Ars Technica: The claims against Sony in the ongoing class-action lawsuit dealing with the removal of the "OtherOS" functionality in the PlayStation 3 hardware have all been dropped, save for one.
I remember this one. Sony in late 2010 moved to have the case dismissed in New York. Lemme see if I can dig up the link. EDIT: Found it. http://www.next-gen.biz/new... Things are certainly spicing up in the game industry. ;)
So all the other claims were dismissed against Sony but one (no conclusion), so now the plaintiffs had to refile again to go to the District Court to dispute that case with a different judge?
This case is going nowhere. Sony is suing for tampering, geohot simply "jailbroke" his PS3 that he bought to unlock features that were blocked such as other OS. Other hackers came along and took this jailbreak and started making pirated games, geohot had nothing to do with the pirated games. I really don't see this going anywhere. If they could catch the hackers that release the pirated games then yes there would be a case and a win for sony, but geohot is in the public because he knows that he can't be sued, look at the iphone/ipod touch for example. Personally, I don't care if you pirate your games, or buy your games. The only thing that pisses me off is when I see cheaters in multiplayer games.
Knowing that you can not have one without the other, how do you feel about it?
To be honest, I don't know. It's been quiet in New York since the November hearing.
There is no fucking way I'm reading all that. That is longer than all 5 essays and my history paper I had to write last semester. My God. Someone summarize that shit.
Same, id love to know whats in there but jesus thats a lot of text
summary is in the credit url (Ars Technica): http://arstechnica.com/gami...
It is so long, that it is FORBIDDEN...xD
To put it in a nutshell (it's pretty long and confusing if you're not familiar with the language and details), Sony is suing Hotz under the same laws and state that the people in the class action are suing Sony for, and it seems like Sony is contradicting themselves in the two cases (saying one thing in the CA lawsuit then turning around and saying something completely different for the exact same thing in the Hotz suit), and while Sony is putting on a good case in the CA suit, it's not without huge holes (Sony is claiming that they only have to "be nice" to you for the year warranty, then after that, they can fuck you sideways all they wanted and you were forced to take it). In other words, the people in the CA suit could actually WIN that, and if they do, it will be intense implications on what happens in the Hotz case (in which most of the Hotz case fits around that very removal). Look for this to get extremely interesting. This is the WORST thing that Sony could had happen, actually.
Look for this to get extremely interesting. This is the WORST thing that Sony could had happen, actually. no this is the best thing, the reason why? many consumer's see anything they buy they own an that also mean's the Software on the Machine..you do not own the software, you get a licence that's all. if people do not like it build your own software. OS an all, see how you like your IP stolen an mod. without your OK people would have a whole Opinion when it's their's that is getting screwed with..lets see George Hotz, failoverflow team make an OS, an all the software to run on it, an see how they feel about hacker's bulldozing their right's of creative copyright's. that's exactly what this is about, it's not about hacking something you own, it's about hacking something you do not own..the software does not belong to you. unless you made it yourself. an you own the ip 100%. the people whining about this state their consumer right's are being stepped on. here's a thought How would they feel if there are hacker's trying to force their software to go open source, which is exactly what George hotz is trying to do, when does that give the right of the consumer to tell a company that your software is to go opensource, it's not ok for the consumer to be told that but it's ok for the consumer to tell what software a company makes goes open source? because that is what Hotz an failoverflow is doing, so when does the consumer right's trump a company's right's over the companies right's to their software, when companies sell you software? if that's the case How about Windows OS go open source?
Linux is already open source, and it is one of the most popular OSes out there right now. So you're argument about open source being a bad thing is completely backwards. Some of the better programs out there, such as Gimp (an alternative to Photoshop) are open source. Secondly, obviously, the judge saw something that told him that the class action guys had a case, or he would've thrown everything out. He left in the most important part of their case. Now, as for your other issues, like I said before, there are things that are (or were before DMCA came around) within your consumer rights. Of course, you can't pirate anything or infringe on someone else's gaming experience. But what about other things? Say I modded my PS3 to have it be able to run iTunes and be able to download what I buy off of iTunes to my PS3, and I install iTunes on my PS3. Now, I'm not hurting anyone else's playing experience (hell, I might have people e-mailing me telling me how to do such a thing...I don't know, by the way), but yet, I get banned from PSN because I did something they didn't allow. What exactly did I do wrong? Obviously, I did something Sony didn't like, but did I cheat on a game? Did I pirate anything (I bought an iTunes track, so I've obviously got the track legally...not that Sony has cared in the past where you got the track you probably have on your PS3 now)? What exactly DO I own when I buy a piece of hardware? A lease? If I want to be on PSN, should I sacrifice the right to install iTunes via something Sony doesn't want me doing? You might say yes (and there has been this cult following now that is putting Sony's desires ahead of what the law would actually state, which amazes me), but I would beg to differ. And one of the major issues that Sony will have is putting consumers in a tough spot, as the article suggests. When 3.21 hit, consumers were left with one of two options, and both of those options would leave them with less functionality than they had before. Lose OtherOS, or lose PSN functionality and being able to play future games. The being able to play future games such as GT5 would kill those without a reliable internet connection (or those without one at all). So...what is the lesser of the two evils there to you? What about anyone else who might think differently? That's the thing Sony must explain...which will be tough. And also remember the quote about Sony not touching Linux on the fat machines, yet they did anyway on the grounds of "security". I don't think that's easy for Sony to explain off, and why I think it just got heavy.
LOL... payback is a b1tch and trying to make an example of Hotz might just now backfire. I'm for software licenses and being paid for your work (i.e. I'm a software developer). However, treating your customers with respect is something I also demand (as a consumer). There is nothing wrong with software licenses until they start trampling all over you, then you gotta speak up!
ITS OVER 9000!!!!!
I just love it when people rat on Sony for removing the other OS. When it was Geohot who was using it to hack the system.
that OtherOS wasn't even on the Playstation 3 on launch day. It was actually added with one of the early firmware updates. So it wasn't even advertised at all initially. None of GeoHot's flock like to speak of that little issue though.
I remember Update 3.21. It wasn't a forced update, but people downloaded it anyway because they would rather have PSN or Linux on the Ps3. My question is. . . If Geohot doesnt care about PSN, like he said many times before, then why did he download the update in the first place? I swear nothing this guy says makes sense.
The article here actually turns it around to exemplify this scenario. What if Sony suddenly came up with an update to remove the gaming feature from the PS3, and only left watching Blu-Ray movies on your PS3 (I know the article used Linux as an example. So sue me). And you were forced to accept the update if you wanted to use the internet feature on the PS3 to do certain things on certain BD discs...and to even watch future BD movies? You would be outraged, would you? But you would have no real choice. Same thing here. If they wanted to play future games and that, they were forced to accept the update regardless of if they actually wanted to or not, with Sony not being exactly transparent as to what exactly they were doing there. That and the article does quote someone that says that, when there was worry that the OtherOS feature would go away from the fats when the slims didn't have it in the first place, that either Sony or the Linux makers (forget which one) told them that they would not touch OtherOS in the fats in future updates. That's a BIG thing that Sony would have to try to explain off.
Yeah they could do all those things , but seriously ? Removing the capability to play games on the ps3 is kind of a double Edge sword.
"What if Sony suddenly came up with an update to remove the gaming feature from the PS3, and only left watching Blu-Ray movies on your PS3" I don't understand how anyone could compare the PS3's gaming feature with the removal of OtherOS. OtherOS was removed because hackers like Geohot were using it to create homebrews that left the system vulnerable to piracy. Thats the reason why Sony removed it and thats why Geohot is so pissed. He couldn't create his homebrews so he worked for about a year to crack the PS3 wide open. And instead of keeping it to himself or staying anonymous (like most hackers do), Geohot opens his big mouth and gets himself into trouble. Hes looking for fame and attention. Lets not forget that there are 8 other people being sued for this jailbreak, but Geohot is the only one that is constantly found on TV and in the headlines. He keeps claiming that he only cracked the PS3 to get the feature back. . . truth is he made custom firmware 3.21 a week after 3.21 with the ability to install other operating systems. So why didn't he stop then? With a attention whore like him, my best bet is he wanted to be known as the first to crack the PS3.
" What if Sony suddenly came up with an update to remove the gaming feature from the PS3, and only left watching Blu-Ray movies on your PS3" That's a silly example for you to put. OtherOS wasn't a primary functionality of the system, playing games is. They advertise it just like they do stating that it's a blu-ray player. I really don't get why in all these articles people use this example to the extreme just to scare. Those commenting on here aren't actually looking at a real reason to go up in arms about.
To those saying it's a stupid example comparing removing OtherOS to removing gaming, well it's the exact example Sony is using to justify how they can remove OtherOS without being sued. As stated in the article, their primary defense for removing OtherOS is they can remove any feature for any reason after one year, because that's all the express limited hardware warranty grants you.
@gamerz And do you HONESTLY think they'll PURPOSELY gimp themselves out of billions of dollars to do that? If they shut down the gaming portion, they shut down the first party studios, which shuts out a huge portion of profit. What I'm going at is people need to put thought into their examples instead of just out on a whim.
Wow !!!! Nice job Sony .
I hope sony loses. Teach them a lesson about screwing with peoples rights.
You haven't change Nai.. you want Sony to lose since the start...
once a troll , always a troll
Why would nai want to change XD I'm me and forever will be. >.> even though I've gotten a bit more distaste for M$ as well.
Lol really that's a surprise from you...
@captain-obvious Thanks, Captain Obvious! :D
LOL @ peoples rights
So, after about four years, Sony discontinued OtherOS. They get sued. After four years, MS discontinued the original Xbox. They don't get sued. Am I the only one that thinks these guys don't have a case? I don't see how essentially locking out PSN for people who want OtherOS is any worse than dropping all support for a console.
it's not? one is no more production models at all, no more support for the system. where in the case of the PS3 you could upgrade at anytime later. but with the loss of the install other os out of the XMB. that's the problem it's like when Microsoft remove's thing's out of an OS an you have compatability problems with your software! this is done after the fact when you buy the hardware an software on the PC's. you do not have to update but there are problems both way's if you do/don't. The install other OS function was removed before the Slim went to market that is Sony's right, who as consumer's can tell a company what they have to put into their hardware! because that is what George an Failoverflow team is exactly doing telling people how to bypass security measures on PS3's to add something Sony took out because of Hacker's action's in the first place, thus forceing the PS3 software in the process to go Open source not just for them but for everyone! Even with that the Hacker's are still not happy they want these machines to even access the PSN. which still does not belong to them. they talk about Consumer's right's, but the fact they have so much disregard for the right's of the copy right holder's software property is the real sham.
The way I'm seeing it is, while removing OtherOS isn't the equivalent of discontinuing a console, locking a user out of PSN and preventing the use of upcoming games is. In both scenarios, it basically puts an end to the ability to play new games for the system. Nobody forced the removal of OtherOS. That was a decision the user made entirely on their own because they didn't want to give up PSN or the ability to play new games. PSN belongs to Sony, so they have the right to do what they please. As for not being able to play new games on a PS3 with OtherOS, that's not any different from when MS discontinued the Xbox, which brought an end to all new games on the system. People like to dwell on the removal of OtherOS, but that's not what happened. Sony removed PSN and the ability to play new games for OtherOS users. If Sony had just yanked OtherOS off your system without consent, then it would be a problem. But Sony gave people a choice between OtherOS and PSN support as well as the ability to play new games. Neither PSN support nor compatible game releases were guaranteed for the life of the console, because they aren't included with the system you buy. At any time, Sony has the right to stop supporting the system, just as MS did with the Xbox. It just seems a little ridiculous how Sony can stop supporting the PS3 in one capacity and get sued for it, while MS can just drop all Xbox support without issue. It's not an issue of Sony disabling OtherOS. It's an issue of Sony dropping support for PS3s running a specific firmware, and I really don't see why it isn't within Sony's right to do that, just because they continue to release games for the system or offer an online service.
while i do infact agree 100% what you stated, i do think that people are looking at it to narrow, because like you stated an i also stated, unlike the other option an just taking the xbox off the market no more production model's Sony has made it capable of the consumer can update their PS3 at anytime. an thus if they want psn access an more compatability they can through firmware updates. thus support is there is if you want it. but Install other OS was removed because it was a security risk to PSN an piracy, Sony had to do it. there was no other recourse even if they made a new model an released it with it patched, there was many PS3's with that security issue if you kept Linux on your machine an sony had to keep it off of PSN! thus the other problem is not all software made by developer's may not have been compatable with your PS3 if you kept Linux. an as i pointed out before when right now even is if Sony Banned people off the PSN hacker's are trying to make it unbanned off of PSN how is that alright? Its when consumer right's is taken way too far in my opinion , Im all for consumer's right's but that's not fair to the developer's an people support the server's that you play on. Hacker's cannot claim their Home brew is for the good when hacker's make homebrew that try's to stop the ability for company's to keep hacker's off of their owned companies server from hacked systems. an we know Hacker's are tying not only spoof trick's but changing their PS3's mac adress, an other trick's to keep accessing PSN. when PSN server's do not belong to you as the consumer!
A agree with joeorc But also when M$ cut Xbox Live from the original console they compensated all its most recent users with free Xbox Live time and M$ points. $ony on the other hand compensated it's users with nothing but a warning and a lawsuit for trying to regain functionality that was advertised and promised. Idk one seems a lil better off than the other :\
True, but MS really had no obligation to compensate them. And one could argue that the free Live time and points were offered more to entice those players to move on to the 360 or a more recent Halo game, than as a means of compensation. But really, I think the bigger issue is the games support, since both Sony and MS can do whatever they please with their services. In one case, MS drops support for all Xboxes. In another case, Sony drops support for PS3s running a certain firmware. I really don't see how one scenario is perfectly acceptable, yet the other would get you sued. Both scenarios put an end to the stream of new games you can play, and neither prohibits you from using your console exactly as you always have with games you've already purchased, so what the two scenarios so different? If Sony had not offered a free firmware update, and instead released a new system, called it a PS4, threw in a little more RAM or something, and charged you for it, would that have made the situation better? Because obviously that would have been within Sony's legal right. I just don't see how discontinuing support for a system running a specific firmware, and discontinuing support for an entire system are in any way different from a consumer perspective, since both have an identical effect on the user.
"$ony on the other hand compensated it's users with nothing but a warning and a lawsuit for trying to regain functionality that was advertised and promised. " that's not true at all. the ability to install Other OS's was not a paid for function is was allowed through Sony 's software. IF George Hotz was not hacking Sony's software would we still have it today? you bet we would, why would sony remove a function that allowed the PS3 to do even more if there was not a good reason not to keep it? in this case there was which george prides himself on it it seem's. if the fact that "it only does everything" tagline, is any indication Sony would like nothing better than to keep it there.. the PS3 would do even more than it does now! the simple fact Sony had no other choice because of George an Failoverflow an hacker's just like them for wanting to get access to the GPU an all part's of the PS3 that was tied to the PS3's software. but was locked out through that software. this is not like A PC it's an embedded system. the consumer buy's the hardware but the software has function an security you not as the consumer allowed to bypass. that's really what this was about access to the GPU so they could make games for the PS3 with out paying licence fee's. when sony allowed Homebrew through Linux, they could have made any homebrew they wanted without the Direct access to the RSX because developer's have to pay for that. Hack's did not want to do that. How is that fair to the developer's that do pay for that? what would be the point for Sony to make such, if the Hacker's force once again the PS3 to become open source? there are already many Open sources OS already with direct access to the hardware. Hell with "playstation suite" Sony's now allowing developer's to get their work certified without alot of expensive licencing there's some but not alot. giving a warning was something that Sony did do instead of outright banning. atleast it's very pro consumer in their attitude.
No, if you package a product with something, you CANNOT take it back! The thing is though this is a relatively new situation, up until now when you buy a product it's yours and unless the manufacturer came to your house to say take a part off your product, he could not otherwise do so. With all consoles now being connected to the internet the manufacturer has somewhat of their foot in your door. It's hard for people the majority of people to understand, because not many people use OtherOS but it was a feature that some bought the console for. Just, because a group of people used it for criminal use (whether GeoHot actually pirated a game is beside the point) doesn't give $ony the right to take it away from consumers. I can understand removing it from future consoles, but not taking it away from existing customers.
"No, if you package a product with something, you CANNOT take it back! " If you read the TOS it basically states they can change functionality.
I can sell you a a steak, and make you sign a TOS that makes it so I can take the meat off the bone at any time. Doesn't make it right. I can sell someone a computer, and make them sign a TOS that states that any time I can take a bat to their car. I make the extreme point, because what I'm trying to say is that a TOS isn't a hall pass from committing a crime. And if you don't already understand what this GeoHot case is all about, it's not about whether George is guilty, it's whether the law he's accused of breaking is constitutional.
1.60 March 22, 2007 Settings changes * Added Support for [Install Other OS] /\ It was a feature added after the PS3 was released, it never came with the system. So how the hell are they taking something away from you that was never there in the first place? It was an added feature that was later removed for security reasons. "I can sell someone a computer, and make them sign a TOS that states that any time I can take a bat to their car." No, but you can make a subscription based program for the computer someone has and in the TOS say if they do not renew their subscription your software doesn't have to work again.
"Even with that the Hacker's are still not happy they want these machines to even access the PSN. which still does not belong to them. they talk about Consumer's right's, but the fact they have so much disregard for the right's of the copy right holder's software property is the real sham." 100% agreed. Hackers keep using the fact that they paid for the HARDWARE to justify trampling on the rights of the SOFTWARE license holders. I have no problem with hackers hacking their own systems to add things that they want, but dispersing security holes to the public for a device that contains MY personal and credit card information is another thing.
for those that still do not get it: Librarian of Congress that deals specifically with video games and the circumvention of their security: "D. Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if: •The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and •The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law." http://www.copyright.gov/fe... you can reread that an look at that anyway you want but it's very clear in it's intent, You can reverse engineer software for security flaws but you cannot release your finding's to the public at large knowing full well that it would "facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law." people could say or George could say that his release of the Metldr key would not cause or "cause to" facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law. but that is what law an prudence is for..it's like the common sense to look @ law an intent. what would a prudent man do? George hotz is smart, he's very well gifted in hacking system's but did he follow law an prudence...that answer is no! this is why Sony's suit is viable, george knew this clause in that because of his case with apple, but chose to ignore it. an The judge may infact see it that way.
doesn't anybody get the statement "stealing is wrong" ?
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.