Understanding ownership - We Should Stand Against PS3 Hacking

When we buy a house on a plot of land, we don’t own the mineral rights even if we ‘own’ the land.

A local coal mine does not have to seek out the permission of the numerous owners of all the different columns of rock they are tunnelling through, nor can the ‘owner’ of the surface tunnel sell the coal or oil that might be there, unless they have a separate right to do so.

Even with the surface ownership, we cannot do what we like.

Almost all countries have some sort of building/planning control, and that is a good thing. Maybe it is annoying to us, but it also stops our neighbours doing things we might hate. In effect we have a licence to use the land a certain way from the country in which it sits, but we call it ‘ownership’.

Buying a PlayStation 3 (for example), also does not give me unrestricted ownership of it.

[Nineball2112]

That's a good analogy about the land ownership.

I believe that we DO in fact own the hardware but we license and do NOT own the software.

[SilverSlug]

Basically.

[GrieverSoul]

The land ownership nailed it!
I have a house with lots of space. If I want to build a skyscrapper there, city hall wont let me! Why?! Its my land! I bought it!! This thing is, that land is mine but I cant do whatever I want with because there are rules. I signed those when I made the ownership deal.

Thats it! Im going to make a rap video, ask for donations and sue the government! That will show people! If I win, dont let the shadow of my skyscrapper blocking your house sun light bother you okay?! /s

[shooterexpert]

Hackers do own the software though.

Hacked ps3s are running custom firmware no ?

Firmware made by the hackers not altered versions of sony software.

[zag]

But the CFW is orginal firmware modded.

Also CFW will be using a copyrighted key of Sony's to sign it so it will work.

For it to be completely custom CFW would have to completely replace the whole OS and not use any of Sony's OS in any form.

So it can't play PS games it can't use the hyper-visor, in other words it can't work or look the same at all.

Because if it did then it'd be using pantents that Sony own for the PS OS.

So CFW isn't the hackers own OS at all.

[MrBeatdown]

Custom firmware is just Sony's firmware with a few alterations, to my understanding. They don't start from scratch.

Makes me wonder why that in itself isn't considered piracy.

[GrieverSoul]

You got it wrong as other members said.
OFW is Official FirmWare made by SONY. CFW is the Customized FirmWare made from the OFW.

I said many times in N4G that if hackers want to be good guys in this one, I want them to make a new OS for the PS3. One that would give benefits to the console. But no! They want emulators and run custom programs OVER SONY OS! SONY OS is an intelectual propperty. You buy a movie and the first thing it appears on screen after popping the disc is a copy disclaimer. You bought the product but are subject to conditions from the provider. I dont know whats so hard to understand about this.

[Frak]

i agree

[Octo1]

Good read but you'll still get these morons that will say it's stupid and one sided.

[FantasyStar]

That went over my head. What is the analogy here?

[ThanatosDMC]

L2Read

[Titanz]

Wii suffers the worst, yet we hardly see any articles concerning the topic.

[PlayerX]

Because this is a Ps3 only site lol.

[Biggest]

Because PS3 owners care more than Wii owners and 360 owners.

[badz149]

when Wii hackers start stealing Nintendo's code and use it to run the Wii unmodded, then will the same issue be raised! but it's not only about the PS3 on here, there were numerous stories about R4 cards for the DS and banned 360 console in the past. it's just that this is recent and a lawsuit is currently taking place in court!

[Mahr]

"when Wii hackers start stealing Nintendo's code and use it to run the Wii"

Modders have been using the Wii's encryption keys (literally the exact kind of keys geohot released) to sign custom Wii applications for *years*.

Sony even posted the Wii private keys on the internet when they put all their evidence against Hotz online. It was hilarious.

[rockleex]

If that is true, then it basically shows that Nintendo either doesn't care enough about it... or doesn't think they can do anything about it in court.

Sony knows they can do something about it because its clearly against the law.

Even if winning the case doesn't stop PS3 hacking from escalating, it will at least allow Sony to then go after more hackers who are using Sony's copyrighted information without Sony's consent.

[Redgehammer]

I disagree. You can purchase the mineral rights when you buy a home. I think the entire license concept is crap, just like intellectual property. What about an automobile? For all of the brain power that goes into designing a car, we are not told when we purchase it that are only being granted a "license" to use the car. Where is the EULA? I think if we purchase a physical copy of a piece of software then it should be ours to do with as we please. However if we just download it, then I think we should be bound by a licensing agreement. But hey, that's just me.

[Biggest]

A car isn't a piece of intellectual property. It's a gotdamned car. Why do people constantly use cars in these types of conversations? The analogy doesn't work. A car is nothing like a gaming console.

You said your first statement properly. You CAN purchase mineral rights. Unless retailers ask "Would you like to buy an extended warranty on this PS3? How about software rights on this PS3?" you didn't purchase those rights. When you purchase the PS3 and decide to use it online, you agree NOT to screw with the software. There is no option to purchase rights to screw with the PS3 software.

[Mahr]

"A car isn't a piece of intellectual property. It's a gotdamned car."

And a PS3 is not a piece of land or a piece of intellectual property, it is a freaking physical good.

You cannot attack people for using dumb analogies while using even dumber analogies.

"When you purchase the PS3 and decide to use it online, you agree NOT to screw with the software"

If Sony wants to deny me access to the PSN for modding my system, that's perfect fine. That's a service which they own.

I own the machine though, and so I get to run whatever software I want on it.

[Redgehammer]

The reason I used a car in my analogy is because, I believe, a modern car is a rolling testament to man's intellectual potential and prowess in math and engineering. Cars are filled with some of the very same components found in many of todays popular consumer electronic devices. Come on, I can actually own a car filled with transistors, cpu's, Hard drives, CD/DVD players and lest not forget advanced math applied from the cars inception, but I can't own my physical copy of Windows or AppleOS? Yeah, that makes sense.
And excuse me, but I made my first statement properly regardless of your dissent.

[Octo1]

Using a car as an analogy is a bad example.Although most people think that you can do what ever you want with your car, that's not the case in some places.Some car modifications depending where you live is regulated by local law or government. Where I live,you can tint you car window but only to an extent. If you go darker than what's allowed you either take the tint right in from of the cop or pay a ticket.
In some places you can't just put a loud exhaust on your car because of local noise by-laws.Tires,how high how or low you raise your suspension are subject to regulations as well.People may want to think twice when you say "I own it so I can do what ever I want with it."

[Mahr]

"Using a car as an analogy is a bad example"

Being personal property, it is at least a better example than comparing a household good to real estate.

"Some car modifications depending where you live is regulated by local law or government"

Only if you take your car onto state-owned roads. In the confines of your own property lines, you can Mad Max your car to your heart's content: remove the seatbelts, black out the windows, break the tail-lights, paint obscene images on the hood, jack the suspension eight-feet off the ground, mount assault rifles on the sides, install ejection seats, place giant plow with ramming spikes on the grill, whatever.

And you can even drive that monstrosity without any kind of license -- provided you do not cross the boundaries of your private-residence.

"People may want to think twice when you say "I own it so I can do what ever I want with it"

In the case of the PS3, if I own the hardware, own the software I want to run, own the home in which I am running it, and intend to do nothing that harms anyone else, then yes, I should be able to do whatever I want with it.

[Octo1]

@Mahr
You basically just stated the whole reason why Geohot is being sued.
He did not keep his modified software in his property. Had he done that, Sony would not be suing his ass.

[forcefullpower]

I wouldnt bother arguing with Mahr. He really doesnt have a clue on what he is talking about.

He can't even get the basic understanding that you dont own the software that runs on the devices that your buy but have license to use it. This has been common place for the last 20 or 30 years.

He probably thinks he owns the the computer game he just bought.

You couldnt just alter Killzone 3 code with a new boot up picture and the release it to the internet and call it Killzone Mahr. Because that would be illegal.

I would also like people to stop using stupid [email protected]"&*ing analogies. This is basic principle that can be explained without it.

[Mahr]

"He did not keep his modified software in his property."

Custom firmware is not 'modified software' in *any* sense of the word. It is a program, written from scratch, that allows one to modify their own software.

To take the already-tortured car analogy further, it would be like selling a welding torch designed such that it would allow me to affix those assault rifles to my vehicle.

"you dont own the software that runs on the devices that your buy but have license to use it."

Right, and that obviously needs to change.

"This has been common place for the last 20 or 30 years"

Being 'common place' is not an argument that something is morally right.

"You couldnt just alter Killzone 3 code with a new boot up picture"

Sure I could. Copyright law is designed to to act on DISTRIBUTION mechanisms. It doesn't prevent fair use modification.

"and the release it to the internet and call it Killzone Mahr"

Right, that would be *distributing* copyrighted material, which is obviously *not* fair use.

[forcefullpower]

"Custom firmware is not 'modified software' in *any* sense of the word. It is a program, written from scratch, that allows one to modify their own software."
Custom firmware is modified Original Firmware. They did not write the new code from scratch. Exactly the same as PSP Custom firmware. Exactly the same as bios code for the 360 DVD drives. It’s modified Original CODE,

"you dont own the software that runs on the devices that your buy but have license to use it."
Right, and that obviously needs to change.

Why does it need to change? You didn’t write the software so why do you have a right to adjust it or sell it? Why don’t you write your own code for the machine instead of taking someone else’s work.

"This has been common place for the last 20 or 30 years"
“Being 'common place' is not an argument that something is morally right.”
What is wrong with allowing someone to protect the software they wrote. Tell me then how would you stop someone stealing your work. And releasing with there own name.

"You couldn’t just alter Killzone 3 code with a new boot up picture"
Sure I could. Copyright law is designed to to act on DISTRIBUTION mechanisms. It doesn't prevent fair use modification.
"and the release it to the internet and call it Killzone Mahr"
Right, that would be *distributing* copyrighted material, which is obviously *not* fair use.
Nice way to split up a single sentence meaning one thing to separate it into two which mean something totally different just fit your how you want it to sound.

[Mahr]

"Custom firmware is modified Original Firmware"

No one has actually uploaded or downloaded custom firmware. They have downloaded the tools to modify firmware to make it custom. Those tools do not contain one iota of original firmware.

"They did not write the new code from scratch."

Yes, they did. The new code is just a signing tool. Anyone with even minor programming skills and the signing keys could write one.

"Exactly the same as PSP Custom firmware. Exactly the same as bios code for the 360 DVD drives. It’s modified Original CODE"

The original code that gets modified is the code *already on the PS3*. The download is basically a patch to existing software.

Do you actually believe that a 105 kilobyte file contains the PS3's entire operating firmware on it? Which Sony, for some reason, decided to not ever bring up in the laundry list of charges brought up in their lawsuit?

"Why does it need to change? You didn’t write the software so why do you have a right to adjust it"

Because I bought and paid for the software, therefore I have the right to do with it as I please, provided I cause no harm to anyone else with it.

"or sell it?"

Distributing it to others does cause harm, so I do not have that particular right.

"Nice way to split up a single sentence meaning one thing to separate it into two which mean something totally different just fit your how you want it to sound."

It is not about how it sounds. Your sentence describes two separate, distinct actions. Modifying is different from distributing.

If you cannot make an argument for why modding should be illegal without inserting a second action that is illegal in itself, then you do not actually have an argument for why modding should be illegal.

[antihiroprotagonist]

SHUT UP

[refocusedman]

OMG!!! I dont know which is worse, the ps3 being hacked or all of these damn articles that have been written abt it. This is beyond ridiculous!!! How many times can different sites say the same thing. I miss the good ole days when misinformed people just complained and wrote articles abt how ps3 has no games.... :-(

[blackburn5]

The real question is why does the PS3 HAVE to be hacked? No one has answered that question yet. So far i have not seen anything useful come out of it and you can do most of these things on a computer. Why are you fighting so hard to make this happen?
People always argue that the Iphone and every other console has been hacked but people act like the PS3 must be hacked to teach Sony a lesson or because it is inevitable. All I hear is a bunch of flimsy excuses. So Sony doesn't want to risk it on their system. Why must they follow into then whole open system thing like all the other sheep?

[Octo1]

People say its to get other OS back but its a fall back lame ass excuse. Its all about the free games and anyone that tells me other wise it is talking from their ass. Since the hacked the PS3 I've not seem one "homebrew" that makes me go "hey! I'd hack my PS3 for that." All I keep seeing are back up managers and proxy hacks etc..

[artsaber]

Redgehammer and others listen up:

In all the years that software has been sold, not one single customer is sold the software itself. The software on the disc is provided for free. That's right, free. The developing company owns the claim and rights to the software, and have a vested interest in such, and therefore it is protect by a series of copyrights, patents, etc. A company simply sells you a license granting you rights to use THEIR software as long as you AGREE to their terms or EULA in most cases.

There may be shipping and handling charges, etc., packaging costs, development costs, etc. passed on to the consumer in the final cost as well. The very copy of Windows that you are using right now operates in the same fashion. For instance, if you shred your Windows CD/DVD, you still have the right to operate your OS void of the disc, because in fact the license is what bought you the access to the code in the OS software. Even FREE software does not pass on the right for users to OWN it, the license is just simply free or @ no charge. The developing company still OWNS the software. And if you haven't noticed even free software comes with a EULA.

That is why it is illegal for you to strip down or reverse engineer any software, mod it a bit, and repackage it as your own to sell, etc. It is breaking the law. If we OWNED the software we bought, reverse engineering, repackaging and reselling would be legal. Bottom line, companies must protect their investment.

Because even though we think we "BUY" the software, when we actually don't, doesn't make us any less liable legally when we infringe on copyright laws, patents, and intellectual property.

And for those who like car analogies, If you drive your car in a reckless fashion, run red lights, stop signs, drive down a One Way street in the wrong direction when no one is looking without injury to anyone, are you still breaking the law? The answer is yes.

[Redgehammer]

I didn't need the information, but thanks for taking the time to intelligently comment. My basic stance is I believe that people should be renumerated for the fruits of their labor, but should not be able to restrict what I do with it once they have my money.

" If we OWNED the software we bought, reverse engineering, repackaging and reselling would be legal."
Why would ownership of the software make it legal to reverse engineer etc? I disagree. I think the laws would still exist, and would be what dictated policy, not the EULA.

[blahblah]

and how many times it has to be said that...
- this is not software problem at all, only problem is the first sold and later removed part
- people bought hardware because of features that were later stripped away (i know i did, i bought gaming/open platform, not gaming or open platform)
- rules must be presented before you buy, and both company selling and user have to abide. just as company can set rules how to treat their hardware, so they have to abide to common customer related rules in order to be able to resell. saying "we reserve the right to change rules" doesn't actually make it so, as there are laws to protect customer which ban this thing. you were completel wrong as you only presented 1 way hammer, it actually is 2 way

and two car analogies for you
- if car company decides people often bump when driving backwards and so they strip out that gear when you get to service at 100000km... since you never bumped, don't you feel being cheated? i know i wouldn't buy car without that gear... but hey, in ps3 case I DID BUY THAT CAR
- if car company suddenly enables locking of the gas tank, preventing you to buy gas at nearest location since they don't have the agreement (aka. don't get paid per every liter). i know i wouldn't buy that car either... but hey, in ps3 case I DID BUY THAT CAR

THEN AGAIN

i didn't mind my newer ps3 has no OtherOS (3rd ps3), it was said like that when i was buying it. but my first and second one did have it when i bought them. and i want them back

but in my case of fighting back, only i win and sony loses. i won't fight and use CFW. why, when there is a way to get my money back and hurt sony more at the same time while losing nothing but the fact i can't use OtherOS?

i simply boycott sony by not buying anymore NEW games (all sony produced/developed games i only buy used so sony doesn't get one cent from me and i get them cheaper until i get back feature i bought my ps3 for). i will also not buy any sony product, as they don't sell product, but rather controlled service.

with 30 games per year (yearly amount of games i buy per year), where i'd spend 60eur for each one, now spending 20eur makes 1200eur difference for me and zero sells for sony. *** and if they suddenly remove option to buy used games, there are other gaming platforms. ps3 would simply became dust collector, i don't care as long as sony is the one getting dildo in its ass.

same as computer monitors/tv/notebook. i always bought sony, no questions asked. not anymore. around 10000eur per year as i have rather large amount of them in my company

why creating my self legal troubles, when i can run far better the Gandhi way and at the same time i don't lose anything while sony does?

[littlebigmarcpsps3]

LMFAO Fanboys alert.
because PS3 owners are better than Xbox Wii,PC,IDevices, android combined right.
SONY WILL NOT BE THE FIRST ONE WHO STOPS PIRACY.
matter of fact no one can. period
so
im running W7 right now genuine. i didn't buy it.
lol MS didnt do shit well they tried with VAT they failed.
two ps3 one hacked and one isnt(PSN one)
Ipod 4G jailbroken and iphone unlocked as well
PSP go and psp 2000 all hacked since its dead
i will get the 3DS and hack it after 8 or 1 year it comes out
yes i like to mod my stuff,it allows me to go alot more stuff with it.
you can hate it my thought you are a noob you dont know how to do it

[blahblah]

ok, it is official... this guy is THE stupidest fuck ever. i doubt i ever found so many *NOT*cleaver*NOT* analogies which miss fact by mile.

little 101... analogy in its existence relies on using the same fact to explain.

fact is, if you sold some features... you can't remove them. or do you
- buy land with mineral mining rights, find gold and they get revoked?
- you buy car which has mistake on left door (allowing thiefs to break in), so all car owners are forced to get their car welded and thus unable to open left door

[MrBeatdown]

Sony didn't remove features. You did. Sony didn't force you to install the update. You chose to install the update in order to continue using the service Sony owns and play the games Sony releases, neither of which you are entitled to just because you bought a PS3.

Sony has every right to stop supporting a specific firmware just as they have the right to stop supporting PS3 altogether. If you chose to update, it's you that is removing the OtherOS feature, not Sony.

Fact is, you consented to the removal of a feature you may have rights to in order to regain access to things you don't have rights to.

[blahblah]

lol, that is dumbest saying ever. read the fucking box and all the commercials about having 10-15 year lifetime. it is a binding promise

and lol, if they plan on working like you say, then it is maybe better if company dies. as far as i care, they can. i'm not buying one more product of theirs, except games, but those only used ones so they don't earn nothing on me (will still buy new ones not produced by sony though). i'm just as grateful customer as they are good at support and keeping promises. and in the end, i will spend much less for the same bang.

[rockleex]

Sony did not FORCE anyone to get their "car welded".

Sony gave them an option. To keep the door insecure, or get it fixed.

Sony just won't provide them services any longer if they choose not to get it fixed.

[blahblah]

really?

you must posses some kind of superior brain then. how can one run OtherOS and still keep playing online? since you must know more than the rest of us, explain. prove one can keep all.

i didn't buy machine where i will choose if i will use OtherOS or games. i bought both in one and payed that dearly with 799eur. and off course you are forced if there is no option to keep both. optional would be if i could chose not to update and still be able to play online. i wouldn't update then. since 1.80 firmware there was nothing worth downloading anyway, but i HAVE to update.

i would gladly stay insecure with ps3 and keep both functionalities. if ...

int GetRandomNumber() { return (4); }

is proof of how they take on security, then this is poorest example ever. with this error, one can only assume zillion other smaller ones exists. this is not a bug or hole, IT IS A FUCKING CRATER a 3 year old child wouldn't make