Hacking Key Hypocrisy

[blawar]

So I understand linking to SX is now forbidden here, because a key may be stored encrypted?

Meanwhile, atmosphere source code is littered with non-public key sources and public keys (not public in the sense of being available to the public, just crypto lingo). Key sources and non-public public keys are definitely covered under copyright, even if no one really tries to enforce copyright against them. I always found it odd many people in the scene try to distinguish this line between private keys, public keys, and key source: it's all copyright infringement. I think the scene lies to itself about this, to make it easier to distribute homebrew software, however its all copyright infringement. Nintendo could DMCA atmosphere's entire repo if they so chose. The list of homebrew apps that embed this stuff is through the roof: lockpick, goldleaf, atmosphere, reinx, SX.

While GBATemp is free to censor whatever they want, it feels like arbitrary enforcement of rules. If enforcing copyright is now a thing, lets also ban all links to atmosphere

/rant

 

[iriez]

The part about enforcement is what is important. When you operate a organization you are absorbing the legal and financial risk.

So therefore you have to evaluate risk when operating this platform or organization. You engage in risk management practices and you determine what is allowed and what isn't.

Let's not pretend that this site is not openly advocating piracy even if it puts in safeguards to protect it from legal threats.

So yes of course there is hypocrisy here. You are essentially crying over spilt milk. This hypocrisy has existed since the beginning.... So going on 15 plus years now.

The world is not black and white. Your problem here is you are engaging in a false dichotomy and ignoring context.

Believe it or not the enforcers of these rules are human and prone to human tendencies. One of the biggest differences between atmosphere and xecuter is one openly advocates against copyright infringement and the other openly advocates (and engages in) theft. But specifically the principles they adhere to in the creation of their products demonstrates this. Actions speak louder than words? Xecuter can put legally questionable private key sources in their products in plain text because they are a Chinese manufacturer and distributor, which is to say that they generally don't give a shit about anyone's laws. Atmosphere however complies with most of civilized societies laws.

This actually matters. You can pretend it doesn't but it really does. There's a reason why xbins has existed all this time... It's because we are specific about what we host and allow. Crossing certain lines increase the probability of legal action and take down.

Those lines get blurry at times but it's important to stick to your principles. We host content that is often used to manage pirated content. Yet if we choose to not host it then we are punishing those good actors who really are merely managing legal backups. This is one tiny example in which context matters.

Tl;Dr - public keys good. Private keys bad.

Ninja edit - after reading all that I realized I've already addressed this issue with Costello in December and he agreed to remove all xecuter files hosted on gbatemp. The basis for removing the files is copyright infringement, e.g. xecuter stealing others code (specifically some of the authors of the code objected to gbatemp hosting xecuters sxos). So the recent post was merely recommunicating the existing rules to the public. See this screenshot...

 

[Essasetic]

The part about enforcement is what is important. When you operate a organization you are absorbing the legal and financial risk.

So therefore you have to evaluate risk when operating this platform or organization. You engage in risk management practices and you determine what is allowed and what isn't.

Let's not pretend that this site is not openly advocating piracy even if it puts in safeguards to protect it from legal threats.

So yes of course there is hypocrisy here. You are essentially crying over spilt milk. This hypocrisy has existed since the beginning.... So going on 15 plus years now.

The world is not black and white. Your problem here is you are engaging in a false dichotomy and ignoring context.

This is why I respect you.

 

[linuxares]

So I understand linking to SX is now forbidden here, because a key may be stored encrypted?

Meanwhile, atmosphere source code is littered with non-public key sources and public keys (not public in the sense of being available to the public, just crypto lingo). Key sources and non-public public keys are definitely covered under copyright, even if no one really tries to enforce copyright against them. I always found it odd many people in the scene try to distinguish this line between private keys, public keys, and key source: it's all copyright infringement. I think the scene lies to itself about this, to make it easier to distribute homebrew software, however its all copyright infringement. Nintendo could DMCA atmosphere's entire repo if they so chose. The list of homebrew apps that embed this stuff is through the roof: lockpick, goldleaf, atmosphere, reinx, SX.

While GBATemp is free to censor whatever they want, it feels like arbitrary enforcement of rules. If enforcing copyright is now a thing, lets also ban all links to atmosphere

/rant

I'm not speaking for GBAtemp now. But dumping keys with example lockpick is totally legal inside the European Union. It's your product and you can do what you want with it.
So I'm no law expert but this falls under the same as iOS jailbreaking. Where it's except under the DMCA and EUCD.

 

[Kubas_inko]

Just go ahead and show us the non-public keys in ams repo I guess.

 

[kumikochan]

It is not. You should all learn a bit how stuff works before spouting nonsense

 

[blahblah]

The OP has absolutely no understanding of copyright or what a key is or much of anything. No reason to leave a thread based on such a profound misunderstanding open.

 

[FAST6191]

"Key sources and non-public public keys are definitely covered under copyright"
Really because I recall the key discussions that came with the HDDVD key leaks and many lawyers were all "we urge caution but can't point to anything specific" and I don't recall anything in the time since that clarifies anything here, other than the keys themselves not being a copyrighted work (it is not really a creative act to make a key) but maybe still afforded some other protection.
Or if you prefer the American Bar Association on the matter https://archive.is/20070623215230/h.../ereport/my11blog.html#selection-371.0-383.34

As for the rest I don't know the full situation to compare the various custom firmwares.

 

[blawar]

The part about enforcement is what is important. When you operate a organization you are absorbing the legal and financial risk.

So therefore you have to evaluate risk when operating this platform or organization. You engage in risk management practices and you determine what is allowed and what isn't.

Let's not pretend that this site is not openly advocating piracy even if it puts in safeguards to protect it from legal threats.

So yes of course there is hypocrisy here. You are essentially crying over spilt milk. This hypocrisy has existed since the beginning.... So going on 15 plus years now.

The world is not black and white. Your problem here is you are engaging in a false dichotomy and ignoring context.

Believe it or not the enforcers of these rules are human and prone to human tendencies. One of the biggest differences between atmosphere and xecuter is one openly advocates against copyright infringement and the other openly advocates theft.

This actually matters. You can pretend it doesn't but it really does. There's a reason why xbins has existed all this time... It's because we are specific about what we host and allow. Crossing certain lines increase the probability of legal action and take down.

I agree with you, that Nintendo is not likely to try to enforcement copyright over public keys and key sources. Lets not forget that what atmosphere is doing, is violating the DMCA to circumvent nvidia's DRM. Even if it doesnt distribute the keys themselves, it is still illegal on it's face.

I mean, functionally what is the difference between SX loading an encrypted key, and atmosphere calculating it and then loading it? At the end of the day, they are both loading key and then using it to circumvent DRM.

Additionally, linking to copyrighted material is perfectly fine, GBATemp isnt hosting any SX files so I really do not see the issue.

This feels like thinly veiled anti-SX propoganda.

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

"Key sources and non-public public keys are definitely covered under copyright"
Really because I recall the key discussions that came with the HDDVD key leaks and many lawyers were all "we urge caution but can't point to anything specific" and I don't recall anything in the time since that clarifies anything here, other than the keys themselves not being a copyrighted work (it is not really a creative act to make a key) but maybe still afforded some other protection.
Or if you prefer the American Bar Association on the matter https://archive.is/20070623215230/h.../ereport/my11blog.html#selection-371.0-383.34

As for the rest I don't know the full situation to compare the various custom firmwares.

"we urge caution" = we can't guarantee you won't get sued.

It is copyright infringement under the plaintext versions of the statute. What is an open debate, is whether you could successfully raise a fair use defense. I don't think that defense would hold up here, when the data tha twas copied was encrypted / sealed under multiple levels of security that hackers had to break to get to it. This is not publicly available data we are talking about here. I cant break into your house, steal the keys to your car, and then claim fair use.

 

[blahblah]

I agree with you, that Nintendo is not likely to try to enforcement copyright over public keys and key sources. Lets not forget that what atmosphere is doing, is violating the DMCA to circumvent nvidia's DRM. Even if it doesnt distribute the keys themselves, it is still illegal on it's face.

I mean, functionally what is the difference between SX loading an encrypted key, and atmosphere calculating it and then loading it? At the end of the day, they are both loading key and then using it to circumvent DRM.

Additionally, linking to copyrighted material is perfectly fine, GBATemp isnt hosting any SX files so I really do not see the issue.

This feels like thinly veiled anti-SX propoganda.

You do not understand the law. Here's the difference: SX is a product designed to enable piracy. That is the purpose of the product, the group behind SX runs other projects that sell warez directly to consumers, they have a long history of distributing warez in various forms (True Blue, etc), they openly do so.

Atmosphere attempts compliance with the reverse engineering exceptions granted under DMCA and appears to operate inside them.

The law is not computer code. Actual reality factors in. The reality here is that TX/Gateway/True Blue/Stargate/the scene group Paradox are criminal entities and face a realistic chance of prosecution, while the Atmosphere people do not.

 

[KirovAir]

Also, why now? Since XCI emulation Nintendo certs/keys were included afaik..

 

[blahblah]

So I'm no law expert but this falls under the same as iOS jailbreaking. Where it's except under the DMCA and EUCD.

The 'jailbreaking exception' is narrowly worded and applies specifically to cell phones and tablets.

 

[V-Temp]

Also, why now? Since XCI emulation Nintendo certs/keys were included afaik..

Went under the radar, and it wasn't super well known until hexkyz spelled it out not long ago.

But they now have a plain text file with the key in a trivial place that anyone and everyone knows about now and can get to in an easy fashion, so now it is a trivial distribution of a copyright material.

 

[Tilde88]

The temp and its userbase is just an SX OS hater.

 

[FAST6191]

While many lawyers do go in for the double speak they do at least usually attempt to puzzle it out. Here they had nothing so I am not going to write them off that easily.


"It is copyright infringement under the plaintext versions of the statute"
What statute? Also copyright infringement is a specific concept. Something be some flavour of unlawful without being copyright infringement.

Your analogy with the break in is also troubled as there are plenty of times where software is deemed radically different to similar things.

This feels like thinly veiled anti-SX propoganda.

That is new. Normally people accuse the site of variously being shills, tolerant, pro TX/SX, anti open CFW, anti open source and everything but anti TX/SX.

I think the site just won pissed off people bingo. Time for a celebration.


All that said I am still at a loss for what has transpired at a higher level with all this firmwares and keys to kick all this off.

 

[V-Temp]

All that said I am still at a loss for what has transpired at a higher level with all this firmwares and keys to kick all this off.

For their current boot, TX/SX has the tsec key in plaintext in their boot operation. It is not extracted from an end-users' system in any fashion, it is simply there and now distributed publicly.

 

[blawar]

You do not understand the law. Here's the difference: SX is a product designed to enable piracy. That is the purpose of the product, the group behind SX runs other projects that sell warez directly to consumers, they have a long history of distributing warez in various forms (True Blue, etc), they openly do so.

Atmosphere attempts compliance with the reverse engineering exceptions granted under DMCA and appears to operate inside them.

The law is not computer code. Actual reality factors in. The reality here is that TX/Gateway/True Blue/Stargate/the scene group Paradox are criminal entities and face a realistic chance of prosecution, while the Atmosphere people do not.

Intent is not an element of the DMCA. Atmosphere does attempt compliance, but it is in fact not compliant. Please cite the DMCA exception you believe atmosphere to be operating under.

Let's not also forget that fact that GBATemp should be blocking all links to kosmos for distributing ES patches. And lets not forget the open blatant piracy going on right here on GBATemp posting the 7.0 ES patches. The path GBATEmp chose here is a rabbit hole.

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

While many lawyers do go in for the double speak they do at least usually attempt to puzzle it out. Here they had nothing so I am not going to write them off that easily.


"It is copyright infringement under the plaintext versions of the statute"
What statute? Also copyright infringement is a specific concept. Something be some flavour of unlawful without being copyright infringement.

There are a few that cover this sort of thing, but we'll just say the DMCA to keep things simple.

No lawyer will tell you its legal to copy the public keys and key sources unless you have a solid exception under the DMCA. The best exception I can see atmosphere squeeking through, is the mobile exception, because technically the switch is a mobile electronics device (the exception was designed for phones / tablets). It's an open question whether he could squeak by on that.

 

[blahblah]

Intent is not an element of the DMCA. Atmosphere does attempt compliance, but it is in fact not compliant. Please cite the DMCA exception you believe atmosphere to be operating under.

Let's not also forget that fact that GBATemp should be blocking all links to kosmos for distributing ES patches. And lets not forget the open blatant piracy going on right here on GBATemp posting the 7.0 ES patches. The path GBATEmp chose here is a rabbit hole.

If your belief structure is such that you believe that intent is not a major factor in prosecution and conviction, you are too far gone for me to educate.

ES/FS patches can be used for piracy, yes. They can also be used to run homebrew that is installed to the home screen. Their primary use is piracy, yes, but they are not part of a criminal organization. That's an important part.

 

[iriez]

You do not understand the law. Here's the difference: SX is a product designed to enable piracy. That is the purpose of the product, the group behind SX runs other projects that sell warez directly to consumers, they have a long history of distributing warez in various forms (True Blue, etc), they openly do so.

Atmosphere attempts compliance with the reverse engineering exceptions granted under DMCA and appears to operate inside them.

The law is not computer code. Actual reality factors in. The reality here is that TX/Gateway/True Blue/Stargate/the scene group Paradox are criminal entities and face a realistic chance of prosecution, while the Atmosphere people do not.

This was well said and I would like to add on to this - intent is essential for criminal prosecution. Xecuter does not care about this because they operate out of legal gray area zones. They will tell that where the products are made and distributed they are legal. This is true. But where they are used matters. and we have seen exactly this scenario play out in other industries and America took exception and went on attack.

Atmosphere at least adheres to regulations. Reverse engineering is protected speech under certain conditions. One of those conditions which has court precedent is inoperability. There are plenty of examples of this use case which can be exhibited in the switch hacking scene. Custom firmwares are what allow this inoperability.

https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq#faq4

 

[blawar]

If your belief structure is such that you believe that intent is not a major factor in prosecution and conviction, you are too far gone for me to educate.

ES/FS patches can be used for piracy, yes. They can also be used to run homebrew that is installed to the home screen. Their primary use is piracy, yes, but they are not part of a criminal organization. That's an important part.

I believe it is a huge part in evaluating prosecutorial discretion. However if a prosecutor does decide to prosecute you, the reasons don't matter. Also, it is both a criminal and civil case. Nintendo could sue at any time for over it, for any reason. Does anyoen think nintendo cares about intent when the software is used downstream to pirate their system? NOPE.