Support NeoGAF

[borghe]

sigh.. you're going to make me read the PSP EULA when I get home, aren't you....

I guarantee there is wording in the EULA that equates to running unauthorized software (re: unsigned) on the system. I will post when I get home.

that argument falls to pieces, you realize, because cheating isn't illegal. The company specifies in the EULA they can terminate your right to play the game because of cheating, so that is part of the contract (which is perfectly valid under contract law). However, they cannot put you in prison for it. Big difference there.

not a big difference. both are in violation of an EULA. that was the point. it was an analogy. and yes, the EULA states what aqction they can take.. again I will check when I Get home, but I am positive there is a part in the EULA referrencing essentially homebrew apps.

 

[Nerevar]

sigh.. you're going to make me read the PSP EULA when I get home, aren't you....

I guarantee there is wording in the EULA that equates to running unauthorized software (re: unsigned) on the system. I will post when I get home.

It's irrelevant though borghe, you don't seem to understand that. The PSP is not a piece of software where Sony can revoke your right to use it. You're trying to apply EULA law for software (non-physical) to hardware (physical).

 

[borghe]

no. you agree to an EULA with the PSP also. check your user manual. the firmware, OS, etc are all copyrighted on the PSP making it a piece of software they can essentially revoke your rights to.

it is really moot though. this isn't new. this has already been gone over with the xbox, of which modding was proven a long time ago to be in violation of the system EULA and the DMCA. mind you you'll never be arrested for it, and in reality it only violates the DMCA, not copyright laws (though the trickiness of the EULA itself is, well, tricky). I'm just saying.

 

[Nerevar]

no. you agree to an EULA with the PSP also. check your user manual. the firmware, OS, etc are all copyrighted on the PSP making it a piece of software they can essentially revoke your rights to.

it is really moot though. this isn't new. this has already been gone over with the xbox, of which modding was proven a long time ago to be in violation of the system EULA and the DMCA.

once again, totally different issue. The problem with modchips is they violated the DMCA, which was illegal. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand. The violation of the system EULA meant that you were no longer allowed to use the system to play xbox games. You were well within your rights to open up the xbox and take the physical hardware out to do whatever you wanted with.

God, it's like banging my head against an extremely stubbord brick wall.

 

[The Faceless Master]

sigh.. you're going to make me read the PSP EULA when I get home, aren't you....

I guarantee there is wording in the EULA that equates to running unauthorized software (re: unsigned) on the system. I will post when I get home.


not a big difference. both are in violation of an EULA. that was the point. it was an analogy. and yes, the EULA states what aqction they can take.. again I will check when I Get home, but I am positive there is a part in the EULA referrencing essentially homebrew apps.

your argument revolves around the incorrect assumption that EULA's are valid.

the problem is that while a few EULA cases were won by the software licensor, the majority weren't, and usually, when they did win, it was because the parts they stated were just requoting an actual law in the first place.

basically, most of the time it doesn't matter what an EULA says, it's not the law...

 

[borghe]

show me one instance where an EULA was not upheld. and then I will show you instances where it is upheld.

once again, totally different issue. The problem with modchips is they violated the DMCA, which was illegal. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand. The violation of the system EULA meant that you were no longer allowed to use the system to play xbox games. You were well within your rights to open up the xbox and take the physical hardware out to do whatever you wanted with.

modchips weren't the only thing to violate it. softmodding violated it also. and by your own statement, violating the EULA means you are not able to play PSP games on the PSP, right?

you are arguing that modding a PSP (whether through a loader or using an ELF convertor to bypass signature checking) is different than modding an XBox. how silly is that?

 

[Nerevar]

no. you agree to an EULA with the PSP also. check your user manual. the firmware, OS, etc are all copyrighted on the PSP making it a piece of software they can essentially revoke your rights to.

it is really moot though. this isn't new. this has already been gone over with the xbox, of which modding was proven a long time ago to be in violation of the system EULA and the DMCA. mind you you'll never be arrested for it, and in reality it only violates the DMCA, not copyright laws (though the trickiness of the EULA itself is, well, tricky). I'm just saying.

no, borghe, it doesn't violate the DMCA. It might violate the EULA, which is pointless. The EULA defines your rights to use the hardware device as a PSP - in other words, to play PSP games and watch PSP movies or to run the PSP operationg system. If you violate the EULA you forfeit your right to do that, however you do not give up your right to use the hardware. This is a crucial point you seem to miss. Because they are not circumventing any copy protection scheme, homebrew apps are legal in the US under the DMCA. Whether or not you are breaking the EULA and forfeiting your right to use the hardware in the capacity of being a PSP is another matter entirely, but irrelevant to the discussion of the "legality" of using homebrew apps on your PSP.

modchips weren't the only thing to violate it. softmodding violated it also. and by your own statement, violating the EULA means you are not able to play PSP games on the PSP, right?

you are arguing that modding a PSP (whether through a loader or using an ELF convertor to bypass signature checking) is different than modding an XBox. how silly is that?

Sweet jesus christ you're dense. No, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that executing homebrew code on a 1.0 PSP is legal. That is it. Clearly an exploit to run code on a 1.50 PSP is illegal. Softmodding was illegal because it also violated the DMCA as a way to circumvent a copy protection scheme. Executing homebrew code doesn't do that on a 1.0 PSP, so, therefore is not illegal.

 

[Hitokage]

In DMCA land actual acts don't matter, only potential acts. If you can POSSIBLY use something to commit a crime it's a crime. Screw that.

BTW, as long as said software or game remains undistributed by me to any other party, I can do whatever I want to it, period. Sure, maybe I'll break warranties, but copyright concerns distribution, not use.

 

[borghe]

no, borghe, it doesn't violate the DMCA. It might violate the EULA, which is pointless. The EULA defines your rights to use the hardware device as a PSP - in other words, to play PSP games and watch PSP movies or to run the PSP operationg system. If you violate the EULA you forfeit your right to do that, however you do not give up your right to use the hardware. This is a crucial point you seem to miss. Because they are not circumventing any copy protection scheme, homebrew apps are legal in the US under the DMCA. Whether or not you are breaking the EULA and forfeiting your right to use the hardware in the capacity of being a PSP is another matter entirely, but irrelevant to the discussion of the "legality" of using homebrew apps on your PSP.



Sweet jesus christ you're dense. No, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that executing homebrew code on a 1.0 PSP is legal. That is it. Clearly an exploit to run code on a 1.50 PSP is illegal. Softmodding was illegal because it also violated the DMCA as a way to circumvent a copy protection scheme. Executing homebrew code doesn't do that on a 1.0 PSP, so, therefore is not illegal.

all sony has to prove is that the PSP from inception was supposed to allow ONLY the execution of encrypted executables from the start and that the lack of encryption checking was a bug, and everything you say is forfeit. at that very point that bug becomes an exploit and use of that exploit becomes a violation.

arguing semantics doesn't mean shit. of course neither does your or my side of the argument as we are not on either end of a case in court. But if you for a moment believe that "Well, the system allowed for this so I thought it would be legal" will hold up in court, you are strongly mistaken.

 

[Nerevar]

all sony has to prove is that the PSP from inception was supposed to allow ONLY the execution of encrypted executables from the start and that the lack of encryption checking was a bug, and everything you say is forfeit. at that very point that bug becomes an exploit and use of that exploit becomes a violation.

arguing semantics doesn't mean shit. of course neither does your or my side of the argument as we are not on either end of a case in court. But if you for a moment believe that "Well, the system allowed for this so I thought it would be legal" will hold up in court, you are strongly mistaken.

How do you know? Nothing that pushes the limits of the DMCA has been taken to court yet. The closest thing was the case where the one kid published that you could disable the copy protection on new CDs by holding the "shift" key when you inserted them into your computer's CD player. The RIAA threatened to sue him, but backed down (for obvious reasons) - so we really don't know how long the limits are.

Stop acting like your argument holds the high ground, because it doesn't. In order for your argument to be correct the definition of "bug" would have to be much broader than the generally accepted definition. The counter argument is that the system is functioning exactly as it supposed to - it is reading a file from the memory stick and executing it. The developers didn't "do" anything to circumvent copyright at all. Therefore, how can they be told that they are circumventing a copyright scheme?

More importantly, your case would rely on the software developers having knowledge of an encryption scheme supposed to exist, but not functioning. Is it ever specifically pointed out, be it in the manual or publically available technical documentation, that it is supposed to be encrypted? If not, how then are they held accountable for it?

 

[borghe]

as I already said, both mine and your argument don't mean shit. I already acknowledged that. you could be wrong, I could be wrong. I thought we were just debating here. though I think both of us are stating our opinion as though it is legal fact.

if anything is more than apparent here, it is that the DMCA is so poorly written and ill conceived that many things that seemingly shouldn't be illegal are, and even if something isn't illegal the typical user could probably be scared into believing it is thus abandoning any such creative uses of various things.

anywho, stop getting all worked up, and stop blaming me as being the only one in this argument who is acting like a DMCA legal expert.

More importantly, your case would rely on the software developers having knowledge of an encryption scheme supposed to exist, but not functioning. Is it ever specifically pointed out, be it in the manual or publically available technical documentation, that it is supposed to be encrypted? If not, how then are they held accountable for it?

in regards to this, it is definitely legally covered. The only people who have a legal right to create and (more importantly) distribute software for the PSP are licensed developers. Therefore, if you are a licensed developer of the PSP and distributing your app you would know that all licensed apps are to be encrypted and signed. Of course Sony isn't going to go after the homebrew sceners, that is bad form as far as the public is concerned. so they just work to squash the holes and make homebrew unplayable.

 

[iapetus]

unfortunately that's not how it works and crazy eulas has already been upheld in court. you are essentially agreeing to the EULA by opening the game. Yes it sounds wrong but it is the law. how you feel about it is pretty meaningless. crazier arguments have been made IN court about EULAs and the users were basically told "too fucking bad".

Again, that's nice. I'll believe it as soon as Sun pays up the $17,000,000 they owe me from the EULAs I agreed to.

 

[GaimeGuy]

but... what about LINUX?!

 

[Pimpwerx]

Damn jinx, what's the deal lately? Yikes.

Anyway, I don't see what's wrong with discussion. Piracy is an accepted part of our hobby. It's naive to think otherwise. Many people like myself never pirated a single console game in their lives, but still enjoy reading up on the latest from the warez scene. It's like watching cops and robbers. You see the pirates trying to circumvent the traps set by the manufacturers, and it's pretty interesting stuff IMO. I mean, as long as no one is giving links to a site where games are shared, or trying to actively recruit others to steal games, then what the hell does it matter? The TOS says a lot of things. Most of it's been open to interpretation for years now.

A 1.50 exploit on the PSP would be awesome. It's not just to allow swaps, but to allow possibly homebrew and/or emus. That's a valid enough reason to continue discussing this stuff IMO. If we don't question the merits of certain laws (like closing a platform to development so there's no homebrew), then we'd still have slaves and women who aren't modertaing gaming forums...wait a minute. I mean, seriously, just b/c it's illegal doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss legal aspects or even the merits of said laws. And so we should feel free to discuss the goings on in the scene. Again, I never pirated a single console game ever, but I read these threads b/c the tech battle that goes on is entertaining. PEACE.

 

[maharg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA#Enforceability

The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court that the case is heard in. Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license have found them to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. Step-Saver (939 F.2d 91)—see, for instance, Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. (at harvard.edu (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Contract/vault.htm)) and Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17). A minority of courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=case&no=961139)), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), and Novell v. Network Trade Center (at harvard.edu (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/cases/Novell_v_NTC.html)).

The 7th Circuit and 8th Circuit subscribe to the "license" and "not sold" arguments, while most other circuits do not. In addition, the contracts' enforceability depends on whether the state has passed Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) or Anti-UCITA (UCITA Bomb Shelter) laws. In Anti-UCITA states, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been amended to either specifically define software as a good (thus making it fall under the UCC), or to disallow contracts which specify that the terms of contract are subject to the laws of a state that's passed UCITA.

Recently, publishers have begun to encrypt their software packages to make it impossible for a user to install the software without agreeing to the license or violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and foreign counterparts.

So not really as clear cut as borghe is making it out to be. Doesn't look like it's hit the supreme court yet, and it varies on a state-by-state basis as to whether or not the idea of "software as a license and not a product" is a valid argument.

The cases should be pretty easy to validate, but it doesn't prove that there is an overwhelming tendency to strike down EULAs. The use of encryption as an attempt to obtain coverage under the DMCA is clearly the 'best' way to cover software, but the DMCA has not been tested afaik, so even that may not work in the end.

 

[Nerevar]

so to get it back on topic, no there are no legal uses for a PSP 1.50 exploit, since the exploit in and of itself would be illegal.

 

[maharg]

... in the USA.

 

[Danj]

... in the USA.

... and in the UK.

Of course, if you believe Sony it's illegal to even own a PSP in the UK, since "parallel importing [of PSPs] is unlawful"...

 

[pcostabel]

so to get it back on topic, no there are no legal uses for a PSP 1.50 exploit, since the exploit in and of itself would be illegal.

No. The DMCA only applies to breaking encryptions for the purpose of copying. Breaking encryptions for compatibility purposes is not covered by the DMCA. See the Lexmark case: they tried to use the DMCA to prevent a company from producing cartridges compatible with their printers, and they lost. Same reason why Action Replay and other products that boot on PS2 without a Sony license are legal.

 

[maharg]

However, if the device CAN be used for circumventing copy protection it is, afaik, subject to DMCA. You can't copy a printer cartridge or a printer, so that's not really an issue. As hito said, the DMCA has the dubious distinction of applying to intent and not just acts.

I'm not sure cheat devices have been tested in court since the DMCA was put in place. In 1995 or whenever Nintendo sued galoob, you'd have a point. But now? Not so sure.

 

[Dilbert]

Damn jinx, what's the deal lately? Yikes.

Anyway, I don't see what's wrong with discussion. Piracy is an accepted part of our hobby. It's naive to think otherwise. Many people like myself never pirated a single console game in their lives, but still enjoy reading up on the latest from the warez scene. It's like watching cops and robbers. You see the pirates trying to circumvent the traps set by the manufacturers, and it's pretty interesting stuff IMO. I mean, as long as no one is giving links to a site where games are shared, or trying to actively recruit others to steal games, then what the hell does it matter? The TOS says a lot of things. Most of it's been open to interpretation for years now.

A 1.50 exploit on the PSP would be awesome. It's not just to allow swaps, but to allow possibly homebrew and/or emus. That's a valid enough reason to continue discussing this stuff IMO. If we don't question the merits of certain laws (like closing a platform to development so there's no homebrew), then we'd still have slaves and women who aren't modertaing gaming forums...wait a minute. I mean, seriously, just b/c it's illegal doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss legal aspects or even the merits of said laws. And so we should feel free to discuss the goings on in the scene. Again, I never pirated a single console game ever, but I read these threads b/c the tech battle that goes on is entertaining. PEACE.

My intention was NOT to imply that discussion should be shut down. If it was, do you think that any of these threads would still be open? The TOS is clear that this kind of discussion is perfectly fine. Providing links to illegal content is not OK, but that's nothing new. As for the TOS being "open to interpretation," the moderation staff has been working very hard to revise and clarify it so that there won't be any more gray area...if there ever WAS a gray area here. (Your personal bias is clear...I'm sure you'll understand if I take your POV with a grain of salt.)

The reason I started this thread is that I was curious about what legal uses -- if any -- might exist for this exploit. Although I STRONGLY believe that U.S. copyright laws are deeply fucked up, it's not worth it to me personally to disregard them -- the cost/benefit analysis for me is pretty clearly in favor of following the law. It has generated some interesting discussion, and I found out about some stuff that I didn't know before.

Carry on...

 

[pcostabel]

However, if the device CAN be used for circumventing copy protection it is, afaik, subject to DMCA. You can't copy a printer cartridge or a printer, so that's not really an issue. As hito said, the DMCA has the dubious distinction of applying to intent and not just acts.

I'm not sure cheat devices have been tested in court since the DMCA was put in place. In 1995 or whenever Nintendo sued galoob, you'd have a point. But now? Not so sure.

Yes, if the exploit could be used to run games from the MC, it could be deemed in violation of the DMCA. Yet, technically the exploit does not allow copying per se, it merely runs an unsigned executable. This is different from a software that say allows to dump the content of a UMD. I don't think that the DMCA would prevail in court in this case.