
PS3 Root Key Hacker Sued - davidcuddeback
http://www.geohot.com/
======
redthrowaway
From the court order:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Hotz and his officers, employees,
attorneys and representatives, and all other persons or entities in privity or
acting in concert or participation with Defendant Hotz, be immediately
temporarily restrained from:

...Offering to the public, posting online, marketing, advertising, promoting,
installing, distributing, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any
circumvention technology, products, services, methods, codes, software tools,
devices, component or part thereof...

...Providing links from any website to any other website selling, offering for
sale, marketing, advertising, promoting, installing, importing, exporting,
offering to the public, distributing, providing, posting, or otherwise
trafficking in any Circumvention Devices...

And a whole lot more. Aside fromt the fact that it seems the corporate world
_still_ hasn't heard of the Streisand Effect, the language of this document is
worrying. Clearly, the laws were written with commercial theft of IP and
industrial espionage/reverse engineering in mind. The linguistic contortions
seem to make it clear that the DMCA and CFAA were never meant to be used
against hackers, but rather against counterfeiters. It's pretty disturbing
that even the courts march lockstep with corporations in stretching the law to
serve corporate ends.

edit: As pointed out below, this is a proposed order, not one issued by a
judge. Thus, please disregard the last bit about the courts marching in
lockstep with corporate interests. I'm appending rather than editing so that
the responses make sense.

~~~
obsessive1
If I'm right though, that's only a proposed restraining order? Or do I have
the wrong end of the stick?

~~~
redthrowaway
I think you're right. There's no signature from a judge at the bottom, which
suggests this is something they're submitting to the court in the hopes of
having it approved. IANAL, so I don't know how that would work.

~~~
repsilat
The "fill in the blanks" bits suggest that pretty strongly, too -

> __IT IS ORDERED __that SCEA shall post a bond in the amount of $_______ as
> security...

------
iwwr
If you watched the CCC presentation on the PS3, you know these people are more
interested in running their own software than breaking the console to play
pirated games.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbUVgxw1yWc> (30 seconds)

~~~
DougBTX
Sony doesn't get a cut when people play games they've made themselves. If
people play their own games, then they have less time to play games where Sony
does get a cut, so it hurts them in just the same way that pirated games do.
This is going to be a problem one way or another as long as the cost of the
hardware is subsidised.

~~~
PostOnce
Do you seriously think homebrew is a threat to commercial games? The quality
is 1/1,000,000th. The budget is one billionth.

Let me know when SCOURGE ( <http://scourgeweb.org/tiki-
browse_gallery.php?galleryId=2> ) starts impacting Diablo sales.

------
christoph
<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/GeoHot/>

Note to Sony lawyers: no doubt you're eager to rack up another billable hour
by sending legal threats to me and my university. Before you go down that
unhappy road, check out what happened the last time a large corporation tried
to stop the mirroring of technical information here: The Gallery of CSS
Descramblers. Have you learned anything in ten years?

David S. Touretzky Research Professor of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon
University Pittsburgh, PA 15213

------
davidcuddeback
Previous discussion when the root key was released:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2063058>

~~~
heretoo
>>> In late December 2010, a hacking group called FAIL0VERFLOW discovered a
way to access certain (but not all) levels of the PS3 System by circumventing
the corresponding TPMs. Id. at ¶16; Bricker Decl. at ¶5, Exh. D. At that
point, hackers were given the tools to run unauthorized and pirated software
on the PS3 System <<<

My understanding is that fail0verflow's exploit didn't enable piracy at all
because metldr wasn't being exploited. Anyway, won't this go the way of
iphone, where is was ruled that jailbreaking is legal?

My hardware, my rules...

~~~
trotsky
Note that phone jail breaking was given a very narrow exemption by the Library
of Congress through the terms of the DMCA. It doesn't establish any legal
precedent here, and lobbying for such an exemption is a lengthy process.

Morally they seem similar enough, sadly that's not the issue.

~~~
chopsueyar
Slavery was once legal in the US, too.

~~~
chc
Does this observation have some relevance, or is it just for shock value?

~~~
chopsueyar
Are we not questioning the morality of said laws? Simply because it is the
law, does not make it right or just.

------
vog
It is interesting to see how fast this key spreads over the net. At the
moment, a quick google search shows 26,700 results:

<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22C0+CE+FE+84+C2+27+F7+5B%22>

~~~
Raphael
Results counts on Google are wildly inaccurate.

~~~
lamnk
It's still a data point to take. How else do you propose to measure the
popularity of one thing on internet (in a quick way) ?

------
makeramen
engadget article says it's just a restraining order? unless things have
changed since they published this post:
[http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/11/sony-sues-geohot-
fail0ver...](http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/11/sony-sues-geohot-fail0verflow-
over-ps3-exploits/)

------
maeon3
This notion of owning a piece of hardware without the legal right to take it
apart worries me.

Close that car hood citizen, there are secrets in there, don't make me taze
you.

erk: C0 CE FE 84 C2 27 F7 5B D0 7A 7E B8 46 50 9F 93 B2 38 E7 70 DA CB 9F F4
A3 88 F8 12 48 2B E2 1B

riv: 47 EE 74 54 E4 77 4C C9 B8 96 0C 7B 59 F4 C1 4D

pub: C2 D4 AA F3 19 35 50 19 AF 99 D4 4E 2B 58 CA 29 25 2C 89 12 3D 11 D6 21
8F 40 B1 38 CA B2 9B 71 01 F3 AE B7 2A 97 50 19

R: 80 6E 07 8F A1 52 97 90 CE 1A AE 02 BA DD 6F AA A6 AF 74 17

n: E1 3A 7E BC 3A CC EB 1C B5 6C C8 60 FC AB DB 6A 04 8C 55 E1

K: BA 90 55 91 68 61 B9 77 ED CB ED 92 00 50 92 F6 6C 7A 3D 8D

Da: C5 B2 BF A1 A4 13 DD 16 F2 6D 31 C0 F2 ED 47 20 DC FB 06 70

~~~
sorghum
This bit in particular disturbs me:

>> First, the PS3 System consists of a “protected computer” because it is used
in interstate commerce (e.g., the Internet.) Second, without SCEA’s
authorization, Defendants intentionally accessed certain levels of the PS3
Systems by circumventing SCEA’s TPMs in the PS3 Systems. Defendants’ access to
such levels in the PS3 Systems is not authorized; to the contrary, the
PlayStation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement (“PSN User Agreement”)
prohibits the circumvention of security features in the PS3 System.

It looks like there is a legal definition of a "protected computer" (see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_computer>), but I can't imagine it was
ever intended to apply to one's own computer. Furthermore, how is the
PlayStation Network user agreement relevant here? You don't have to agree to
anything to buy a PS3, only to use the optional PSN service.

~~~
pyre
It sounds like they are grasping for straws with that claim. I think that it's
likely to get thrown out. If it doesn't get immediately tossed out, or at
least defeated in court, _then_ it would be time to worry.

------
GooseFlyFox
Sony is always willing to spread the love while I fully understand the desire
and drive to reverse and break the security of closed platforms..
grandstanding about your success in a public way traceable to you seems really
misguided...

It would seem better to release and wait for the ashes to settle first no?

~~~
heretoo
Should have leaked the keys through wikileaks .. harhar..

But seriously, the fail0verlflow guys had legitimate grounds to exploit the
PS3. Sony had taken away OtherOS, effectively crippling the product they had
purchased, which was advertised as offering this feature. Imagine instead,
what would happen if Sony had taken away the ability to play games?..

~~~
loire280
Then Sony's console business would go bankrupt?

But seriously, except for scientific computing, the PS3 was a terrible Linux
system, especially for the price. Is this really about restoring
functionality, or is it just punishment?

~~~
arohner
The PS3 is now viable as a new host platform for XMBC (XBox Media Center).

>Then Sony's console business would go bankrupt?

The Music and Movie industries continue to stay in business even in the face
of piracy. Wake me up when PS3 pirating comes close to the level of Napster.
I'm not justifying piracy, just saying that Sony should be more worried about
their real competitors.

~~~
ellisd
"XMBC (XBox Media Center)" That was my first thought when I read the news of
the self-signed code running. I seriously cannot stop reminiscing about the
glory days of XBOX1 and XBMC bringing jaw dropping awesomeness to the living
room. The PS3 media playback although working perfectly in most SD video using
PS3 Media Server, the transcoded DNLA streaming crap for some reason cannot
handle fast forwarding / rewind or scene selection. We're talking 1080p
playing from a i7 Extreme workstation + gigabit network. XBMC with HD support
and Samba access would most likely playback perfectly on a PS3 homebrew build.

Guess it's time to fork git://xbmc.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/xbmc/xbmc but
I'd almost prefer to take a wait and see approach with Sony's first salvo
against custom firmware users.

------
atomical
Judging from a lot of the comments on this topic and others many geeks don't
believe intellectual property should be protected. When someone creates a
platform (Heroku, Facebook, Apple's App Store) they have a right to lock it
down. If you don't believe in that don't buy the product!

~~~
cookiecaper
It's not a cut-and-dry matter of whether intellectual property "should be
protected". I think most hackers expect some protection in the form of
copyright. However, most hackers are also tinkerers and are disturbed that
current IP law so heavily favors corporate interests, even to the extent where
you cannot use something you rightfully own according to your own desires.

Would you buy an oven if there was a big label that said "IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE
THIS OVEN FOR BROWNIES; ALL BROWNIE BAKERS WILL BE PROSECUTED"? Do you think
laws that allow that kind of thing are good? Remember, this isn't a rented
oven, you bought the whole thing outright. Why should there be laws that allow
hardware makers to say "THIS COMPUTER CAN ONLY RUN MOBILE OS 5.5; ALL USERS OF
NON-MOBILE OS 5.5 WILL BE PROSECUTED"?

What about (cooling it on the caps) "it is illegal to publish the words etched
into the bottom of this oven. _Do not_ read the words on the bottom of this
oven"?

Copyright was originated to make the creation of intellectual property
economically worthwhile so that more intellectual content could be produced
and distributed. I think we crossed that threshold a long time ago and now
we've gone way overboard into the other extreme; our current laws actively
discourage creativity, which is the exact opposite of their purpose.

Why doesn't your post say, "It seems many companies don't believe that those
that purchase their hardware have a right to use it according to their own
dictates. If these companies don't believe in that, don't mass produce and
sell your product to everyone!"?

Surely massive distribution with no restriction on buyers is a horrible way to
keep a secret.

~~~
roel_v
EULA's have nothing to do with copyright, it's plain contract law.

If you and I are neighbors and we agree that you I will pay you 250$ a month
to not park you car in front of my house (while you legally have a right to do
so), should that not be allowed?

If I am a shoe manufacturer with local retail outlets you and I agree that I
will sell you my shoes for reselling overseas, but part of the agreement is
that you won't sell them locally; should that be allowed?

If you and I agree that I will sell you a device but you will only use it
under certain circumstances, should that be allowed?

I think the government has no business in private contracts in any of the
above situations. Let people make their own agreements and then let the market
decide. The only role the government has herein is to _enforce_ contracts -
what good are contracts when one party can decide retroactively that they
don't like the terms anymore, and oh I don't want to cancel the contract, no I
want to have my pie and eat it, too?

~~~
Osmose
Technically yes, except with a PS3 your purchase amounts to agreement with the
EULA; it's tucked away in a manual that no one reads, or at best is shown to
the user on a screen during setup which is simply clicked through. Most people
don't realize that they aren't buying the physical machine, they're buying the
right to use the physical machine in approved ways only (this may be
technically untrue, but it's certainly what it amounts to).

I find the fact that a contract can be agreed to in these ways unethical,
especially when they are hidden under the guise of buying a physical product.

~~~
roel_v
Sorry but that doesn't make sense. When you buy from a supplier, you are
already bound by a number of contractual stipulations, (almost) nobody reads
those, either. They're still enforceable, there are mountains of jurisprudence
on that. Should contracts be void because one of the parties can't be bothered
to check the content of the agreement? Or should suppliers force users to read
the contract to be enforceable? Some software makes you scroll down before you
can click 'agree'; is this not enough? Should it show you the dialog for a
certain amount of time? Or maybe software shouldn't be sold online, you'd
always have to go to a store, where a clerk forces you to read and then
quizzes you on the content before selling you the software?

You say the contract is 'unethical'; I understand that position and in some
cases agree, to an extent. But do you agree with me that even if it's
unethical, the principle is still sound and that the contract should be both
enforceable and enforced?

~~~
storm
Is there actual case law supporting the notion that I can be party to a
contract on the basis of a bunch of legalese buried in a manual I'll never
read, for a product I purchased through a third party?

I paid for a product, I own it. If Sony wants ridiculously extended
protections that turn the arrangement into some kind of conditional rental,
they'd damned well better force the Walmarts of the world to have us sign
documents to that effect at the point of purchase. This implicit agreement
stuff is nonsense.

~~~
redrobot5050
So when you bought a physical copy of DOS 3.0 or Windows 3.1, you effective
own DOS or Windows? My god man, you should assert your rights and claim your
billions!

~~~
redrobot5050
I see I'm being downvoted because HN is becoming more like reddit in terms of
discussion and debate.

To make my point clearer: You can own a physical device, but the software (IP)
on that device is not your property. Is anyone familiar with court cases that
might set a precedent if the root key is considered a software feature or a
hardware feature? My bet is Sony is claiming it to be a software feature, and
thus, not part of the property you purchase when you buy a PS3.

~~~
chc
You're being downvoted because your comment was snarky and seemed
disingenuous. Nobody's saying that buying a copy of a piece of software grants
you the copyright to that software (rather than ownership of _that copy_ of
the software), and a copyright is very obviously not analogous to a PC.

~~~
redrobot5050
Is it? I buy a PC loaded with Windows. I own the hardware. I have a license to
windows.

I buy a PS3. It is a computer loaded up with a OS to which I have a license. I
can do what I want with the hardware, but the software isn't mine. An
encryption key (in my mind) is a software component.

