enabled via those USB devices with older firmware.

 

[ulbador]

As far as I know, this jailbreak does not enable piracy? (from what I read on engadget/gizmodo etc) I thought piracy was only enabled via those USB devices with older firmware.

Having the PS3 root key effectively grants carte blanche access to the whole system. The basic system software can be replaced and any system security put in place to prevent piracy can be circumvented. While there are many valid uses for this (homebrew, running Linux/Windows/XBMC, emulators), there are just as many nefarious uses for this (piracy, cheating in games).

 

[uberamd]

You have it all wrong. If you would have been here ever since July 2007 you'd understand, but hey, you weren't.

Wow. I have read your posts time after time after time over the years and nearly every post you make is rude, condescending, and makes you come off like a total jerk. And chances are I'm not the only person here who has that opinion of you.

Never the less, you really are clueless. Are you trying to say that iOS piracy hasn't skyrocketed since jailbreaking of iOS was possible? Seriously? You cite that PS3 piracy has gone up, but fail to realize that iOS piracy has too. Have you ever heard of Installous? Its sole purpose is to pirate APK files, and its an app available in Cydia directly to people who are Jailbreaking their devices.

Also, jailbreaking a PS3 allows you (IIRC) to install a custom OS again, which was (IIRC) the whole reason behind having to jailbreak anyway. Sony offered 3rd party OS support, and removed it, so he did something about it.

 

[ravenvii]

I'm sorry jav6454, but everyone here is right. In the eyes of the law, it doesn't matter what purposes you had in mind when jailbreaking the device. It doesn't matter if, as you claimed, jailbreaking tends to lead to piracy more on the PS3 than iOS. It's irrelevant.

Re: the jurisdictional issue, I had to LOL at the laundry list of internet services being used as excuses for jurisdiction. They ought to know very well that use of the internet generally do not avail one of jurisdiction, unless it is a direct and purposeful transmission (emailing an attachment to a person known to be in California, for example). Twitter? HA!

However, if they find that Geohot is subject to the ToS (a contract), which most likely they will, then that's the ticket.

As for the FCC vs. copyright office, my apologies, I read the article a long time ago and forgot who said what.

As for the keys thing, as I understand it, it was Sony themselves who left the key in the open, for anyone to take. First of all, it's their own damn fault. And second of all, it is a key to software in hardware that you own. It's not like you find a key and use it to enter Sony's secret research laboratory and steal all of their trade secrets. Completely different thing.

 

[TMar]

This has nothing to do with the TOS because that deals with Sony Online Services aka PSN. It has to deal with the number of ways you can get banned form the service. The System Software License Agreement deals with the console itself.

"You may not lease, rent, sublicense, publish, modify, adapt, or translate any portion of the System Software. To the fullest extent permitted by law, you may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble any portion of the System Software, or create any derivative works, or otherwise attempt to create System Software source code from its object code. You may not (i) use any unauthorized, illegal, counterfeit, or modified hardware or software in connection with the System Software, including use of tools to bypass, disable, or circumvent any encryption, security, or authentication mechanism for the PS3™ system; (ii) violate any laws, regulations or statutes, or rights of SCE, its affiliated companies, or third parties in connection with your access to or use of the System Software, including the access, use, or distribution of any software or hardware that you know or should have known to be infringing or pirated; (iii) use any hardware or software to cause the System Software to accept or use unauthorized, illegal, or pirated software or hardware; (iv) obtain the System Software in any manner other than through SCE's authorized distribution methods; or (v) exploit the System Software in any manner other than to use it in your PS3™ system in accordance with the accompanying documentation and with authorized software or hardware, including use of the System Software to design, develop, update, or distribute unauthorized software or hardware for use in connection with the PS3™ system for any reason. Without limiting the scope of SCE's remedies, any violation of these restrictions will void the PS3™ system's warranty and affect your ability to obtain warranty services and repair services from SCE or its affiliated companies."

Now, Sony says in that paragraph a lot of things you can't do but the bolded part is the only one that really matters.

 

[WordMasterRice]

The thing is they don't have to prove anything, Sony has to prove what their intent was. Innocent until proven guilty. A lot of good can come from a jailbroken PS3 but you have to take the good with the bad, fact of life.

Jailbreaking the iphone sole purpose wasn't an unlock. It was the unlock and the lack of third part apps from Apple which were equally important to the community. It wasn't the accidental by product you make it out to be.

Unfortunately you aren't correct here. In criminal court it is innocent until proven guilty, not in civil court. In civil court the judge can decide whatever they wish really. They have to proven that their intent was not piracy, there is no "burden on the state" like in say a murder trial.

 

[maturola]

It is however questionable, as a matter of copyright law, whether the Key is sufficient to attract copyright and thereby be protected...

Are you serious? of course is sufficient, those are Sony's signing keys, Copyrighted code, using it as GH did of course is a violation.

 

[ulbador]

The really sad part is that this is effectively the holy grail when it comes to trying to hack a platform. Sadly, depending on how this court case goes (and Sony might have a good case), it will just drive underground what could have been probably one of the greatest dev scenes to date. Sure, it will still exist, but many mainstream developers will stay far away from it.

This is exactly why the DevTeam always condemns people like ihatesn0w when he includes copyrighted code in the software he releases.

 

[macsrcool1234]

Are you saying that ps3 games are all 50 gb? Then you have to check your facts again

EDIT
Plus, no need to download the game if your friend has it. omg piracy

Read the point, not the statement.

Reading comprehension fail.

You have it all wrong. If you would have been here ever since July 2007 you'd understand, but hey, you weren't.

Clearly you haven't learned much in all that extra time.

 

[jav6454]

Ok, so everyone says I'm wrong, here I'll prove you all wrong.

The jailbreak on the iPhone itself is protected and always has been thanks to the little law exception called DMCA, with explicit emphasis on this section:

Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network. 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1) Librarian of Congress

This is the main reason why Apple can't go against the Dev Team or any other team. Unlocking and the road to achieving the unlock is protected by law.

On the PS3, there is no unlock to achieve so there is no protection for jailbreaking. Now, as protection of jailbreaking is concerned on the iPhone, it will continue to be protected since the clause I mentioned above, has be ratified again for the next 5-10 years.


Oh sure, piracy has become a problem on the iPhone OS ever since Installous came to life; however, before the iPhone OS got the App Store, there was no problems with piracy in the iPhone because all apps were exclusively and solely for providing productivity. Furthermore, the by product of jailbreaking was the ability to install apps to it.

Remember, jailbreaking was developed as a means to write to the OS in order to achieve a method to by-pass AT&T Activation and eliminate the lock. However, people saw potential in the iPhone OS and hence we got all the wonderful apps from early iBrate, to famed Labyrinth game or any other apps we all remember.


Sony on the other hand is not bounded by the same rules since the PS3 has no unlock to speak off. Oh sure burning is a type of unlock, but we have laptops or desktops for that; so not really a pro point here. That, and add more that piracy soared higher than homebrew itself is more than enough to cause problems that warrants the suit. We may not like it, but Egohot got himself deep in here. He may be electronic smart, but legal wise, still lacking.

Before you go all down on me why haven't the Dev Team been sued, I already explained it. But if you need another reason, it's because the Dev Team is always cautious on how and what to release and is always consulting users with a strong law background before making any move. Egohot? Well....




Edit - And even then, iPhone OS jailbreaking has to have the previously mentioned purpose to keep being protected. The day Apple announces unlocked iPhones for all carriers is the day jailbreaking on the iPhone becomes very well endangered.

 

[MikePA]

We may not like it, but Egohot got himself deep in here. He may be electronic smart, but legal wise, still lacking.

And, more than likely, one of the many reasons the Dev Team jettisoned him. They didn't want to go down the same drain he is circling now.

 

[jav6454]

And, more than likely, one of the many reasons the Dev Team jettisoned him. They didn't want to go down the same drain he is circling now.

Exactly, there were more reasons why he was expelled from the original Dev Team back in July 2007.

This is just one of the few.

 

[ulbador]

Sony on the other hand is not bounded by the same rules since the PS3 has no unlock to speak off. Oh sure burning is a type of unlock, but we have laptops or desktops for that; so not really a pro point here. That, and add more that piracy soared higher than homebrew itself is more than enough to cause problems that warrants the suit. We may not like it, but Egohot got himself deep in here. He may be electronic smart, but legal wise, still lacking.

The unlock has NOTHING to do with the legality of jailbreaking. There is one important factor you are missing here.

The reason jailbreaking could have potentially been an issue is because it modified Apple's copyrighted software to achieve the hack (bootroom and other pieces of the system to gain privilege escalation). Even exploiting a bug would have been called a "derivation" of a copyrighted work, and therefore illegal.

On the PS3, this is completely different because the software will be written by developers, with no modification to any of the PS3's original code. Of course the problem with the PS3 is that to do this, you have to use Sony's copyrighted root key.

Another factor that you are missing is that the idea that "jailbreaking is permitted for unlocking" is NOT what was decided in the 2010 decision. This was the original validation for jailbreaking, though never tested, pointed out by the 2006 Library of Congress reference that you posted.

The 2010 decision expanded upon this by putting jailbreaking under the category of "fair use". In the same vein that someone can take movie clips and put them together to make a derivative work, someone can jailbreak their own device. Check out page 91 or there abouts in the actual ruling.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/07/dmcaexemps.pdf

 

[uberamd]

Ok, so everyone says I'm wrong, here I'll prove you all wrong.

The jailbreak on the iPhone itself is protected and always has been thanks to the little law exception called DMCA, with explicit emphasis on this section:



This is the main reason why Apple can't go against the Dev Team or any other team. Unlocking and the road to achieving the unlock is protected by law.

On the PS3, there is no unlock to achieve so there is no protection for jailbreaking. Now, as protection of jailbreaking is concerned on the iPhone, it will continue to be protected since the clause I mentioned above, has be ratified again for the next 5-10 years.


Oh sure, piracy has become a problem on the iPhone OS ever since Installous came to life; however, before the iPhone OS got the App Store, there was no problems with piracy in the iPhone because all apps were exclusively and solely for providing productivity. Furthermore, the by product of jailbreaking was the ability to install apps to it.

Remember, jailbreaking was developed as a means to write to the OS in order to achieve a method to by-pass AT&T Activation and eliminate the lock. However, people saw potential in the iPhone OS and hence we got all the wonderful apps from early iBrate, to famed Labyrinth game or any other apps we all remember.


Sony on the other hand is not bounded by the same rules since the PS3 has no unlock to speak off. Oh sure burning is a type of unlock, but we have laptops or desktops for that; so not really a pro point here. That, and add more that piracy soared higher than homebrew itself is more than enough to cause problems that warrants the suit. We may not like it, but Egohot got himself deep in here. He may be electronic smart, but legal wise, still lacking.

Before you go all down on me why haven't the Dev Team been sued, I already explained it. But if you need another reason, it's because the Dev Team is always cautious on how and what to release and is always consulting users with a strong law background before making any move. Egohot? Well....




Edit - And even then, iPhone OS jailbreaking has to have the previously mentioned purpose to keep being protected. The day Apple announces unlocked iPhones for all carriers is the day jailbreaking on the iPhone becomes very well endangered.

Where does the other OS install fit into this? Other OS was offered by Sony and is the reason many people decided to buy a PS3 over an XBox 360. Sony then, in their infinite wisdom, decided to remove the feature with an update. This update, while optional, was required to play games on PSN. So if you wanted to keep the feature that made you buy your PS3 in the first place you had to forgo online gaming. Is that fair? No.

In steps Geo with his jailbreak. These steps, in theory (IDK if it applies in practice) allow you to get that functionality back. Functionality that was in the original product, but was forcefully removed. Its the equivalent of Apple blocking app store access to everyone not running the current version of iOS, and we all know how that would go over.

But again I ask you, the guy who declared the iPhone would never ever hit Verizon, couldn't Geo make the case that he was trying to restore functionality that was a feature of a product but was removed without just cause?

 

[Dr Kevorkian94]

they sue because they don't want that done to there product, so even if he is within whatever legal guidelines, agreements etc.. there are sony will do whatever it takes to win. its a shot in the dark unless they win of course

 

[uberamd]

they sue because they don't want that done to there product, so even if he is within whatever legal guidelines, agreements etc.. there are sony will do whatever it takes to win. its a shot in the dark unless they win of course

I have a feeling the EFF is going to support Geo on this, which may change things compared to if he was supplying his own lawyer.

 

[jav6454]

The unlock has NOTHING to do with the legality of jailbreaking. There is one important factor you are missing here.

The reason jailbreaking could have potentially been an issue is because it modified Apple's copyrighted software to achieve the hack (bootroom and other pieces of the system to gain privilege escalation). Even exploiting a bug would have been called a "derivation" of a copyrighted work, and therefore illegal.

On the PS3, this is completely different because the software will be written by developers, with no modification to any of the PS3's original code. Of course the problem with the PS3 is that to do this, you have to use Sony's copyrighted root key.

Another factor that you are missing is that the idea that "jailbreaking is permitted for unlocking" is NOT what was decided in the 2010 decision. This was the original validation for jailbreaking, though never tested, pointed out by the 2006 Library of Congress reference that you posted.

The 2010 decision expanded upon this by putting jailbreaking under the category of "fair use". In the same vein that someone can take movie clips and put them together to make a derivative work, someone can jailbreak their own device. Check out page 91 or there abouts in the actual ruling.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/07/dmcaexemps.pdf

That wasn't always the case. Bootloaders and such never were a concern until Pwnage tool came around. Before that is was 1.0.x methods to jailbreak. Command line iUnlock, not to mention the whole TIFF exploit via Safari, then the 1.1.2 exploit and finally the NateTrue 1.1.3 exploit.

So yes, jailbreaking was still under that protection. The 2010 decision just ratified what was already understood. That's the main reason why Apple went after THAT ratification rather than the Dev Team.

 

[Rajani Isa]

The thing is they don't have to prove anything, Sony has to prove what their intent was.

IIRC, the only time back when I paid attention to P2P programs in the news I heard of someone other than Napster getting nailed for piracy was (can't recall the program's name) when the makers of the program actually had a note/memo/document talking about how they built their p2p to pirate stuff got out. Since the intent to pirate was the reason for it being coded, fair use didn't apply.

Don't recall seeing geohot mention wanting to enable pirates (in fact, the opposite) so that's some help right there.

Unfortunately you aren't correct here. In criminal court it is innocent until proven guilty, not in civil court. In civil court the judge can decide whatever they wish really. They have to proven that their intent was not piracy, there is no "burden on the state" like in say a murder trial.

Of course there is no burden on the state, it's a Civil trial, therefore, the burden is on Sony.

As to guilty until proven innocent? No, the prosecution still has to prove their point to win a civil trial.

Or I could sue my neighbor real easy

The jailbreak on the iPhone itself is protected and always has been thanks to the little law exception called DMCA, with explicit emphasis on this section:



This is the main reason why Apple can't go against the Dev Team or any other team. Unlocking and the road to achieving the unlock is protected by law.

The road to unlocking would only be protected by that clause IF you unlocked, and did NO OTHER THING. Any other use of the jailbreak really isn't protected by that clause - that's why the 2010 exemption was so important.