Do you own the gadgets you buy?

[4me2]

Do you own the gadgets you buy?


By Alex Hudson and Marc Cieslak
BBC Click







Click to play




Marc Cieslak reports on the tech-heads who modify hardware and software


Spending £10,000 on a car means you own it and can modify it as you wish so why - after spending £250 on a games console or £350 on a new smartphone - can you not do anything you want with it?
"This is war" declared hacker and blogger George Hotz, better known as "Geohot" when Sony won a legal ruling designed to prevent PlayStation 3 (PS3) users opening up and adapting their consoles for additional uses with some of Hotz's computer code.



Geohot has promised to "hack" Sony Ericsson's new Xperia Play phone

Sony says these uses include playing pirated software and being able to cheat when playing multiplayer games.
Hotz claims his code, known as the "metldr key", was released to allow enthusiasts to make their own games - known as "home-brew" software.
The PS3 was the last of the major games consoles to be "hacked" and now Sony is rumoured to be developing a "hack-proof" system.
But if people are adapting consoles they have paid for legally, what is the big deal?
And if this is such a problem, why are major manufacturers opening up their products to different types of uses?
Microsoft is opening up its Kinect motion-sensing device to PC developers and Sony has a similar "aspiration" for its Move controller.
While Microsoft is keen to stress that Kinect "has not been modified or hacked in any way", it wants to "make it easier for the community to explore new ideas".
Academics at Warwick University have already found a more serious use for the Kinect device than just for games.



"We designed a robot that was going to work in disaster areas such as collapsed buildings that would be unsafe for the emergency services," says mechanical engineer Peter Crook.
"The Kinect system costs around £150 compared to our old system - that only offered us 2D depth perception - which cost around £3,000 so it's a massive reduction in costs."
And with official PC support for Kinect development, this sort of thing is likely to happen more often.



Claiming control


So where do you stand when buying a gaming console?
When you buy the hardware, you agree to a list of terms and conditions that - in effect - means you are licensing all the software from the manufacturer rather than owning it.



Microsoft has opened up its Kinect device to "create richer experiences"

"If you own a CD you don't own the right to copy that CD in lots of places," says James Binns, head of Edge International and PC gaming at Future Publishing.
"You own the physical form of the disk but not the content on it. It's the same with a video console.
"You own the plastic and the metal but the software that runs on it is different from the device you own and Sony can claim some control over that."
So what do the manufacturers want? A creative environment encouraging new ideas and applications for their devices or an absolute restriction on the uses for the hardware they provide?
It seems, so far at least, that the line is drawn when the modifications are anything that might be intended for anything more than personal use.
And certain critics of the big companies think that the barriers are in place to ring-fence profit.



'Legal' jailbreak


It's in the manufacturer's interest to keep it as it is," says Tony Horgan, Stuff magazine's reviews editor.



US law now allows the unlocking of mobile phones to change carriers

"I am surprised they have managed to get away with it for so long... If you're getting access to games you haven't paid for, then that's where the problem is but it's your right to modify a thing you own up until that point."
A recent ruling in the US set a legal precedent that modifying or "jailbreaking" phones is legal.
Federal regulators confirmed that copyright law was not applicable in helping manufacturers with "restrictive business models".
This is why George Hotz believes he is justified in what he has done with the PS3 and has promised to be the first to "crack" Sony Ericsson's new Xperia Play phone.
Hotz told G4TV that the "same precedent should apply [to consoles as to mobile phones]".
He said: "If you can jailbreak one closed system, why can't you jailbreak another?"



Cheating in games


But many companies see a threat to their products and their business. Apple argue that jailbreaking would "open the door" to hackers with "potentially catastrophic results".
Sony argues that, as shown by the "cheating" that sometimes occurs when playing games online, hacking ruins many users' gaming experience.





Listen to Digital Planet's special programme on hacking

"We have issued letters instructing people to remove custom firmware (a set of instructions programmed on the console) because it goes against the terms and conditions," says David Wilson, of PlayStation.
"This is as much for the benefit of our consumers as for us but we have to protect ourselves. We're trying to be equitable but we clearly don't want people opening the doorway to cheating in games or encouraging piracy.
"The reaction from the gaming community thus far seems to indicate that we are getting it right."
Sony had no comment on the specifics of the Hotz case.
So what can be done with gadgets bought for hundreds of pounds? Are they actually owned by the person who purchases them?
"If you want full freedom with a piece of kit, buy a PC because they are the most open platform you can get," says James Binns.
"But if you want to have the experience where somebody is taking control and supporting your online life and giving you really compelling games and helping connect gamers, you do have to give up some of the freedom to tinker with the piece of kit."



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ne/9406690.stm

[Lighty]

Interesting read

[Mule]

It seems, so far at least, that the line is drawn when the modifications are anything that might be intended for anything more than personal use.

I think that's the key. If you buy a CD, DVD or newspaper you own the physical medium but not the rights to the information contained therein. You can do what you want with the information for your own personal use (fan edits etc.) but once you start redistributing it that's where the line is drawn.

With consoles I can see an argument for them going after people who are distributing the means to alter the software but not people who have altered the software themselves. As such they should have to prove that you didn't modify the software yourself before they start taking away services and making the product not fit for purpose. On the flip-side though, they are offering a means to continue using the product as intended, just without hacks working.

Really I don't see either side as being in the right, it's a cat and mouse game but it just happens that Sony tends to be the cat.

Just my 2p.

[4me2]

I think that's the key. If you buy a CD, DVD or newspaper you own the physical medium but not the rights to the information contained therein. You can do what you want with the information for your own personal use (fan edits etc.) but once you start redistributing it that's where the line is drawn.

With consoles I can see an argument for them going after people who are distributing the means to alter the software but not people who have altered the software themselves. As such they should have to prove that you didn't modify the software yourself before they start taking away services and making the product not fit for purpose. On the flip-side though, they are offering a means to continue using the product as intended, just without hacks working.

Really I don't see either side as being in the right, it's a cat and mouse game but it just happens that Sony tends to be the cat.

Just my 2p.

I think the strongest argument with the Sony issue is the removal of the other OS function. Some people claim ( hard to prove but unlikely in my opinion) that they purchased a PS3 because of the other OS.

Will be interesting to see how things develop with GeoHot and what exactly Sony's charges and his defence will be and their outcomes.

[SiE]

If we are only leasing the equipment then Sony should offer a lifetime warranty.

[Over Carl]

I think the strongest argument with the Sony issue is the removal of the other OS function. Some people claim ( hard to prove but unlikely in my opinion) that they purchased a PS3 because of the other OS.

I remember I used to wonder who on earth would use one for linux back before I had ever used linux for anything. I've thought it would be funny for example to take my ps3 in to work and use it instead of a pc for my nagios network monitor cos my ps3 just gathers dust but I can't as sony are cunts.

[Mr.James]

If we are only leasing the equipment then Sony should offer a lifetime warranty.

You're buying the equipment... but only licensing the OS so not allowed to 'hack' it.

[hoponbaby]

Going back to the comparison with cars should all of the manufacturers go after the chipping companies for modifying "their" code?

[DJ OD]

Just a thought on the "Spending £10,000 on a car means you own it and can modify it as you wish" statement...

If we assume that the car itself is the PS3 and the petrol is the OS of the PS3, then modifying the car to run on different fuel isn't always legal. Putting red diesel in your car will have you in shit, just as maybe hacking the OS on the PS3 would.

George Hotz is fast becoming a glory whore. With him now saying he will hack the new Xperia phone, he deserves everything Sony throw at him.

I don't see why the media is trying to justify this TBH, or make Geohot look like a victim. AFAIK nothing has changed in terms of hacking/chipping consoles. You are not allowed to do it end of. All this talk about Sony are wankers, is rubbish. They develop a product, and try their hardest to lock it down so it can't be used for other means. Surely it's their right to protect their machine that has had millions pumped into developing it.


DJ OD

[hoponbaby]

Just a thought on the "Spending £10,000 on a car means you own it and can modify it as you wish" statement...

If we assume that the car itself is the PS3 and the petrol is the OS of the PS3, then modifying the car to run on different fuel isn't always legal. Putting red diesel in your car will have you in shit, just as maybe hacking the OS on the PS3 would.

DJ OD

But the software in the ECU would be the OS. Fuel is the same as the electricity.

The manufacturers don't stop you using red diesel and it can be fine to do, only the taxation implications depending on the use of the vehicle.

I agree about all the hype round Geohot though, he's hardly Robin Hood.

[Mule]

Car manufacturers don't stop you from modifying their software because it doesn't impact on their business model and wouldn't be worth their while. If changing the code meant that you got free replacement parts for your car or cost them money in any way then I'm sure they'd be just as protective over it.

[DJ OD]

Car manufacturers don't stop you from modifying their software because it doesn't impact on their business model and wouldn't be worth their while. If changing the code meant that you got free replacement parts for your car or cost them money in any way then I'm sure they'd be just as protective over it.

Yep, the same way the government will get the arse that you are using your own red diesel and not their diesel meaning they are missing out on tax.


DJ OD

[plug1]

I'm sorry but I fail to see the analogy , you don't have to mod a car to run red , it's just normal diesel died red so it can be detected .
The fact that jail breaking phones has been deemed legal , is why Hotz is running his mouth off about the playstation phone .

Plug.

[greaseweasel]

The idea of ownership is an interesting one. For the car analogy again, you don't own it because you register it with the DVLA. You are then 'licensed' to use the car.
This is why the DVLA has the power to seize and crush the car on non-payment of fines etc. If you look at the V5 text, you are the registered keeper, not the owner.

This goes deeper and includes registering children at birth. If you register them, you sign them over and you become the legal guardian, but the state can and will take them if they wish into 'care'.
If you don't register them the state can't legally take them as you have no contract with them. It's all old law and goes back to the idea of bring a free man.

Anyway, maybe a bit heavy and off topic

[SiE]

The whole problem here was that Sony sold a product that originally performed certain functionality (Linux) and then they removed it. If you bought a car and then one day somebody came over and removed the roof, you would want it back. Obviously piracy is a factor for sony but Geohot hacked the system to allow homebrew and had no interest in piracy. They fucked themselves over and now by coming down so hard on the hackers they are gonna make things worse as these guys dont do it for the money they do it for the same reason someone climbes up a mountain!

[Over Carl]

The idea of ownership is an interesting one. For the car analogy again, you don't own it because you register it with the DVLA. You are then 'licensed' to use the car.
This is why the DVLA has the power to seize and crush the car on non-payment of fines etc. If you look at the V5 text, you are the registered keeper, not the owner.

Erm, you can own you car if you have paid for it and are the rightful owner, the dvla are just making the point that the v5 just indicates who the registered keeper is. I.e. I could own a car, but lend it to a mate for say 2 years. In theory it would make good sense for me to transfer the v5 to my mate so he receives any fines etc, and I don't have to get involved, then he transfer v5 back to me at the end.

Afaik this doesn't happen in real life because buyers don't like to see cars that have recently been bought or have plenty of past keepers. Also most people think that having the v5 is proof of ownership.

Dvla have power to crush as they have the law behind them. Dangerous dogs can be destroyed, but that doesn't make every other dog property of the state.

[sparkymf]

Was this ruling not introduced back in the mid 80's early 90's back in America, when people where modding there analogue cable boxes?
As i remember the cable companies where selling customers boxes and charging a low rental for the cable line but not for the box, but when they found out people where modding there own boxes to get all the channels they kicked up a huge stink shouting piracy!!! but as the people had paid for the box which rightly made it there property it was there choice to do whatever they wanted to the box, but the courts ruled they would be accountable for hooking the box up to the cable feed if there box was modded.

[DJ OD]

Was this ruling not introduced back in the mid 80's early 90's back in America, when people where modding there analogue cable boxes?
As i remember the cable companies where selling customers boxes and charging a low rental for the cable line but not for the box, but when they found out people where modding there own boxes to get all the channels they kicked up a huge stink shouting piracy!!! but as the people had paid for the box which rightly made it there property it was there choice to do whatever they wanted to the box, but the courts ruled they would be accountable for hooking the box up to the cable feed if there box was modded.

Sounds like the old NTL crap over here not too long ago. Then people started using third party boxes and they still were able to prosecute on the basis of using unauthorised equipment to defraud a cable provider.

There were also cable cubes, and before that the analogue sky cards, and the pic cards the Navy used to have.

Ah golden ages...

They will twist all the laws they can to do you if needed, Sony are no different, they have scores of dedicated lawyers to help them. ANYONE who thinks they can find a loophole before them is mistaken.


DJ OD

[greaseweasel]

Erm, you can own you car if you have paid for it and are the rightful owner, the dvla are just making the point that the v5 just indicates who the registered keeper is

Its natural to think that way, but under law there is a difference between the human and legal persona. Like I say its all a bit heavy and I don't fully understand it all myself but the idea of 'ownership' is different from varying legal viewpoints.

[Mr.James]

A guy tries to de-register his car with the DVLA so that it's classed as something he owns rather than keeps:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...er_my_own_auto