The latest games: you can download PS3 games online. Many a times you must have cursed yourself for buying the same video game as your brother or friend did. In fact there is no reason why you should buy the same game over and over again if someone close by has the same cd. Though it is not clear of its legal, a French guy Khoi has hacked the PS3 in order to find out a way to download games that have already been purchased or a family member.
Recently, Sony decided to pull the plug on purchases from PlayStation store for PS3 and PS Vita but the decision was reversed based on the community feedback. And unlike Microsoft, which allows users to enjoy the Xbox games too, it makes little sense for Sony to support that old console actively.
While these reports are out there, a lot of users have reported that they have checked their PS3 consoles and they are working fine so far. Could it be that only the active consoles are being affected? Menu Contact Us. Dishonourable software pirates! Thieves and rascals! He knew he would fail, and thereby demonstrated that to hold back the tide was impossible — and, in any case, unnecessary — even for a king. Follow NakedSecurity on Twitter for the latest computer security news.
I'm glad to read someone telling the truth about King Cnut who has got a very bad press over the centuries from people with a poor sense of irony. He was sick of his fawning advisors telling him how great he was so he forced them to watch while he put it to the test. I would have loved to see the look on their faces. Cnut was a performance artist. I'm glad Sony have finally lost this battle.
Hopefully they'll learn something from this, if you take something OtherOS away from people then they'll get it back, sooner or later. Whilst it was certainly a mistake on the part of Sony to remove OtherOS, it was a far greater evil for GeoHot and his ilk to publish their work. As a member of the legit scene for nigh on 20 years, I have always felt that the greater good is far better served when we work with the IP holders to produce a more positive environment for all those who have invested in it; be it financially, emotionally or intellectually.
Throwing keys out there like a petulant monkey flings faeces at the zoo keeper is only going to harm our world. As you probably know, not least because I do like to go on about it a fair bit, I'm strongly against irresponsible disclosure, piracy and disrespect for other people's IP. I'm against criminal hacking "digital breaking and entering", even for so-called fun. Help me here…why do you think it was a mistake for Sony to remove OtherOS? And if it was a mistake to remove it, why was George Hotz "evil" to go out of his way to try to get it back?
We keep hearing that walled gardens of this sort will invariably improve security. That seems unlikely, since at least some of that sort of security is achieved through obscurity.. However, I think the case rests on the distinction between purchased and licensed.
We, as ordinarily people, have grown up with the concept of purchasing being very familiar to us. Licensing, on the other hand, has been, outside of the commercial sector, a fairly alien concept. When you run your choice of application on the PS3, it is heavily dependent upon the device's hardware, microcode, firmware, and operating system. If you're running an independent OS, strike the last item off the list, of course.
Some of these may, in whole or in part, have been supplied to you under restrictive licence terms. It may be, then, that you have not bought the right to use them in that way. If so, what, really, is wrong with the device maker and rights owners employing techniques to prevent you from doing something that you are contractually barred from doing anyway?
I suspect companies aren't making enough effort to help us understand for what, specifically, we are paying. We all just hand over the cash, pocket the shiny device, and think that's the end of the matter. Once we have sufficient transparency, market forces will sort out what we're getting for our money. Last year I was at a conference in Melbourne, Australia at which a chap from the country's new National Broadband Network company spoke glowingly about the CPE customer premises equipment they'll be using, and how it runs Linux and uses virtualisation to keep the various services it offers logically separate.
I naively asked where the source code could be download from…of course, it can't. It's in your house, but it's part of their network up to the ethernet ports that you plug in to — a bit like an embassy or consulate in some foreign land. Does this concept apply and does consumer law let it apply to something you buy as a boxed hardware item at a shop, bring home and then install, configure and use yourself?
I'm not arguing here that vendors shouldn't be allowed to software-lock their devices, though. Just that [a] they might end up with much more goodwill if they don't and [b] if they do, it oughtn't to be considered some kind of great social evil to unlock them, provided that you are not doing so in order to rip anybody off. Didn't the US Library of Congress recently rule that [b] was not evil and, in fact, ought to be considered a statutory right?
The undertanding partially comes from reading the included EULAs. However, companies are anything but neutral parties, so any explanation they give you about your ownership or rights will be heavily biased in their favor compaired to a vanilla interpretation of the law. For example, don't expect them to mention that until you actually click that "I Agree" button, you are under no contractual obligations.
Untill you enter into the licensing agreement, you still own the device and any software it came with. If someone buys a console with the sole purpose of reverse-engineering it, and doesn't actively agree to the license, they could do their work and the license wouldn't matter since it wouldn't be in effect for them.
Let me subscribe to Pauls, comments here. Closed systems have no future in the industry. We can see this using Android as an example, which, effectively, whipping out Apple's closed proprietary ecosphere.
Whilst I used the OtherOS option only once on my first PS3, it was utilised as a selling point and a a point of differentiation for the console in the early days of the life cycle.
To remove it, even though the reasons were understandable, was akin to telling children that they can't have a cheeseburger and a can of Coke after allowing them to gorge themselves on said fare for several months.
I think that it would have been a better strategy to look at engaging in a discourse with old matey and his ilk and seeking their assistance to remedy the breach. I didn't describe the recalcitrant Mr Hotz as evil, rather suggested that his motives were less than pure. I am, as are you, against irresponsible disclosure, piracy and abuse of IP. I am also vehemently opposed to the Apple model, though I understand it; they are catering for the lowest common denominator LCD and need to protect their bottom line from the garden variety idiot.
Perhaps it is simply greed that is driving companies to lock down their systems, evolution continues to create a more complex idiot, idiots break things and call support lines. All of the above said, I have no solution.
I did think that Sony got it right with the PS3 initially, allowing for hobbyists to have a space on the console whilst everything else was locked down and raising the ire of the "community". Their response was poor, though nowhere near as morally bankrupt of those nameless muppets who chose to vandalise their network in "protest".
0コメント