I’ve often harped on Apple for its policy regarding jailbreaking, but of course, Apple isn’t the only company engaging in such practices. We already talked about Motorola, and now, we have Sony – already a company with a checkered past when it comes to consumer rights. As it turns out, Sony don’t want you jailbreaking your their Playstation 3.
Recently, a number of easy jailbreak tools have been released onto the web, which make it very easy to install software on your Playstation 3 other than Sony’s approved stuff. While this can be used to play pirated games, it can also merely be used to enhance the functionality of the hardware you, I assume, bought, and therefore, is actually your own.
Sony clearly isn’t happy about this, and to a degree, that’s understandable. Like with jailbreaking your iPhone, certain individuals will use it to pirate software and games, and that sucks. However, I’d hazard a guess that at least with the iPhone, most people do it to get more functionality out of their phone – with consoles, I’m not sure what kind of functionality you would get, other than backing up your save games.
In any case, Sony decided to do something about this, and today, released a mandatory update, version 3.42 of the Playstation 3’s firmware. This firmware update fixes the security issue used by the jailbreaking tools, but Sony obviously doesn’t say anything about the real reason why this update has been pushed out so quickly.
“A minor update to your PS3 system is now available via system software update v3.42 that includes additional security features,” the Playstation blog states, “For more details and instructions on how to update the system software for the PS3 system, please visit the PS3 System Updates page.”
Talking to the BBC, however, Sony did state the real reason behind the patch. “But as we always have, we will continue to take necessary actions to both hardware and software to protect the intellectual content provided on the PlayStation 3,” the company told the BBC.
This is only the latest strike in Sony’s battle against jailbreaking. The company already managed to get a jailbreaking dongle prohibited in Australia, and they filed a lawsuit against the company selling them. A distributor of the dongle in my own The Netherlands has also received court documents.
In the meantime, Sony continues to ignore customer requests for actual new features for the Playstation 3. While Microsoft actually gives Xbox360 owners useful new features through firmware updates, Sony seems to be busier fighting the jailbreak community. How’s that cross-game chat coming along, Sony?
When you buy a PS3, you are *buying* it – you’re not renting it. You *own* the thing.
Ok, I have no problem with jailbreaking invalidating the warranty, but if you own something (whether it is a PS3 or whatever), surely it is *your business and no-one elses* if you choose to chop it around in whatever way you want, as long as it harms no-one else. If you choose to make a garage door-opener out of it, then that’s up to you.
Let’s say I *did* want to make a garage door-opener out of it. Sony obviously would not be interested in providing such functionality itself, so it would be up to me to do it. I reckon that if such an “enhanced functionality” case went to court, Sony would have a very hard time winning it. You are simply adding new functionality that Sony does not provide.
Where does this nonsense stop?
Edited 2010-09-07 22:18 UTC
Sure, you own it. But Sony owns PSN, and they’re free to limit its access to those running the latest firmware update.
Also, the article written by Thom fails to mention a couple of things:
1) The only homebrew application currently developed for the PS3 is the “Backup” Manager, written using Sony’s leaked SDK;
2) Any and all apps built with Sony’s SDK are unlicensed and therefore a copyright violation. It’d be like running a proprietary app linked against a GPL licensed library: not legal.
Ahh, but what if you build an app that does not use Sony’s SDK? For instance, if someone were to do a “backup manager” using a non-Sony SDK?
Edited 2010-09-07 22:25 UTC
If you’re want to run under GameOS, you _will_ use Sony SDK files.
1) The only homebrew application currently developed for the PS3 is the “Backup” Manager, written using Sony’s leaked SDK;
You know why there is no more homebrew for it? Because it’s has not been possible to install or use such! _Of course_ there is no homebrew yet then >_<
Now that the backup manager is out there people will start coding stuff and seeing what they can get out of PS3, it just takes time, you know.
Yes indeed.
And as for PSN (Playstation Network), I’m sure there’d be a few people out there who would have no interest in their network – they would just want the hardware. The PS3 itself.
Standalone apps wouldn’t need the network.
Totally.
I’ve got two of the original XBOX consoles running XBMC and other homebrew… since Microsoft cutoff XBox Live for the old XBOXes now, there is really no major reason *not* to modchip them.
Many view this type of situation as a challenge… for me, it was an opportunity to pick up a couple cheap consoles (~$7 for one, free for the other), and some cheap modchips (~$40/each) and do something fun with them, which my entire family can enjoy.
As a bonus, they still play legally-obtained used games and I don’t have to worry about Microsoft “banning” or “bricking” the console in the future.
Exactly!
If only there were companies out there which had enough vision to see this as an *opportunity*.
In other words, they can see that there are people wanting to tinker around with hardware, and they’d think “ok, now there’s an opportunity here. This could be an interesting market. How can we build on this? How can we help them out and grow the market?”
In other words, a bit like the Lego Mindstorms approach, as it were. Ok, that was built specifically for programming and mods, but you get the general idea.
If Sony were to take the Mindstorms approach with the PS3, allowing people to tinker with it, that would seem to be more productive.
Such companies seem to be rare, unfortunately.
Edited 2010-09-08 00:43 UTC
Precisely. Where is the console-equivalent to the GP2x? A little box for $300 or so, running Linux with HDMI-out that I can put in my entertainment center, and run with it whatever the hell I want?
I’d actually like to see AMD pull this, the equivalent of the X4 905e, 890GX and HD5750 Go Green Edition 2-4Gb of low voltage DDR3 and a TV tuner. It shouldn’t take much to get this all down into a single PCB. HDDs user accessible and replaceable. No real need for expansion slots or boat loads of connections. Just TV and audio in/out, HDMI, DisplayPort, DVI and Component video out. 4-6 USB and thats it.
Use the HD4225 IGP as an OpenCL coprocessor for the system, everything low power with big cooling blocks so it can run silent when not under load and they’d have a winner.
It’d get AMD better noticed by the general public, it’d help linux out as a gaming OS for developers, it’d help push OpenGL4 and OpenCL development.
BeagleBoard XM ?
I’d want something with ARM so there is low power use and thus no fans.
XBMC now runs on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80Uia6FkvnA
My guess is it’s still a bit of a project rather then a product (BeagleBoard has no case and I bet you must build XBMC from a branch), but maybe that’s what you want.
Personally I’m waiting for something like the beagleboard, but with a Cortex A9. 😉
That looks like something that developers would use… not exactly what I had in mind
I’m talking about something with a case and everything, where you just plug it in and it works. Run movies, emulators, homebrew games, and whatever else. As I said, a GP2x-like console.
PS3 was open platform for 3 years, with open documentation and tools, and almost no one used that “opportunity”. Even RSX was available in earlier firmware (not documented, but Sony can’t distribute nVidia confidential info)
And I forgot to mention PSX NetYaroze program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Yaroze
PS2 Linux with EE/GS hardware docs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ps2_linux
Unlike others, SONY provided official support.
Uh, the GPL places no restrictions on use. What you say is perfectly legal. In fact, it happens on almost every Linux installation: graphics drivers.
Wrong analogy – since that’s a perfectly legal activity.
I think you meant – it would be like *distributing* a proprietary app linked against the GPL without also distributing your source, or providing the recipient with an offer to obtain the source code along with it.
It’s ok – a common misconception.
I would guess that there will eventually be homebrew software that doesn’t rely on Sony’s SDK. At the very least, I would eventually anticipate a version of Linux which doesn’t require the OtherOS feature – it’s inevitable.
Even though the OtherOS feature was crippled, there was almost no news of PS3 piracy and jailbreaking the whole time it was available. I sometimes wonder if Sony will learn from this, but then I return to my senses.
The lesson is to not allow standard ports or a foreign OS. Both are unneeded security risks. Consoles should be black mystery boxes that only connect to non-standard devices.
The security on the ps3 is rather impressive and they deserve credit for keeping it uncracked this long. After the ps3 was first released I read endless comments about how trying to prevent hacking was futile and that it would be cracked in a year.
Their efforts were not futile given the number of games they were able to release without piracy. They still control access to PSN and they can keep playing the firmware update game. Not only can they tie games to firmware but blu-ray movies as well.
Even a proprietary application dynamically linked against GPL libraries is OK to distribute, because the proprietary application does not include the GPL libraries. With dynamic linking, the libraries are assumed to be already installed on the end user system, and the proprietary application just calls them. This is fully within the GPL terms … anyone may simply run the GPL code for any purpose.
A problem only comes about when a proprietary application statically links in a GPL library. This means that the GPL code is now included within the proprietary application. The proprietary application now becomes a derived work according to the definitions of copyright law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derived_work
When it is statically linked the GPL library is included in the proprietary application, the GPL code is a copyright-protected element of an original, previously created first work, and a whole library is indeed a “major element” of the whole work.
According to copyright law, rights to the derived work are in such a case jointly held by the authors of the separate elements that make up the work. The joint owners must come to an agreement about distribution rights with respect to the derived work. If the authors of the proprietary code within the derived work wish to have distribution rights for the derived work, then they must get permission from the authors of all other parts of the derived work which were written by other parties.
The GPL alone does not give such permission. Another license must be sought.
Note that the LGPL license DOES actually give such permission as an exception to the copyleft terms of the GPL. For this very reason, many libraries are licensed under LGPL rather than GPL.
Edited 2010-09-08 04:15 UTC
You realize that the FSF disagrees? They (and I believe Richard Stallman) hold that even dynamically linking constitutes a derived work, although that is only their opinion.
If it is so, it is indeed only the opinion of the FSF, because copyright law itself clearly says that a derived work is only created when a work includes another earlier work within it. Also, the GPL itself says that only distribution of GPL’d code requires that the soruce code is made available.
A proprietary program which merely dynamically links to GPL’d code clearly does not include the GPL’d code in that package which is physically distributed. Therefore, the act of dynamically linking to GPL’d libraries does not come under the restrictions of the GPL, and there is no derived work (under copyright law) involved.
Perhaps the FSF might argue that the proprietary program when running on the users system, as held in the user’s RAM at that time it does include the dynamically linked GPL’d code … but that form of the program is not what was distributed. It is the users who use the proprietary program plus the GPL’d code together, and the users have permission to do that from the GPL (for the GPL’d code) and from the purchase license (for the proprietary part).
It is a fine legal argument, I suppose, but on the face of it, that is what copyright law itself would appear to uphold. On first principles, it would seem that it is perfectly within the law and within the terms of the GPL license to distribute a proprietary program that merely dynamically links to GPL’d code in order to run on an end user’s system.
Caveat: IANAL.
PS: In every case of GPL violations that the FSF has argued in court, AFAIK it has involved instances when GPL’d code was physically included in the package that was being distributed. These are the ONLY cases the FSF has tried to enforce.
Edited 2010-09-08 07:40 UTC
Yeah, I agree it’s not a clear area. However, if one writes (for example) a C program, and you have
#include “other_lib.h”
You effectively have a derivative work, I would guess, as the C pre-processor has effectively gone and inlined that .h file into your .c file. If the header file was GPL… there could be an argument there.
In any case, I guess the issue would actually have to be tested before a more concrete answer could be found.
This is the interpretation of some. Others, for instance the Free Software Foundation, believe that dynamic linking is creating a derivative work. For this reason, they have created the LGPL (which does allow dynamic linking in proprietary applications, but not static linking).
This might be what the FSF believe, but it is not what copyright law says. Copyright law says that a derived work must include major elements of an earlier copyrighted work. Dynamic linked libraries (the earlier copyrighted work) are NOT present in the as-distributed work (whereas static linked libraries are). Furthermore, it is the act of distribution of code, and not the mere running of code, that the copyleft provisions of the GPL apply to.
If the FSF were to try to mount a case such as you argue in court, I do not see how they could logically prevail.
The FSF have never tried to argue such a case, AFAIK, and all GPL violations that have been argued by the FSF have involved instances where GPL code was in fact being distributed, physically included within larger (proprietary) works. This, and only this, is the no-no that has bite under the law.
Edited 2010-09-08 07:55 UTC
It’s true that the cases they have taken to court were clear violations like the busybox case. They mostly go after cases where there was no intent to provide source of any kind.
But the FSF has also stated that dynamic linking constitutes a combined program.
The screwy thing is that call dynamic linking of plug-ins to be a borderline case:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
What type of license allows a borderline case?
They also consider using shared memory to communicate with a plug-in to be the same as dynamic linking even though with a plug-in this is easily avoided by keeping the process separate.
You could certainly argue in court that dynamic linking isn’t a violation, especially since it is acceptable to build that same library into a separate executable that only exists to provide access.
Too much of the GPL is ambiguous, it really needs to be rewritten. It comes from a time when most programs were small and statically linked.
Minor nitpick … they have ONLY EVER gone after cases where there was no intent to provide source of any kind, and there were clear violations of distribution of GPL code, like the busybox case. There is no “mostly” about it.
The FSF are free to believe whatever they want, it doesn’t change what the copyright law actually says.
Copyright law says that major elements of another work (written by another party) must be included in a later work for that later work to be considered a derived work.
The FSF’s own GPL license clearly says that only the act of re-distribution of GPL code invokes the copyleft requirement for that code, and that upon that act of redistribution the source code of the GPL elements must be published in order to enjoy the permission to redistribute that the GPL license grants.
There are no conditions on merely running GPL code … the GPL license grants universal permission for anyone and everyone to run GPL code anywhere under any circumstances. This therefore includes permission for a proprietary binary program to run (or call, if you like) a GPL library if it is already installed on a users system.
When one dynamically links to a library, the library is not actually present in the resulting binary. The resulting binary executable will only work if the library in question is already present on the user’s system. This fact is very important, because it clearly shows that using dynamic linking means that the linked library is NOT re-distributed within the binary package.
Given all these clear facts, copyright law, and the GPL license wording itself, a solid case is established that dynamically linking to a GPL library and then distributing the resulting compiled binary is clearly NOT an act of distributing GPL code.
IMO (remember, IANAL), the FSF would have a very, very difficult case to argue otherwise. Even though I am not a lawyer, if I were on a jury, and those were the facts of the case, I would certainly not find in favour of the FSF argument.
Edited 2010-09-08 13:55 UTC
I understand your point of view, and honestly, I wish that dynamic linking wasn’t such a gray area still.
The problem is – if you distribute a program which dynamically links to GPL libraries, and those GPL libraries are not included, then the program isn’t “whole” (meaning, it doesn’t run without them). And so, you haven’t provided the “whole work” to the end user. Once your “whole work” depends on dynamically linked GPL libraries, the FSF insists that the GPL applies to your program as well.
This has been asked of the FSF and Stallman in the past, and its clear that they wish to create FUD around this concept (for good reason, it’s a potential major loophole in the GPL!) – the concept is: If you produce a program which has very little actual functionality, but which, when using dynamically linked GPL libraries on the end user system, has very much rich functionality, you have derived your work from the GPL libraries. Even if those libraries are not required in order to use the system… there is still a gray area which the FSF insists must place your app under GPL.
As you can imagine, this “linking FUD”, much of which was created by FSF and Stallman themselves, is one of the biggest reasons why commercial software vendors stay away from GPL. It really doesn’t matter what copyright law says, or what can actually be enforced – nobody really wants to be the target of FSF/Stallman/GPL zealots if they don’t follow the spirit of the license… it’s a potential PR nightmare.
There is not a murmur, not a slightest whiff of a hint, that the FSF think that programs such as these few examples:
http://www.bricsys.com/en_INTL/
http://moneydance.com/
http://www.open-xchange.com/
http://lin-app.com/
http://fileforum.betanews.com/browse/rated?license=commercial&os=li…
… require that the proprietary authors are obliged to reveal their source code.
Yet these programs are all distributed as proprietary binaries, and they all call GPL code in order to run on a user’s system.
Are you sure they don’t link to LGPL libraries?
I admit, I’m too lazy to investigate, but there have been situations in the past where developers have asked if they distribute their own code only and allow the end user to optionally link it to GPL code only to be told that this is not acceptable (Search “Why CLISP IS GPL” for an example – albeit an optional static link to libreadline in that case).
It doesn’t matter if they link only LGPL libraries or if they link some GPL libraries as well, since they all call kernel and/or driver functions, and the kernel is GPL.
Edited 2010-09-09 04:16 UTC
It doesn’t matter what the FSF are thought to insist upon, the fact remains that distributing a compiled binary which has only dynamic links to one or more GPL libraries is clearly not an act of distribution of GPL code.
It is arguably an act of running GPL code, or perhaps more accurately invoking GPL code, but the FSF’s own license text grants unconditional permission for anyone to do that.
Edited 2010-09-09 04:11 UTC
It’s an intriguing topic, and I’ll definitely research more on this as it has always been something that I read mixed opinions on and assumed the worst.
At this point, I’m afraid we’ve gone way off topic for this article
You are right that this has strayed off-topic for this thread.
If it helps people however, it is nevertheless perhaps still useful to point out this talk by professor Eban Moglen:
Eban Moglen: Current Legal Issues in Defending FOSS
http://videos.linuxfoundation.org/video/1789
Perhaps it might help people to see where FOSS’s “head is at”.
FOSS certainly isn’t at all interested in somehow forcing proprietary code written by companies to become released as open source. It is ALL about preventing code released by its authors as freedom/open source from being forced or usurped to become proprietary.
Edited 2010-09-09 10:11 UTC
It’s not clear at all. Take the example I posted in a sibling thread: including a GPL’d header file in a C compilation. You’ve now included GPL code in your application, yet you only dynamically link to the actual implementation.
So this is a counter-example to your claim that dynamic linking can’t get you into distribution trouble.
I beg to differ. Including a header file only introduces information, for the compiler to use, on how the linked libraries’ functions may be called.
As the author of the module which calls the linked library, YOU are the author of the call itself, not the person who wrote the header file.
Finally, anything in your program which is just a preamble for your code to call up a function from a linked library clearly is not a “major functional element” of your code.
Ergo, according to copyright law, even though you have included a header file written by someone else in order to call a library function, you have still NOT thereby created a derived work if your code does not actually contain the library function (i.e. the library is dynamically linked).
Edited 2010-09-09 10:25 UTC
If you’ve never programmed before, a C header file can include entire routines if it wants, although this is generally very bad style. Including #defines that you use in your code is common though, which can be somewhat intricate.
Also, if you’ve never programmed before, a header file generally describes the interface of your software. Although it is not always (but sometimes!) a major functional element, it is an element of your design. Does the importance of the copyrighted work have an impact on whether copying it is a violation?
Additionally, header files can describe data formats, which are quite important to let a person inter-operate with a library.
Including a header file often means that you’ve included someone else’s work (design if nothing else) in your work.
The point stands that including a header-file is a possible grey area, you cannot make a blanket statement that any case of dynamic linking cannot be simultaneously a license violation of the same library that it links against.
Well there was the MEPIS case where he was only providing the modified source. He complied after a warning but they did go after him.
But there is no problem with that, since he WAS distributing GPL code.
The GPL grants a number of unconditional permissions and one conditional permission. These permissions are required (by copyright law) for people who deal with and use code that someone else wrote. In order to get all of the permissions, one must comply with the conditions. The ONLY activity that has a condition on the grant of permission is the act of re-distribution of GPL code to others.
MEPIS was doing exactly that – re-distributing GPL code to others. Therefore, MEPIS must comply with the copyleft condition.
Distributing proprietary binaries which dynamically link to GPL libraries is NOT an act of re-distributing GPL code … because the GPL’d library itself is not included in the proprietary binary as distributed. Therefore there is no requirement to meet the condition (because there is no act performed which has only conditional permission), and therefore there is no requirement to publish the source code of proprietary binaries.
Hence it is possible for companies to write and distribute proprietary applications for Linux, and distribute them as binaries only, such as this one:
http://www.bricsys.com/en_INTL/bricscad/index.jsp
Bricscad are NOT required to publish their source code, because they do NOT re-distribute GPL code.
MEPIS does re-distribute GPL code.
The point stands.
Edited 2010-09-09 03:33 UTC
Indeed, it is not clear at all, and I agree with nt_jerkface that the GPL is far to ambiguous in this respect. Even if you believe that dynamic linking does not form a derivative work (which effectively makes the GPL a badly-worded LGPL). What if headers contain a significant amount of macros that do become part of your compiled program? What about C++ templates? And if C++ templates create a derivative work, isn’t that weird (create an instantiation in the library and you are safe, create one in your code, and you are not)?
As many have come to find out, the GPL is a legal minefield. Sure, it has advantages if you embrace FLOSS ideals, want to force contribution of changes, or to give competitors an advantage they can run with (well, arguably only the AGPL helps fully). But it’s a hell of a complicated license, and it’s not strange companies want too touch it as little as possible.
Edited 2010-09-08 11:03 UTC
As far as I’m aware (I’m not a lawyer by any means) it is perfectly legal to do anything you want with GPL code. It only would only be illegal if you distributed GPL code with the proprietary application.
You’re free to do anything with your system,
but the entire content distribution ecosystem is not yours. So you’re not supposed to break it.
Jailbreaking your PS3 changes only the PS3 machine itself, a machine which you own. It does not “break” the content distribution servers which Sony own … it does precisely nothing to them.
Edited 2010-09-08 05:31 UTC
Hmmm… that’s like saying that if I get aboard a bus with a fake ticket, I’m endangering other passengers or the whole service. Well, no.
Sony is ok in policing its busses and checking tickets at their doors (to keep it profitable), but it is not in stopping me on the street to rip my ‘worthless’ piece of paper.
I kind of wish Sony just had an App store or something for the PS3. They advertised it as a computer when I bought it years ago and the lack of “PC like” functionality (like installing anything) really blows.
Imagine if the following apps could exist:
Googe Docs or some other document editing.
Video Streaming
(Netflix, Hulu, Amazon VOD, YouTube & Blockbuster)
WebKit browser (anything would be better than the stock)
Independent Games (could also make these games PSP and PSPGo compatible.)
Radio Apps (Pandora, Live.FM, iHeartRadio, etc)
OtherOS (GoogleTV anyone?)
Unfortunately Sony is too focused on the Sony Market, which I don’t really care for.
Before anybody really had any time to understand how things work, and do serious homebrew development, the plug was pulled. Fortunately old consoles who stayed on 3.41 will continue to work.
While somewhat understandable (homebrew on original Xbox was positive like XBMC, but it killed Sony’s PSP platform), I don’t like Sony’s general attitude in this. So far they have either removed features (Linux, and PS2 support), or sued small companies to fight with piracy. They don’t even have a cheap/free SDK for development (as in XNA for Xbox). And the device once they called a “computer” is no longer such a thing.
Edited 2010-09-08 00:12 UTC
Where’s the new features, Sony?
Let me see… 3D gaming on 3D TVs is a feature, isn’t it?
Video editing is another feature, isn’t it?
What about recording live TV?
Motion controls?
Before writing silly sentences like “where are the new features”, first check that there are no new features. Otherwise you just sound like a dick.
…at least since the MD era.
Sony know how to make truly great products. And then they will cripple them with silly “copy protected” practices. They apparently have good engineers, but horrible management.
When I was younger, I was tempted by the minidisc thing because I wanted a high-quality portable sound recorder. It looked small, easy to use, efficient, with an excellent sound quality, same for battery life. And the support sounded reliable.
Then I bought it, and it was exactly as advertised. Until I connected it to my PCs and waited for the icon to appear in Windows Explorer so that I could download my freshly recorded data, that is. Then I discovered the hell of DRMs, proprietary sound file formats, and transfer software.
And then, after losing more than a hour of audio data due to that crap, I looked around and mumbled “there must be something else doing the same thing for the same price”. The answer was : no. DAT began at more than 400€ and were hellish slow at transferring data. Low-priced sound recording was a niche market, and the Minidisc fully occupied it. So I was doomed to struggle with SonicStage and OpenMG jukebox for years. Now, I carefully stay off electronic devices which requires anything other than Windows Explorer to put data in and out of them.
The MD is not an isolated case. Sony use their talented engineers to sell products full of DRM crap many times. And, even worse, this is contagious. Apple, who used to be a honest brand, decided to go Sony with iTunes some times ago.
Am I the only one that agrees with Sony doing this?
Granted, people should be allowed to install their own software on a PS3 (Or XBox, or whatever), but the primary purpose of jailbreaking a console is to pirate games, and people that say there is a significant number of people who want homebrew and not piracy are deluding themselves.
Remember a year ago when Microsoft banned more than 600,000 users from XBox Live? Those were primarily people stupid enough to play ModernWarfare 2 prior to launch.
Piracy is big business, and interest in piracy far outweighs interest in homebrew. Software sales are much more important to consoles than desktops, as they generally subsidize hardware. If Sony wanted to break even on PS3 consoles when it launched, they would have had to charge close to $1,000. It was an incredibly expensive system to produce.
Comparisons to XNA Creator’s Club don’t fit well for the PS3. Microsoft isn’t using XNA to sell XBoxes. They are using it to sell Windows and the .Net platform.
EDIT: Let me just add that I have only owned two Sony systems: A PS1 I bought for $5 a couple years ago so I could play the Final Fantasy games, and a PSP which I got for cheap, but traded for an NES, SNES, and another N64 + games for all.
Edited 2010-09-08 06:59 UTC
No I completely agree with them for doing this.
This mod exists to enable piracy, pure and simple.
Anyone who wants to play ps2 games already has a ps2 console.
As for homebrew there are a thousand options these days when it comes to creating your own games.
If Sony allowed piracy it would cut into sales. Or are we supposed to believe that all the people who pirate their games could afford the ps3 but nothing more? Excuses for piracy are lame enough as it is but even worse when there is an initial investment involved.
If I’m paying $300 I own it and can do with it whatever I like.
If it’s a rental service as their actions imply then they have no business charging $300 just as a cable or satellite company doesn’t make you buy the receiver outright. Thus I have no right to modify it.
They need to figure this shit out and do it fast.
You do own it.
You are free to take a piss on it and then set it on fire.
It isn’t a rental.
But if you want to use their private network service then you need to apply the update.
You own the box but not the service.
And here’s an interesting scenario. Lots of threads in this story have ended with some variation of “you own the device but not the service”. Personally, I think the Playstation market plain sucks, about the only aspect of PSN I use is the game hosting. So, would it be illegal for another company to provide an alternative to PSN? I’m sure the terms of service would say so, but ToS aren’t laws, and if you aren’t using their service, what do their terms matter?
It would be interesting to see someone start a competing network to PSN, since Sony missed the mark in so many places with their consoles this time out.
SCEA needs to tell the rest of Sony to stick it where the sun don’t shine, the Ps3 was billed as a computer, as such they should have had the basics that others have talked about available at or soon after launch, all of Sony’s media software should have been ported imediatly, Youtube, Pandora et al.
All of Sony’s music, movies and back catalog of first party games all at launch, full support of indie game development should have been a top priority. So what it pisses off EA, they aren’t going to jump ship on a market as large as Sony provides since they aren’t about anything but volume rehashes of their existing franchises.
The music should have, at the very least been released in .mp3, they had a chance at tying every Sony product into the console and really they should have as it would have strengthened their Apple like cult following that I’ve seen in some people when it comes to Sony products.
But nope, idiot project managers, DRM bound idiots and skiddish CEOs killed what should have been a turning point for them and would have likely ended up being a death nail in the XBox.
You should really read about the minidisc (the sole highly reliable numeric storage medium available to everyone in the last few years, among other things), if you don’t know this story already. History repeats itself.
Edited 2010-09-08 10:00 UTC
Sony have an uncanny knack for ruining every opportunity that comes their way, and yet still surviving and turning a proffit. Ruined opportunoties seem to be the biggest money-spinner for companies these days, though. Take the iPad: should hace been a tablet Mac, instead its a giant iPod Touch. I think I speak for everyone when I say that while its a cool device, we were all severely underwhelmed when Jobs unveiled it.
Yes, it’s too bad though that more people don’t know about the Axiotron Modbook, more so that they still have yet to launch the modbook pro. http://www.axiotron.com/index.php?id=modbookpro
Not that their prices don’t need to come down, but a lightened version of the pro and a good 256Gb SSD stomps most anything to dust, if only Apple where to hire these guys…
Oh I know all about the MD, I was set on getting one myself, till I started finding the horror stories of people like yourself all over the net.
Then you’ll agree with me that it’s funny how similar those two stories are. The way I see it, the following list perfectly describes the Sony product creation cycle :
1/Some guy has a great idea, tells the management
2/Management check if they have some funding, if the idea sounds commercially viable, and says that’s okay
3/Engineers start to work on the product, make it even greater than the original idea while keeping it low-priced
4/???
5/When the product is released (or some times later, after an update), it’s full of silly limitations based on user distrust. People get pissed off, especially when product reliability gets hurt in the way. Sony reputation suffers.
6/Go back to step 1.
Edited 2010-09-08 10:40 UTC
4. must be something like: when the prototype is presented internally, the marketing/legal department understands they are sitting on some golden eggs, and they recommends/dictate that it should not fall under any circumstances in competitor hands.
Hence 4B: engineering round to add ‘countermeasures’
How does making the product crappier help preventing that the product fall in competitor’s hands ? By making it less desirable for competitors ?
Edited 2010-09-09 08:02 UTC
Now here’s the thing, if I own it then why am I not allowed to backup my game discs, load an alternative OS and hack away to my heart’s content and share what I have done? If the device is mine then it’s none of Sony’s business what hackery I use to achieve these ends.
But since they don’t want to let anyone do these things anymore then they must be selling a service and not a product, thus they can refund the cost of the console.
Owning doesn’t mean that it comes with any functionality you desire.
The vast majority of console owners don’t care about backups. Take care of your games and in the random chance you break one it will probably be $20 used by that point. Oh heavens twenty dollars.
The Blu-ray disc has a hard polymer coating that makes it scratch resistant so a lot of these arguments are really from the late 90’s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5jEbZt6AIQ&feature=player_embedded#…
Allowing backups just allows piracy. If the PS3 doesn’t come with functionality that you desire then don’t buy one. Stick with pc gaming where backups are easy and piracy is rampant.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/08/machinarium-suffers-95-p…
The PS3 was billed as a computer and they have done little to add features and done tons to remove features. Which is illegal in some countries due to consumer protection laws.
Most people would LOVE the ability to backup if they even knew they could.
Scratch proof coating my ass, ever have kids over? Hell, most people under 30 will toss the discs around like frisbee or use them as coasters.
Backups don’t have to mean piracy, case in point, Steam, Sony should be large enough by now to allow full backups of their music, movies and games over PSN. Coincidentially they should also allow you to load the games temporarily on to another console so you don’t need to bring a disc.
They made the HDD user accessible, HDDs space is dirt cheap, let people make the most of it.
You still seem to be confusing the difference between something you own and something you are renting. The way Sony treats the PS3, you are RENTING the hardware. But they are selling it. They can’t have it both ways.
Well, I have some questions about this article and others about piracy.
1/How can someone even estimate the number of pirated copies around ?
2/How can they prove that people who pirated the game would have bought it otherwise, ie that they lost money ?
3/Buying games on the internet is broken for minors since day 1. What about fixing serious problems like this instead of criminalizing users and introducing silly AND ineffective “protection” measures everywhere ?
Real-world example : Like several former Starcraft players, I won’t buy Starcraft 2 mainly because of the “no LAN” limitation and because I feel insulted by the need to be connected to the Internet in order to play. On the other hand, this will not prevent the game from being cracked someday for solo gaming, and then for multiplayer gaming too, through the use of private servers, just like WoW did. So they lose money from legit players, and they don’t stop pirates. This is just silly.
Edited 2010-09-09 06:48 UTC
It makes no sense.
If you buy a PS3, you buy a gameconsole! It’s a closed computer to play videogames on.
I like the games that are being offered for the PS3 so I have a PS3.
I know it’s a closed computer with 1 purpose (gaming) and that i have to pay a little bit more for the games then the same game on PC.
And it’s the same with the XBOX systems from MS.
And they too try to prevent people of jailbreaking (closing people’s accounts on live). Why don’t I read something about that on osnews?
It so simple: play along with Sony and get all the functionality Sony intended for the PS3 or do whatever you want, but don’t expect all the functionalities and don’t blame Sony for your own actions.
Why don’t the jailbreakers sue the company who markets those jailbreaking USB-keys, because of lost functionality?
It’s like buying a fuel saving system for your car and it breaks your engine and then blaming the garage who repairs your car by removing the fuel saving system.
Solution: Buy 2 PS3’s and jailbreak one and keep the other intact.
I don’t own any device that could be “jailbroken”, but if you buy it, you agree to the terms. That means, if you don’t agree to the terms, don’t buy it. It is as simple as that.
There are people who live without MS Windows. I guess one could live without iPhone, PS3 and some other toys.
It think that bitching against jailbreaking is nothing but hypocrisy and looks pretty lame. Just be consequent, consistent with yourself, and avoid the products that you don’t want to use.
Actually, when you buy a device you don’t agree to anything. Are there terms presented to you before you pay for the device? Of course not. Therefore you couldn’t have agreed to what wasn’t shown. Now, subscribing to a *service* is different and there are most certainly terms of service (notice the name there) to which you must agree. Sony do have every right to force people to update to use PSN, that’s their service and they can do whatever the hell they want with it. What they don’t have a right to do is to limit what you do with your device *outside* of their service. If they believe they have such a right, then they need to make the PS3 a rental as some other posters have said, and not a purchase. Once I buy something, it’s mine. Sony have every right to prevent hacked devices from getting on their network, but they don’t have a right to prevent me from hacking the device to get more functionality out of it. They don’t have to make it easy, nor do they have to honor my warranty or allow me on to their network, but they have no right to prevent the hacking so long as it’s for my own use.
If you haven’t agreed to anything, how can they prevent you from modifying the device. Probably, they can’t.
The article states that they prevented distribution of third party addition. So, they do not target the owners who bought the device, and there is no reason to complain about it.
The article is incomplete, because there is no explanation what was the legal basis for preventing the distribution of third party addition.
Really, you do expect it to play PS3 (PS2, PSX) games and at least some BD, I should think? Within that there are some reciprocal expectations.
Intel CPUs don’t come with the Intel Math Libraries.
You don’t get to remix games without actually licensing the IP (AI engine, pathfinding, tessellation, 3d sound, character art…) involved or guessing really well that it’s gray or otherwise deprecated from honest markets.
Food Replicators will either clear this up or set up the new foodies for nine kinds of food poisoning (three from the garde-chef.) Both?
“However, I’d hazard a guess that at least with the iPhone, most people do it to get more functionality out of their phone – with consoles, I’m not sure what kind of functionality you would get, other than backing up your save games.”
OtherOS
We all know what jailbreaking means. Downloading and playing games for free. Yes, all those dumb morons who couldn’t code their way out of a paper bag and whose saliva is now already dripping on the carpet are sooo eager to go into homebrew development. Sure thing.