Printable View
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iUvuaChDEg
i personally thought he was a bit of a cocky turd...
but now its serious, Yo!
i dont like the guy.... but i believe in what he believes in
power to the ppl!
viva la revolution!
ur guys thoughts on the man standing up for user rights?
im just worried that if sony wins this apple will appeal the jail breaking legality. ect ect.
I'm in favour of anything that helps me avoid copy protection.
Getting sued for fixing my biggest complaint with thePS3. F%^*@#G corporate dillweeds.
Being sued by Sony doesn't exactly call for "Viva la left wing extremists."
If that was really him, wow.
He's well on his way to trading all remaining 'grown up cred' for 'street cred', which is worthless in the court room...or anywhere else for that matter.
I haven't followed this crap very closely...<---disclaimer...but I honestly have no issue with a company determining how their services and networks are used. I do believe a consumer should be able to modify a purchased product however they see fit though...look where I'm posting this! But if you mod the product in a way that could cause problems on their network, whether legal or illegal, the company should have every right to terminate your access to that network. They own the network so they're the boss.
People that are complaining about all of this are the ones that made the mistake of buying a console in the first place. PC games FTW!
Ok, so he's a bit of a jacka** ...doesn't excuse Sony's behavior.
I haven't been following it closely either, but from what I have read, it went something like this:
1) Sony releases console with gimped otherOS function.
2) Community is frustrated by this, figures out how to un-gimp it.
3) Instead of patching the security hole that was discovered in step 2 or just un-gimping it themselves, Sony completely removes said otherOS feature.
4) Community is frustrated, figures out how to unlock it again.
5) Sony goes apes*** and decides to 'make an example' of one of the more prominent figures in said community.
They didn't just ban him from their network, they sued him, got a restraining order against him (???), and (last I heard) were trying to seize any computer equipment that could have been used in the process of breaking their key. Plus (again, last I heard), they're trying to get the case tried in California instead of New Jersey, where the defendant lives. I hardly think the location matters much to Sony, monetarily, and if they're actually in the right it shouldn't matter where it's tried. So the only reason I can think of that they're insisting on California is to try and make the cost of defense too overwhelming for the defendant to continue.Quote:
Originally Posted by mDust
Overall, massive overreaction, at the very least. At worst, a paranoid's wet dream.
Sorry, Sony. I'm rooting for GEOHOT on this one. Stop throwing so much poo in everyone's face and maybe I'll reconsider.
Sony, Sony, Sony.
2nd biggest thing I heard with them is installing spyware on supposedly "blank" CDs.
I think I'm mixing up some Sony battles. There was, I thought, active banning of MAC addresses or whatever by Sony to prevent hacked consoles from connecting to the network for security reasons. It might still be this same incident though, as geohot was hacking the low-level security code to enable the running of any software (including malicious code and copyrighted software) which is what Sony is getting pissy about. Also, it looks to me like geohot was facilitating piracy, copyright infringement, and possibly the introduction of PS3 viruses. First Amendment? Not when it infringes on the rights of others...and corporations have all the same rights as you and I.
I honestly don't think the restraining order was out of line...especially with the amount of arrogance he likely put into his responses to cease and desists. I wouldn't be so quick to lay all the blame on Sony. I know if some little punk gave me 1/10th the attitude this kid seams to have and I had unlimited resources, I'd crush him to make an example too.:whistler:
Yes, hacked PS3's are banned from the Playstation Network, but that's not what this case is about.
The same can be said for the people who hacked the iPhone...or any other device that runs software..or does anything at all, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by mDust
Also, at least from the articles I've read, he made it very clear at every stage of his work that he was not facilitating piracy. Just because something that he made makes it easier for pirates to work doesn't necessarily mean that he is facilitating piracy. That's like saying road pavers are facilitating speeders by making roads that can be driven on safely at speeds higher than the speed limit. Or saying hardware stores are facilitating burglars by selling hammers. A good example of what I'm talking about is the PC software security industry. Stuff like what geohot did happens ALL THE TIME there. But do the companies get all upset and sue the people airing their dirty laundry to the world? No! They fix the damn problem...hell, a lot of companies offer rewards to do what he did.
Like I said before; yes, he's a jacka**. That doesn't excuse using the US Judicial system as your plaything to punish people you don't like.
http://www.google.com/search?client=...=Google+SearchQuote:
Originally Posted by x88x
While he's not guilty of piracy, copyright infringement, etc himself, he made it much easier for people to do those things. Knowingly facilitating a crime is a crime. If a bank robber didn't know how to get into the vault, and I come along and show him, that makes the robbery possible whereas it wasn't before. If I take a mandated governor off a vehicle and then the owner uses the vehicle to outrun the police, I facilitated the get away.
You can't just take someone to court to get a restraining order. It doesn't matter how rich or influential you are...there are steps that have to be taken beforehand, which means there's more to this story than has been told. I would almost bet that geohot has been baiting Sony for a while and wanted the situation to escalate for publicity. I'm not sure if he expected to get sued or not, but it's not like Sony is going to get anything out of a young kid anyway. The lawsuit is just so Sony can prove a point, and that is "If you even think about slightly destabilizing our profitable system, we'll crush you."Quote:
Originally Posted by x88x
The problems with charges of "facilitating" are that in this case is that he is doing little more than making the PS3 into another computer. Are all the computer hardware companies facilitating piracy by making the stuff I use to make copies of rented games and movies? How about Microsoft, Apple, and anyone who has ever contributed to Linux for making that hardware easy to use? Is my ISP facilitating internet piracy by providing me with internet service?Quote:
Originally Posted by mDust
He's modifying hardware that he has legally purchased and owns and showing people how to do it themselves. IMO, He is no more guilty of facilitation than any hardware company, software company, or ISP.
Sony hasn't made this easy. Their EULA has been a moving target and that sucks. EULA takes ownership out of the hardware. Any punishment that Sony can give is within the EULA. "If you don't do as this says than we'll ban you from updates and server access." But the fact remains that people who buy the hardware own it and they can do what they want from it. The company that made it and the company that sold it no longer have any legal say in the matter. He can do what he wants with it and if it's such a good thing that other people want to do it as well then maybe Sony should take a listen and follow suit.
Ok, yes, by the strict definition, he did facilitate piracy. So does every recordable media manufacturer. And every hard drive manufacturer. And every company that makes software that lets you write to any recordable media. Whoops, I just potentially facilitated some random person breaking into someone's house. Guess that means they should sue me. Hell, by the strict definition, Sony facilitated piracy on the PS3 by making it. Is that a ridiculous argument? Yes, definitely. But that's my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by mDust
The funny thing is that 16 years ago, Sony was sitting on the other side of the table in the Sony vs Universal case of 1984, arguing that making Betamax recorders did not mean that they were contributing to copyright infringement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Co...y_Studios,_Inc.
What I'm hoping comes out of this is that the 'smartphone jailbreaking' exemption gets expanded to include all products.
i second x88x notion in hopes that all devices become freely-usable...
if you would like to actually see the TRO and such his site is at www.geohot.com it has all the documents put up and it is his own personal passive website..
i rly usually dont like his attitude either.... but sony is using the law to scare away hardware hackers from givin us device freedom..
im on his side on this one.... i love using this virgin mobile iphone 3gs on the rogers network.. without pioneers like him... i woulda been screwed into a 3 year contract...
That is why the court case is held in California. It's not some tactic the Sony lawyers came up with to screw geohot over at the last minute. Just because the legal agreements are ridiculous, doesn't mean you aren't bound by them when you take whatever action seals the deal. Anyone else that is using a PS3 is bound by the same.Quote:
Defendant George Hotz is bound by the “Playstation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement” (the “PSN User Agreement”), ¶14 of which states in relevant part that “both parties submit to personal jurisdiction in California and further agree that any dispute arising from or relating to this Agreement shall be brought in a court within San Mateo County, California.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46739945/Motion-for-TRO
Yeah, he definitely facilitated piracy amongst other things and there is NO way he didn't know he was doing exactly this. According to geohots wikipedia page, he's some kind of electronics/robotics prodigy and a genius. He's been a finalist in several related competitions around the globe. He's not an idiot despite that video. "I didn't know this would happen" is not going to fly in court.Quote:
Yesterday, for example, an article trumpeted that “PS3 Software Piracy Begins as First Game is Played on an Unmodded Playstation 3.”Bricker Decl. at ¶2, Exh. A. The article proceeds to explain:
That didn’t take long, did it? The root key crack that was uncovered by Geohot [i.e., Defendant George Hotz] and other modders has
the door wide open for rampant PlayStation 3 piracy, and the first pirated game on an unmodded PS3 has been done.
See also
, Bricker Decl. at ¶30, Exh. CC. This motion seeks to close the door for rampant piracy that Defendants have illegally pried open in violation of federal and California law.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46739945/Motion-for-TRO
It's funny how page 6 which describes geohots illegal activities is blanked out. I wonder if he's done a lot of questionable things that haven't been publicly mentioned yet and deleted that page before uploading? Perhaps he just pleads the 5th to his fans...
Now, this is just complete BS. Not even a hint of extortion there. He didn't specify that he required payment. For all Sony knows he might have just needed an address to mail a USB key with instructions on how to do it right for once.Quote:
6. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(7)(B) – Intent to Extort
Finally, SCEA will likely prevail on its claim under §1030(a)(7)(B), which prohibits “intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value” by threatening “to obtain information from a protected computer without authorization or in excess of authorization or to impair the confidentiality of information obtained from a protected computer without authorization or by exceeding authorized access.” Hotz violated this provision when, in the same post in which the published SCEA’s Keys, he attempted to obtain from SCEA “a thing of value” in the form of employment: “if you want your next console to be secure, get in touch with me.” Bricker Decl. at ¶22, Exh. U.To prevent further harm to SCEA, the Court should immediately enjoin Defendants’ unauthorized access of the PS3 Systems.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46739945/Motion-for-TRO
AHAHAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, this kid is definitely not a hacker and has no connection whatsoever to the people that he collaborated with to discover the root key. :rolleyes: Did he just find the root key on the main screen one day? Did not he and the other defendants find the various keys which geohot then used to find the root key?Quote:
As a cursory matter, Defendant Hotz vehemently objects to Plaintiff's attempt to classify him as a hacker and to assert, without authority or a good faith basis, that Defendant Hotz has any association or connection with Defendants “Bushing,” Hector Cantero, Sven Peter and “Segher”.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46819931/19-Main
This is where they collaborated. You can no longer see it because it's by invite only now. I guess they did that in an effort to hide evidence. I hope they deleted the evidence though because it only takes a subpoena to crack that open in court.
I completely agree with this. No good is going to come of the complete circumvention of security on the PS3. It's not a phone that is limited to only one of many networks. It's a gaming machine that is designed to run multiplayer games in a fair and stable environment...but not anymore.:facepalm: What do the users gain from this hack?Quote:
Circumvention devices and game piracy damage our industry and can potentially injure the online experience for you, our loyal PlayStation customers, via hacks and cheats.
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/...ated-software/
- They can run pirated games/movies.
- PS3 viruses.
- The instability of modded software.
- A multitude of 9 year old cheaters in every game.
- The option of connecting to another network...if one ever crops up...hopefully one does because this IS related to the PSN bannings.
I think these guys were trying too hard to turn a PS3 into a PC. I feel they have failed and will get a lot of unsuspecting users permanently banned from the PSN along the way. On top of that, they have opened the door to piracy and cheating. Shouldn't Sony be pissed?
Actually 1984 would be 27 years ago. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by x88x
I didn't know about that bit in their EULA. That explains a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by mDust
I think you're missing the point. Obviously he knew that it could be used for copyright infringement. A whole host of different devices and software products can be used for copyright infringement (for example, the product that Sony was defending back in '84). The difference is that he didn't (as far as I know) make anything for the express purpose of infringing copyrights. He found a brick, yes, but someone else took it, smashed the window, and ran off with the goods. A good example of what I mean is the Bittorrent protocol. It's a great protocol that provides a bunch of useful benefits over other file transfer protocols. And it just happens to be used a lot for piracy. Does that mean Bram Cohen should be charged with aiding piracy? A lot of servers that host pirated material run Linux. Does that mean that Linus Torvalds should be charged with aiding piracy? Should the company that sold a hit-and-run driver gas be charged as an accessory to that crime? If someone buys a gun, through normal, legal channels, and then goes and kills someone with it, the gun salesperson is not liable. If I buy a car, then go crash it into someone's house, the person who sold me the car is not liable for the damages.Quote:
Originally Posted by mDust
For a more direct comparison, how about the homebrew channel on the Wii? It gives you most of the legitimate freedoms that geohot's hack do. And it is also widely used for piracy. But does Nintendo go after the people who made the homebrew channel? No, they patch the security holes that were used to enter the system, and leave the homebrew channel alone. And they have way more direct interest in preventing piracy than Sony does, since they actually make a lot of games for their platform. Instead of going after the people making things that would benefit a variety of users and a variety of uses (some perfectly legitimate), they actually go after the people distributing pirated material.
No, it's also a computing platform that happens to be used by the majority of its users as a gaming platform. For the record, I'm not contesting Sony's right to ban hacked consoles from their network. What I have a problem with is their reaction to people trying to use their product for any purpose other than exactly what they want it to be used for. They want to keep their network clean and working the way they want it to, ok, fine, good for them. But to come into my home and think they can tell me what I can and cannot do with a product that I own...no. That I am not ok with. Well...not that Sony could do that to me anyway since I don't own any of their products...and they do seem to be doing their best to keep it that way. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by mDust
Quote:
Originally Posted by mDust
- Ability to run homebrew software.
- Ability to run whatever the hell they want on hardware that they purchased.
- Restoration of a manufacturer-advertised feature.
Doh! Math fail. :facepalm: Still, to completely change sides on an issue after setting a groundbreaking case..Quote:
Originally Posted by OvRiDe
A more accurate analogy would be that he came across a locked security door that was keeping the blackhats, cheaters, and pirates out. Seeing this, he decided to open it for them because that's his hobby. I guess that's not really an analogy though...Quote:
Originally Posted by x88x
And clowns are responsible if a fat man laughs his way to a heart-attack? And ducks are responsible if the driver of a down comforter delivery truck has an allergic reaction and drives through the side of a school bus? No, ridiculous examples are ridiculous. Geohot cracked a safe for the robber and perhaps a few innocent bystanders. But which do you think is going to take the most advantage of it? Even if he had the best of intentions he should have seen that the costs would be too high. The problem is the costs weren't on his bill...so who cares, right? +1 for hackers, -10 for gamers.Quote:
Originally Posted by x88x
Sony is trying to chop the head off the snake. It's already too late for the security of the PS3, but it's not too late to make geohot an example. The fact that Nintendo keeps patching the security holes means that they don't approve of what's going on. They're probably just letting the hackers do a free Q/A check on their code. Wouldn't they make the channel official if they approved? If Sony is successful with this and similar lawsuits, who's to say Nintendo and Microsoft won't follow in the same foot steps if necessary?Quote:
Originally Posted by x88x
You got that backwards: the PS3 is a game console with added features. PS1: game console with CD playback. PS2: game console with DVD/CD playback. PS3: game console with BR/DVD/CD playback and internet access.Quote:
Originally Posted by x88x
I don't think Sony is suing anyone that has merely hacked their console and used it for another purpose. They're suing the guys that cracked the base security to allow anything to run and then encouraged the PS3 customer base to use it by making it incredibly easy to do so. If you want to bolt wheels on the thing and make it fetch you a beer or two while gaming and streaming 10 movies at once, knock yourself out.:up: I assure you that you won't be sued. Also, post a worklog.:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by x88x
- Why? (see below)
- You have a perfectly good PC that can already do anything you want, why does your PS3, phone and iPod have to each do anything imaginable? I'll never understand why everyone wants devices that do a ton of different things below mediocrity instead of a device that does one or two things sublimely...when did specialization become a sin?
- Where did Sony advertise homebrew software? :? Otherwise, what manufacturer-advertised feature?
Geohot actually went out of his way in the firmware he released to make it so you couldn't run copyrighted games (backups).
Sony wasn't suing anyone when all you had to do was plug in a usb stick to run copyrighted games.
i think the moral of this storry is dont **** with sony.
But I want mine to play PS2 games...:( Which Sony wants to force you to have a seperate machine for simply because they make more $$$$$. They should just charge more for a machine that does instead of gimping the hardware so it can't. If I had the abilities to turn my pc into a machine that could run the games I enjoy Sony equipment would be on Ebay in a heart beat. I would love to have one machine that could play whatever disc you throw in PS3, Xbox, Wii whatever. Unfortunately I know bupkis about programming or I'd work on it myself. Personally if I did buy a PS3 I could careless about internet, that's what my pc is for.Quote:
Originally Posted by mDust
Which is exactly the problem I have with Sony's behaviour. It's like 'The Emperor's New Clothes'. Don't put on some pants, punish the person who dared to point out that you weren't wearing any in the first place. ..yeah, that's definitely a sustainable security model. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by mDust
Quote:
Originally Posted by mDust
Not necessarily, on either point. The fact that they patch the security holes mean they want their console to be as secure as possible, which is a very good thing for normal users. It doesn't necessarily mean that they don't approve of what those people are doing on their own unpatched systems. Conversely, the fact that they aren't suing the people finding those security holes doesn't necessarily mean that they approve, either. I don't really know what Nintendo's official or unofficial position is on the issue. That being said, even if they do approve of the homebrew channel, even if they love it, it will probably never be made official for one very simple reason. Liability. Right now, if you load some homebrew software on your Wii, Nintendo has zero responsibility to ensure that that software will work as intended and not break your system. If they made the channel official, they would have to approve every piece of software before it could be run, really defeating the entire purpose of the channel.Quote:
Originally Posted by mDust
Yes. That is exactly what they're doing. It happens in the PC software industry all the time, and has done for decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by mDust
The difference is how the security systems work on the three consoles. On the 360 and the Wii, the system security and the DRM security are completely separate systems. On the PS3, they're the same system. As Nightrain mentioned, people had been pirating PS3 games long before geohot came around. The reason Sony are so scared is not because piracy is suddenly possible, it's because now people can start poking at the underlying OS, and (god forbid) make it do things that Sony didn't intend it to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by mDust
Where do you draw the line? If I sold PC's with a custom OS that only did media center stuff, plus had a web browser, would you say that it's a media center with internet access or that it's a computing platform that happens to be running software that makes it a media center with web access?Quote:
Originally Posted by mDust
But I couldn't do that on a modern PS3 without the work that people like geohot have done...which is exactly my point. There are plenty of other uses for the access that these people enabled besides piracy/griefing/etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by mDust
Quote:
Originally Posted by mDust
- What if I want to make a game that works on the PS3 and get it to people who don't have PCs, or who don't like gaming on their PCs, but I'm not going to make money off it so I don't want to have to pay for the official PS3 API? I forget how much Sony charges for it, but iirc it's in the multi-thousand $ region, at least.
- Because I can....why do I need any more reason than that? To mirror your rhetorical, when did generalisation become a sin?
- They didn't advertise homebrew software. What they did advertise was the 'otherOS' feature, that let you run Linux on the PS3. Granted, the hardware access was majorly gimped, but still.
On another note, I finally checked out the court documents (couldn't access scribd when they were first linked), and I found this quite humorous:
Let's see here:Quote:
In early January 2011, Hotz publiclydistributed the circumvention devices necessary to access that level, providing them to thepublic via the Internet and releasing software code that will allow users to run unauthorized or pirated software on the PS3 System.
Id
. at ¶¶20-25. Unless this Court enjoins Defendants’unlawful conduct, hackers will succeed in running and distributing Circumvention Devicesthat run pirated software on the PS3 System.
1) Defendent released security details to the internet.
2) People made copyright circumvention tools using said details.
3) If you don't punish defendant, people will keep making copyright circumvention tools.
...what they fail to mention is that even if they do punish him, people will keep making those copyright circumvention tools anyway...or that people had been running pirated software on the PS3 long before geohot came around. :P
I've been trying to think of a more direct analogy for all this, and I think I may have found it. Malware development.
It is perfectly legal for me to analyse software any way that I want to. In fact, now I'm even allowed to make as many copies of that software as I like in the pursuit of security analysis. It is perfectly legal for me to find security holes and publish those anywhere I want. It is even perfectly legal for me to write malware that exploits those security holes and publish that code anywhere I want. And I can run that code as long as I want on as many systems as I want, as long as I have the consent of the owners of those systems. The point where I cross a legal line is if I run that code (or cause it to be run) on any system without the owner's consent.
This does not only apply to PC software either; this applies to any software running one any system.
The thing that Sony is calling into question, whether they want to admit it or not, if whether the person who bought a PS3 is actually the legal owner of that system. IIRC, Sony does actually specify in the PS3 EULA something along the lines of 'any software run on this system must be approved by Sony'. This is essentially the same situation that the iPhone was in a year ago. I think the outcome of this case will hinge a lot on how much power the courts decide the EULA can have.
new info on this at his site... and his new blog http://geohotgotsued.blogspot.com/
I also found a lot of their claims to be humorous and/or misleading.Quote:
Originally Posted by x88x
There isn't a clear line, however, the PS3 is the 3rd generation of a game console. It's primary function is to play games that were designed for it and only it. It's marketed to gamers. You don't see PS3 commercials focused on the BR or internet browsing capabilities. Even when it's completely unlocked it won't be able to do everything a PC can do...especially not as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by x88x
It isn't a sin, but it's crap. Quality>quantity. Why would I want to watch a movie on a 2" screen? Or listen to music coming from an 1/8" mono-speaker? Or type something like this post on a 3" keyboard? If I had no other choice I suppose I'd settle, but otherwise these experiences are highly muted. I know some film directors and music artists that would b**** slap anyone they caught 'experiencing' their work on a phone.:DQuote:
when did generalisation become a sin?
http://playstationlifestyle.net/wp-c...ng-685x206.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by mDust
Sony is the one who claimed it could do everything, maybe PS3 owners should sue for false advertising.
Edit: Missed a word.
Now there's an idea. Counter suit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Killa_Ape
Heheh, very true. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by mDust
Yes, it's the third generation of a game console, but every generation has gotten closer and closer to being a general purpose PC. And there are a lot of benefits to using the unique architecture of the Cell processor that Sony used in the PS3. ..if you can actually access it fully, that is. From what I hear, in the normal 'otherOS' mode, the access that the OS has to the hardware is severely restricted by the firmware, only allowing access to one out of the seven SPE's and, iirc, severely limiting access to the system memory as well. There are several organizations who have built PS3 clusters since the release of the system, including one that the US DoD was finishing up this past December (IDK if it's up and running yet, but form a few articles from Nov and Dec, I'm guessing probably) that is ranked at the 33rd most powerful supercomputer in the world..for 'only' $2 million. I can't find the reference right now, but I seem to remember reading that they got Sony to make them a special firmware that fully unlocked access to the hardware while running Linux.Quote:
Originally Posted by mDust
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010...scusses_n.html
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010..._using_pl.html
http://www.smartplanet.com/technolog...omputing/5720/
Funny you should mention that... :whistler:Quote:
Originally Posted by Killa_Ape
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2...in-lawsuit.ars
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...10218181557455
Sony really seem to have lost the plot on this, the video that was posted on youtube by George Hotz and later taken down by him in compliance with a court order was obviously watched by a lot of people and Sony have now demanded that Google hands over the IP addresses and any identifying info on those that watched the video on youtube.
It's unclear whether Google will comply with the request, It's a dangerous precedent to even be able to obtain the details via the legal process, of someone who simply watched a video posted on youtube and has to be very worrying for what the future might hold if big companies can demand and obtain such information about people, what are Sony going to do with this info if they get it, I don't own a ps3 or want to hack one but if I had watched the video which I haven't what are they going to do, blacklist all the IP's from the playstation network? Oooh, now I'm scared. :bowdown::rolleyes:
This info was in this weeks Micro Mart magazine.
o_O ...seriously? Wow, I had not heard that...I think someone at Sony has a screw loose. Here's hoping Google tells them to take a hike.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beta-brain
This is more and more reminding me of the whole mess that happened when the first AACS key was cracked. ...though Sony is getting quite a bit more aggressive this time.
This can't be true. Perhaps Sony doesn't know how IP addresses work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beta-brain
Dear Sony,
I'll save you the trouble, because Google won't give you that info even if they still had it: My current exterior IP is 172.168.1.250... I don't know if that's what it was when I watched the video or if it will be the same in 4-5 hours, but go ahead and ban that from your PSN. That's actually the IP to the T1 modem on this floor of my apartment building I think...it's hard to tell with all the layers I'm behind... It's not static anyway and the whole system reboots every night.
Best of luck,
A Non-customer
I suppose I'll concede the point that despite Geohot being an ass, Sony is a bigger ass. I still don't believe geohot was completely right to do what he did, but I suppose Sony could just ban anyone that takes advantage of it from the PSN (along with anyone that watched the video). That solves the major issues I have with this hack. The only thing that convinced me of this was the fact that x88x actually will need that info when he makes the PS3-based-beer-fetching-multi-movie-bot that he promised and is so excited about:
Quote:
Originally Posted by x88x
Amusing new development:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2...ed-manuals.ars
Things that make you go dohhooo.
In Micro mart magazine last week they reported that a judge in San Francisco had given Sony permission to obtain details of anyone who downloaded the files needed to hack the console, Sony really wants the IP addresses from web-hosting company Bluehost, meaning it can trace the downloaders live but it's believed the real reason Sony wants this info is so they can prove just how many people took advantage of Hotz' hacking software.
The more people who have downloaded the software, the less likely Hotz's claim that his software was for the "forum state" as claimed.
It doesn't look like Sony are going to let this drop and I also read that some other ps3 hackers have/will be releasing similar hacking software which may or may not work but might attract Sony's attention and take some heat off of Hotz. :twisted:
... -_^ ..I hate lawyers... (no offense to any lawyers on here...do we have any lawyers on here?) That's just an absurd statement, perpetuated by executives who have no understanding of how information travels on the internet. :facepalm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beta-brain
lol :P
