Hacking Is console hacking not illegal or what?

[kingaz]

@kingaz: Please show me the ruling that says that consoles are not exempt. Mentioning that one category of devices is "fair game" is different from implying the reverse logic - that all others now cant be legally reverse engineered anymore.

Also, at some point your insinstance of something legal being illegal by what "not assosiation?" becomes simply trolling. Please dont just press your standpoints, beyond all available facts, caselaws, law texts - solely trying to wind by mentioning "The library of congress" as being apparently on the other side of the argument.

It isn't but nice attempt at namedropping, Mr. character assassination. (I'm not impressed, and neither should anyone else.)

Also - while I will go into detail, and look at the "cellphone case" and why it was explicitly exempt from DMCA rulings -

there is also value to look at the "general intention" of certain laws / exemption.

Right now we have learned, that the DMCA isn't supposed to prevent people form

- establishing intercompatibility for software that doesnt run on devices "out of the box"
- researching how they work

even if that means, breaking technical security measures that are in place.

We also have established that they are allowed to distrubute all methods and programs they have created in that effort, as long, as it does not contain proprietary code.

For some reason you now would like everyone to think this only applies to smartphones, because...? (No where in the DMCA and the exemption section (f) does it state, that only specific kinds of devices should get the benefit - also if you think about it, from a legal perspective, naming specific devices doesnt make much sense - device categories change more often than laws).

...boy are you blind? 1) Subsection (a)(1)(c) specifically identifies the Librarian of Congress as being able to grant temporary exemptions of certain classes of devices. And it has done so based on the premise that the exemptions are necessary since they aren’t covered under the existing exemptions.

Interestingly, the copyright office has evolved in its interpretation on subsection (f), particularly regarding smartphones. But that’s a far cry from saying that game consoles are covered under subsection (f).

Also, I think you’re missing the part where the Librarian rejected the application for an exemption for video game systems. It’s worth a read.

Also also, the EFF did ask for an exemption for game consoles. They got shot down pretty hard.

 

[garyopa]

If you going to start a thread like this in the Nintendo section, as least point out what Nintendo thinks about it.

Attached below, last two global reports. More Press Releases: https://ap.nintendo.com/news/press.jsp

 

[FAST6191]

https://library.osu.edu/blogs/copyright/2015/12/30/new-dmca-exemptions/
Going through that and the previous one, the library of congress being the thing the bill states as looking at the exemptions -- https://www.loc.gov/item/prn-10-169...ess-control-technology-exemptions/2010-07-26/ , they are doing everything they can to narrow device classifications and consoles* would very much appear to be outside that wording. I agree entirely that it is a pure quirk of law and were I designing a device the very same person (any old digital electronics capable electrical engineer) would be doing my "smart" TV, phone, car and maybe no small chunk of my pacemaker as well, and doing basically the same thing for all of them. That said it would still appear to be the law.

*there may be a case if like the PS2 and PS3 where they were shipped to various places as general computing devices by virtue of their ability to run Linux, mainly to avoid certain taxes.

 

[notimp]

...boy are you blind? 1) Subsection (a)(1)(c) specifically identifies the Librarian of Congress as being able to grant temporary exemptions of certain classes of devices. And it has done so based on the premise that the exemptions are necessary since they aren’t covered under the existing exemptions.

Interestingly, the copyright office has evolved in its interpretation on subsection (f), particularly regarding smartphones. But that’s a far cry from saying that game consoles are covered under subsection (f).

Also, I think you’re missing the part where the Librarian rejected the application for an exemption for video game systems. It’s worth a read.

Also also, the EFF did ask for an exemption for game consoles. They got shot down pretty hard.

Dont make up stuff in your head, show me the proof - I'm not posting dozens of links here for nothing.

Mr. Millennial "I'm entitled to the version of reality I just created in my head".

In the EFF case, the Library of Congress did not grant an excemption, but rather a legal clarification.

Also an exemption to a law thats not referenced anywhere in the text of the law itself? What should poor legal students do in that case?

Also the EFF did not ask for the "status on console hacking". And also wasn't "shut down hard". You made that up in your head, didn't you?

 

[Nightwish]

I know I'm telling you something autrageously new - but homebrew is not piracy.

By citing pre-DMCA case law that's not relevant, and case in which the cost of defense made the company bankrupt. In fact, such battles are still being fought, but thankfully, costumers seem to be finally beating the doom and gloom we all felt at the time. You act like the tech nerds weren't scared for a decade and the Right to Read wasn't a scary accurate description of how things played out for a while.
But then, you use millenials as an insult, so I don't expect much thought to be put into your speech.

Unfortunately, I haven't really kept up with case law at all, but it seems such laws are unenforceable in practice, with lawsuits usually only persued when there's plenty of damages to claim, and results vary a lot between judges and jurisdictions.

 

[kingaz]

Dont make up stuff in your head, show me the proof - I'm not posting dozens of links here for nothing.

Mr. Millennial "I'm entitled to the version of reality I just created in my head".

In the EFF case, the Library of Congress did not grant an excemption, but rather a legal clarification.

Also an exemption to a law thats not referenced anywhere in the text of the law itself? What should poor legal students do in that case?

Also the EFF did not ask for the "status on console hacking". And also wasn't "shut down hard". You made that up in your head, didn't you?

Did you not read the part where I said "subsection (a)(1)(c)?"

(C) During the 2-year period described in subparagraph (A), and during each succeeding 3-year period, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who shall consult with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and report and comment on his or her views in making such recommendation, shall make the determination in a rulemaking proceeding for purposes of subparagraph (B) of whether persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by the prohibition under subparagraph (A) in their ability to make noninfringing uses under this title of a particular class of copyrighted works. In conducting such rulemaking, the Librarian shall examine—
(i)
the availability for use of copyrighted works;
(ii)
the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes;
(iii)
the impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research;
(iv)
the effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for or value of copyrighted works; and
(v) such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate

Also, let me quote a bit from this thing that I linked:

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...ht-protection-systems-for-access-control#h-22

In support of their contentions regarding the link between circumvention and piracy, opponents provided documentation of console “hacking packages” that come bundled with applications to play pirated content. They further noted, again with supporting materials, that the homebrew channel installed with a popular Wii hacking package automatically includes applications that enable the console to play pirated content. They pointed out, with still further support in the record, that the “Multiman” backup system referenced by EFF as an example of a useful application enabled by jailbroken PS3s is used to decrypt and copy protected PS3 games so they can be illegally distributed. Other documentary evidence submitted by opponents showed that the PS3 FTP file server application described by EFF is used as a means to transfer illegal files. Opponents also furnished multiple examples of advertisements for console jailbreaking services that included (for an all-in price) a library of pirated games.

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2012-26308/p-137

You haven't read the DMCA. You didn't even check to see if I was correctly citing the actual bloody law. And because you had no idea what I was talking about, you straight up made stuff up about the Library of Congress just making a legal clarification.

@Noctosphere , I implore you, why on earth should anyone listen to anything this ignorant individual has to say on this subject?

 

[notimp]

Big Mea Culpa - I found the articles about the EFF's efforts to move console hacking out of the legal uncertainty space - and get an "exemption to the DMCA" granted by the library of congress - and apparently -

- they do grant exemptions
- they didn't for console hacking (when explicitly asked)

Here is the most current article on the matter I could find:
http://wololo.net/2015/10/29/ps4-ja...our-console-next-year-what-about-the-ps-vita/


The argument they give is as follows (paraphrased):

"Because consoles are platforms which are primarily used for the purpose of playing games, jailbreaking would mainly enable piracy of said games - therefore reverse engineering them should stay illegal."?

Standing in direct contrast to their previous argument, that copyright cant be used to try to enforce usage of software created or licensed by the platform holder alone.

Fun.

So apparently - according to the legal interpretations of the library of congress, it is illegal to hack consoles. Because of some correlation with product piracy, they cooked up with - on those specific platforms, but not on phones, and not on portable mobile devices.

You know you have the worst possible judicative process in the world - if you have lists of devices that are actually exempt of DMCA rulings, which gets updated every year(?) based on "if they are a multiple purpose mobile device" in which case they can be hacked, or not - in which case they can't. Also, where does the Switch fall in all of this? Lets ask them..

So glad to not be an american..

Where neither the text of the law, nor the general interpretation, nor caselaw, nor the intent of the law - mean anything, if your name is not on the right list. And a company wants to make money...

Also I believe an apology is in order for having doubted, that this is the case. I'm sorry that I've hackled you despite, you actually holding the correct opinion.

I'd still rather you had not - but thats it, I'm afraid..

Console hacking/reverse engineering is illegal in the US.

 

[HexZyle]

Because the Register determined that the evidentiary record failed to support a finding that the inability to circumvent access controls on video game consoles has, or over the course of the next three years likely would have, a substantial adverse impact on the ability to make noninfringing uses, the Register declined to recommend the proposed class.



EFF, joined by Andrew “bunnie” Huang (“Huang”), FSF, SaurikIT, LLC (SaurikIT), and numerous individual supporters, sought an exemption to permit the circumvention of access controls on video game console computer code so that the consoles could be used with non-vendor-approved software that is lawfully acquired.

-snip-

The Register therefore concluded that proponents had failed to establish that the prohibition on circumvention, as applied to video game console code, is causing substantial adverse effects.

Turning to the statutory factors, the Register took issue with proponents' view that piracy was an irrelevant consideration because the exemption they sought was only to allow interoperability with “lawfully obtained applications.” The Register explained that she could not ignore the record before her. Even if piracy were not the initial or intended purpose for circumvention, the record substantiated opponents' assessment that in the case of video games, console jailbreaking leads to a higher level of infringing activity, thus sharply distinguishing the case of video consoles from smartphones, where the record did not support the same finding. The evidence also suggested that the restriction limiting the proposed class to “lawfully obtained” applications—which the Register has found effective in other contexts—did not provide adequate assurance in this case. The Register noted that simply to suggest, as proponents had, that unlawful uses were outside the scope of the exemption and therefore of no concern was not a persuasive answer.

Finally, the Register agreed with proponents' assessment that the access controls protecting video game console code facilitate a business model, as many technological restrictions do. But the Register concluded that in the case of gaming platforms, that was not the sole purpose. Console access controls protect not only the integrity of the console code, but the copyrighted works that run on the consoles. In so doing, they provide important incentives to create video games and other content for consoles, and thus play a critical role in the development and dissemination of highly innovative copyrighted works.

 

[sion_zaphod]

I've got a question. If televisions and set top boxes could be modded as to not be able to receive any BBC channel. Would it be classed as illegal to refuse to pay the licence fee based on the fact we cannot watch or listen to BBC. Not really a serious question but it's something I've often pondered since the decline of the BBC service. Probably a question for a separate thread but we are talking about the legality of modding technology.

 

[kingaz]

Big Mea Culpa - I found the articles about the EFF's efforts to move console hacking out of the legal uncertainty space - and get an "exemption to the DMCA" granted by the library of congress - and apparently -

- they do grant exemptions
- they didn't for console hacking (when explicitly asked)

Here is the most current article on the matter I could find:
http://wololo.net/2015/10/29/ps4-ja...our-console-next-year-what-about-the-ps-vita/


The argument they give is as follows (paraphrased):

"Because consoles are platforms which are primarily used for the purpose of playing games, jailbreaking would mainly enable piracy of said games - therefore reverse engineering them should stay illegal."?

Standing in direct contrast to their previous argument, that copyright cant be used to try to enforce usage of software created or licensed by the platform holder alone.

Fun.

So apparently - according to the legal interpretations of the library of congress, it is illegal to hack consoles. Because of some correlation with product piracy, they cooked up with - on those specific platforms, but not on phones, and not on portable mobile devices.

You know you have the worst possible judicative process in the world - if you have lists of devices that are actually exempt of DMCA rulings, which gets updated every year(?) based on "if they are a multiple purpose mobile device" in which case they can be hacked, or not - in which case they can't. Also, where does the Switch fall in all of this? Lets ask them..

So glad to not be an american..

Where neither the text of the law, nor the general interpretation, nor caselaw, nor the intent of the law - mean anything, if your name is not on the right list. And a company wants to make money...

Also I believe and apology is in order for having doubted, that this is the case. I'm sorry that I've hackled you despite, you actually howling the correct opinion.

I'd still rather you had not - but thats it, I'm afraid..

Console hacking/reverse engineering is illegal in the US.

I appreciate you saying this.
And yes, the DMCA suuuuuuuuuucks.

 

[guily6669]

Here I still see modding stores open for a lot of years, they installed my RGH in my X360 for like 50eur including the glitch chip long time ago and they are still in business.

I only remember a local store from the 90s to early 2000s that got closed, but they were closed only because they also sold copies of games burned in CDs...

Our country is more after trackers like I said before...

Ps: and I guess those stores are only open because they are in a "gray" area since they have red warnings everywhere stating that you can only use homebrew or backup games that you currently own, it states pirated games are prohibited.

 

[Ichii Giki]

if you have lists of devices that are actually exempt of DMCA rulings, which gets updated every year(?)

I believe (temporary) exemptions for the DMCA are re-examined every 3 years currently (and the next assessment should be some time this year, 2018, given the previous exemptions were granted/extended in October, 2015).

Also yes, the DMCA currently suuuuucks terribly...

 

[Joom]

i know i own it. Its mine and i do whatever i want with it. Nor Apple, Nintendo or any other company is abive the law. I dont know if in the usa, because of the lobbies, its like that. But in europe we own what we pay for.

Who said they were? It's their intellectual property. You don't have the right to do what you want with it. The EULA for products is the same in every country, and isn't set by the government. When you hit "I Agree", that means that you are legally obligated to adhere to the guidelines and conditions of use set by the manufacturer. But hey, believe what you want because "durr duh US is stoopid".

Maybe that's why in the US tech is cheaper (because you never own it)

Mm, no. Blame your country for charging more on imported goods and/or having a currency that's worth less than USD. That's just elementary economics.

 

[Ichii Giki]

I dunno why so many people in these threads seem to think that when one pays for a console they own it, because that's not the case. When you purchase a console, you are pretty much paying for the privilege to use it against the guidelines set by the manufacturer. Every console now has a EULA one must agree to before even using it which is a legally binding contract (at least in the US). No, you don't have the right to misuse the equipment. It's not yours. As stated before, though, it obviously wouldn't be economically sane for a company to pursue small time end-users.

As said earlier by @osaka35, you do in fact own the hardware, just not the software. By agreeing to the EULA (End User LICENSE Agreement), you are being granted a license to use the software on the purchased hardware. For all intents and legal purposes, when you purchase a piece of tech, you do still own the physical device you are buying.

 

[notimp]

In the country where I am from, EULAs are null and void, i they are not established BEFORE the purchase - because of the laid out concept of "implied consent" being illegal (you cant be made to give consent to a contract, before having read it - the product also cant be made to not work - unless you give "broad consent" after the point of purchase - that would qualify as a ruse) . I'd believe that thats the case in the US as well.

It makes NO SENSE whatsoever - to let the consumer buy a product, thats then unusable - unless he/she agrees to a EULA, he can only read - when they get home. That ought to be illegal.

(I dont know how Amazon gets away with it.. )

Thats by the way why the "trick" with the DMCA is deployed. The argument is different - and it goes like this: Our software is "protected by technical means". You cant legally bypass said technical means, to analyze our product - because it would lead to usages that have an impact on our sales.

As soon as there is any "higher need" recognized by the library of congress (carrier unlocking a phone, being able to repair your own farming equipment, ...) exemptions are granted. (They also should be granted for "understanding the product" / "reverse engineering" purposes, according to the law - but apparently in the US they arent.) The issue here is, that you have one centralized body deciding - when the public has an interest to hack devices for different purposes than piracy - and when not, and that is - excuse my language - silly.

(Meet Bob, Bob write the list. Hi, Bob!)

EULAs should not be able to become binding contracts, if you cant read them before making a purchase - thats just wrong.

Also - you shouldn't be able to get sold products, that dont work at all - if you then don't agree to a blanket license agreement, that then also governs, what happens to your data - and similar aspects.

Also - I dont believe you have to agree to EULAs, on consoles - if you use them with "local accounts" only. On the switch I gave out not personal identifying information, or corespondance address to ANYONE - so I can not see how a legally binding contract could have been established. And between whom? And at what point.

I know this to be correct for european legislature - and I doubt, that it can be different in the US.

Please dont make stuff up - the second time around..

EULAS are not above the law.

The usual way customers get roped into EULAS, they cant change, is by making them sign them for using services, getting "more easy" (backup your saves, easier setup, default setting, ...), giving out free, limited "somthings" -- at the point of sign up for said services. But then, they still cant overrule existing law - so what they claim to establish might still not be actionable.

Also - another interesting tidbit, when SONY sued Geohotz, the case ended in an out of court settlement, because - of course it did. We didn't want to create legal precedent, did we SONY?

 

[Joom]

As said earlier by @osaka35, you do in fact own the hardware, just not the software. By agreeing to the EULA (End User LICENSE Agreement), you are being granted a license to use the software on the purchased hardware. For all intents and legal purposes, when you purchase a piece of tech, you do still own the physical device you are buying.

But if the manufacturer is free to do what they want with it after purchase, how are you the owner? You can't really tell them "no". The hardware itself is also copywritten, therefore, you don't own it. Send in a hacked console for repair, and see if it comes back still hacked. Let me know how successful you are. Again, you are essentially paying for the license to use the equipment. Sure, you can smash it, sell it, trade it, whatever. This still doesn't mean it's not the property of the manufacturer. This concept of ownership is horribly skewed because people seem to think that capitalism is fair. Go ahead and rig your gaming console to be a bomb. You can rest assured that the company's lawyers will come fast so that they can cover PR because public backlash against said act will be through the roof. Why? Because the general public is moronic, and that equipment belongs to the manufacturer. "Jimmy made a bomb out of his Xbox. Microsoft is to blame for making the hardware prone to being explosive." Yes, this is hyperbole, but if we're not going to argue semantics here I feel it necessary.

@notimp, read again. Your lack of comprehension is showing. You don't seem to understand how usage agreements work. Also, this thread is full of double standards and fallacies. "X is ok because Y, but Z is bad because W." Why do we draw the line at piracy? At least I'm not so delusional that I deny what I do is at least against the intentions of manufacturers. Like, is there shame in admitting to doing something illegal? I really don't get why people have to justify their actions when they obviously don't give a shit.

I also love the "there are shops here that do it so it's okay" argument. The US still has shops that sell incredibly dangerous research chemical designer drugs. Just because these drugs aren't illegal due to loopholes, does that make those okay as well just because they aren't covered by the law? Again, hyperbole, but I really want to know what is subjectively right, because nobody here seems to know. At least admit that you don't care instead of cooking up half-baked justifications.

 

[Absintu]

But if the manufacturer is free to do what they want with it after purchase, how are you the owner? You can't really tell them "no". The hardware itself is also copywritten, therefore, you don't own it. Again, you are essentially paying for the license to use the equipment. Sure, you can smash it, sell it, trade it, whatever. This still doesn't mean it's not the property of the manufacturer. This concept of ownership is horribly skewed because people seem to think that capitalism is fair. Go ahead and rig your gaming console to be a bomb. You can rest assured that the company's lawyers will come fast so that they can cover PR because public backlash against said act will be through the roof. Why? Because the general public is moronic, and that equipment belongs to the manufacturer. "Jimmy made a bomb out of his Xbox. Microsoft is to blame for making the hardware prone to being explosive." Yes, this is hyperbole, but if we're not going to argue semantics here I feel it necessary.

@notimp, read again. Your lack of comprehension is showing. You don't seem to understand how usage agreements work. Also, this thread is full of double standards and fallacies. "X is ok because Y, but Z is bad because W." Why do we draw the line at piracy? At least I'm not so delusional that I deny what I do is at least against the intentions of manufacturers. Like, is there shame in admitting to doing something illegal? I really don't get why people have to justify their actions when they obviously don't give a shit.

I also love the "there are shops here that do it so it's okay" argument. The US still has shops that sell incredibly dangerous research chemical designer drugs. Just because these drugs aren't illegal due to loopholes, does that make those okay as well just because they aren't covered by the law? Again, hyperbole, but I really want to know what is subjectively right, because nobody here seems to know.

the line of piracy is drawn by the LAW and not the end user.

 

[Joom]

the line of piracy is drawn by the LAW and not the end user.

Uh huh, so is clicking "I Agree" during the initial setup of the console. Except with hardware you assume that you agree to the implied terms upon purchase. I get it. I really do. I was 14 at one point too, and thought I was such a rebel for doing what the manufacturer said I couldn't do. Thing is, I don't think I'm some crusader now, and I can freely admit to not giving two fucks about the company because I don't. It's that easy. Why is this even being argued?

 

[notimp]

@Read again: What? There is a distinct lack of linking any proof to "legal opinions" floating around in this thread - also this makes me angry for a very real reason.

Not only do I have to try to sift through the legal standards of a country I'm not living in, to try to get a comprehension of the legislature - probably most people in here are effected by -

the people proposing to "know the legal standing" in the us do so without presenting ANY factual proof, until you literally try to draw it out of their noses, after a phase of namecalling and bringing them to the point, that if they do no present any proof for their allegations - they should not be considered for the purpose of the argument.

Really, you guys act - like this would b the first time you ever had to make an argument that was not backed up, by character attacks, or pulling one "important sounding" institution out - whenever you want to "win" with a reputation play.

@Joom, your lack of foul play is abhorrent.

So now that we have exchanged pleasentries - may I please be presented with the proof, that EULAs you cant read before purchasing a product are legally binding in the US? Or that your stores are allowed to sell products, that are entirely functionally broken, until the day you are forced to klick OK on a EULA?

 

[Absintu]

Uh huh, so is clicking "I Agree" during the initial setup of the console. I get it. I really do. I was 14 at one point too, and thought I was such a rebel for doing what the manufacturer said I couldn't do. Thing is, I don't think I'm some crusader now, and I can freely admit to not giving two fucks about the company because I don't. It's that easy. Why is this even being argued?

thing is, i was only saying what the law in my country says. And its only about piracy. The only hardware that has some sort of control are cars. And that is only because of accidents. 14 years, rebel, etc... That is just bs

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------