Hacking Is console hacking not illegal or what?

[notimp]

Read this: https://reverseengineering.stackexc...ing-reverse-engineering-techniques-acceptable

Its several other peoples legal opinion.

I've posted it in here before.

Also, if you go back to page 3 you'll find an anecdote, that companies like HP and Compaq, were founded on reverse engineering, an IBM PC architecture, making clones of it, then selling those clones into the market as "IBM compatible computers" - undercutting their prices.

They did not end up in jail, they became the basis of modern day silicon valley.

The "reverse engineering" provision is not restricted to "understanding" or "communicating" with systems - its literally there to make you able to run programs, that couldnt run on systems before.

DMCA my ass - companies don't loose out on sales - because someone made pacman run on their machines. And if their only argument is "we should be the only ones that should be able to make pacman run on our machine" - thats anti-competitive.

Of course they can try - but others are allowed to reverse engineer and open up ANY closed system - that they have bought.

Next thing you argue is, that car mechanics shouldnt be able to exchange a gas pump anymore, because only the company that manufactured the car should have the rights to understand how its working, and sell you a replacement...

BTW - The only real argument companies bring forward to argue that standpoint in DMCA related legal cases is that of "safety issues". This argument then goes as follows "we can't allow people to understand how our car computer works - because they could tinker with it and kill people -- please make it illegal for people to understand how our stuff works -- thanks here's a check".

 

[kingaz]

I don't believe there is a country in the world where the police are interested in citizens violating copyright, because it's not a criminal act.

Usually it's left up to the copyright holder to enforce, which they don't have the resources to do. This doesn't mean you have a right to do it, like you don't have the right to beat up a small kid just because they don't have the ability to fight back.

In the U.S., the DMCA does attach criminal penalties to copyright infringement. I’m not aware of any prosecutions under this, but it exists. And yes, it is dumb as hell.

 

[smf]

They did not end up in jail, they became the basis of modern day silicon valley.

No, but there were plenty of court cases about it. Some cases were lost and some were won. The devil is in the detail.

Reverse engineering isn't usually illegal by itself, it's what you do with the information that is important. Depending on the country, it might be legal to reverse engineer and write software but illegal to release the information so that someone else can write software.

DMCA my ass - companies don't loose out on sales - because someone made pacman run on their machines. And if their only argument is "we should be the only ones that should be able to make pacman run on our machine" - thats anti-competitive.

Copyright holders legally have a monopoly on being the only ones who can authorise copies. There is no legal or moral argument for why that is "anti-competitive". Or I'll come round and borrow your car/house/girlfriend while you're out, because it's wrong you have a monopoly on them.

 

[kingaz]

Read this: https://reverseengineering.stackexc...ing-reverse-engineering-techniques-acceptable

Its several other peoples legal opinion.

I've posted it in here before.

Also, if you go back to page 3 you'll find an anecdote, that companies like HP and Compaq, were founded on reverse engineering, an IBM PC architecture, making clones of it, then selling those clones into the market as "IBM compatible computers" - undercutting their prices.

They did not end up in jail, they became the basis of modern day silicon valley.

The "reverse engineering" provision is not restricted to "understanding" or "communicating" with systems - its literally there to make you able to run programs, that couldnt run on systems before.

DMCA my ass - companies don't loose out on sales - because someone made pacman run on their machines. And if their only argument is "we should be the only ones that should be able to make pacman run on our machine" - thats anti-competitive.

Of course they can try - but others are allowed to reverse engineer and open up ANY closed system - that they have bought.

Next thing you argue is, that car mechanics shouldnt be able to exchange a gas pump anymore, because only the company that manufactured the car should have the rights to understand how its working, and sell you a replacement...

BTW - The only real argument companies bring forward to argue that standpoint in DMCA related legal cases is that of "safety issues". This argument then goes as follows "we can't allow people to understand how our car computer works - because they could tinker with it and kill people -- please make it illegal for people to understand how our stuff works -- thanks here's a check".

Good grief man, you just read a thing and believe you are an expert. You google some random opinions and throw them up to make your case.

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

Here's the federal government denying an exemption for video game consoles. Apparently they found that disabling copy protections for game systems to allow for interoperability with homebrew products was outweighted by the need for game companies to prevent piracy.

 

[notimp]

Copyright holders legally have a monopoly on being the only ones who can authorise copies. There is no legal or moral argument for why that is "anti-competitive". Or I'll come round and borrow your car/house/girlfriend while you're out, because it's wrong you have a monopoly on them.

But we are not talking about copys (piracy), we are talking about this:

Using reverse engineering for interoperability purposes has been supported in the US judicial system. Accolade, A California-based game developer was sued by for copyright infringement in 1991 by Sony after reverse-engineering the Sega Genesis programming interface and publishing games for the Sega Genesis. Accolade won the court case because the Accolade games did not contain any of Sega's code and because of the public benefit resulting in the increased competition.

or this

Bleem! was also released in 3 other versions for the Sega Dreamcast called Bleemcast! to play the popular PlayStation gamesGran Turismo 2, Metal Gear Solid and Tekken 3. Bleemcast! was originally planned as a series of "Bleempacks" that would each support about 100 games, but this soon became an impossibility due to the amount of testing required to support such a large library of games, as well as the lack of a possible software update on the Sega Dreamcast platform. Early ads in magazines advertising Bleemcast! claimed that it would bring 400 new games to Dreamcast.

Bleem! used low-level memory emulation and other real-mode technology. It did not function on operating systems using theWindows NT kernel, including Windows 2000. In fact, Bleem!'s statement at the time was that Bleem! would never support running on Windows NT-based systems, as Windows 98 was the dominant operating system at the time.

Sony, despite having lost its case with Connectix, continued to pursue legal action against Bleem!. Bleem!, financially unable to defend itself, was forced to go out of business.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem!


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

And hacking systems you own, is legal.

 

[kingaz]

I know I'm telling you something autrageously new - but homebrew is not piracy. And hacking systems you own, is legal.

Coming from you, that means absolutely nothing.

 

[Noctosphere]

Coming from you, that means absolutely nothing.

because it should means more because it comes from you?

 

[kingaz]

because it should means more because it comes from you?

Given that I back up my claims with the actual law and regulatory decision in question? Yeah.

 

[Crusard]

I don't believe there is a country in the world where the police are interested in citizens violating copyright, because it's not a criminal act.

Usually it's left up to the copyright holder to enforce, which they don't have the resources to do. This doesn't mean you have a right to do it, like you don't have the right to beat up a small kid just because they don't have the ability to fight back.



Some countries have speeding laws which exempt you if the vehicle is being used as an ambulance. That doesn't mean you can always argue that you should be let off a speeding ticket. Only that you can use it as a defence in court. You really don't want to have to go to court.

If you're hacking your console and don't release anything you're fine. If you're releasing something that allows piracy then you're not, whether you intended piracy to be the outcome. This has already been covered by the PS3 court cases & it's why some hackers purposefully block things that could allow their legitimate use to be extended to illegal use.

Again, english is not my native language, i don't know how to expresate some things on a correct way, replace "Police" for another entity.

And the second quote, it's not mine.

 

[notimp]

Given that I back up my claims with the actual law and regulatory decision in question? Yeah.

Yay we are back to character assassination, again - because some people have no arguments to put forward, if you show them, caselaw after caselaw, that spell out exactly what they dont want you to believe.

In the US. Hacking consoles is legal. For the purpose of understanding how they work - or making them compatible with other software, that otherwise would not run on the system.

As long as what you are distributing is based on a codebase you did create on your on (fe - not a "stolen" and modified bios, to be flashed on a chip).

 

[smf]

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

And hacking systems you own, is legal.

I didn't say homebrew was piracy, although emulators generally are used for piracy. The US government says you can hack your phone, but not your console.

In the US. Hacking consoles is legal. For the purpose of understanding how they work - or making them compatible with other software, that otherwise would not run on the system.

If you're referring to the DMCA exemptions, then the exemption for consoles was denied. It's allowed for mobile phones & I think PC's. It's a rather arbitrary decision as there is less and less between all three.

 

[kingaz]

Yay we are back to character assassination, again - because some people have no arguments to put forward, if you show them, caselaw after caselaw, that spell out exactly what they dont want you to believe.

In the US. Hacking consoles is legal. For the purpose of understanding how they work - or making them compatible with other software, that otherwise would not run on the system.

As long as what you are distributing is not based on a codebase you didnt create on your on (fe - "stolen" and modified bios, to be flashed on a chip).

Character assassination? I have done no such thing. My only claim is that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Which you don’t.

The regulatory decision came down saying that game consoles are not granted any exemptions to the subsection (a) provisions. Homebrew and cfw are not allowed, and there is no interoperability excuse that will save you.

If you'd like the Library of Congress to revisit this stance, by all means, petition them during the next rulemaking period. Good luck- you're going to need it.

 

[gnmmarechal]

You can do whatever you want with things you own. Modding your console is not illegal but it goes against the company's term of service so they can void your warranty rights.

Running open sourced homebrews is not illegal. Copyright infringement (using backup loader to run commercial games) is however illegal.

Not true as far as the EU is concerned, actually.

You can do whatever you want with things you own. Modding your console is not illegal but it goes against the company's term of service so they can void your warranty rights.

Running open sourced homebrews is not illegal. Copyright infringement (using backup loader to run commercial games) is however illegal.

Not true in all countries, namely my own. I'm free to download whatever game I want for personal use.

 

[FAST6191]

I shared a basic version of my understanding of it all https://gbatemp.net/threads/what-is...brew-and-console-hacking.465688/#post-7201605 last year, not a great deal has changed since then.
and apparently in the related threads thing as well...

Anyway I do also have to say there is a line of thought for the warranty thing that says if the hack did not cause the issue then there is scope for the warranty to still be honoured, this being car warranties which faced similar things a few years back with modified cars. Good luck ever getting it honoured without a court case you dedicate your life and millions to but in principle, and indeed basic logic, it does not have to bother the warranty.

 

[Giga_Gaia]

The only thing that is illegal is copyright infringment, like playing backups on your consoles. However, let's be realistic here. There is nothing they can do to stop you from doing so or even nothing they can do to you if you do it. You can pirate all you want, you're never gonna get sued.

 

[Noctosphere]

The only thing that is illegal is copyright infringment, like playing backups on your consoles. However, let's be realistic here. There is nothing they can do to stop you from doing so or even nothing they can do to you if you do it. You can pirate all you want, you're never gonna get sued.

thats how it works in canada, due to heavy law about private life
for the police, in order to watch your internet bandwidth to know that you download, they need a warrent
to get a warrent, they need basics proof
ISP cant tell police anything about what you download because it would be against private life laws
in other words, its almost impossible to get arrested for piracy in canada

 

[Giga_Gaia]

thats how it works in canada, due to heavy law about private life
for the police, in order to watch your internet bandwidth to know that you download, they need a warrent
to get a warrent, they need basics proof
ISP cant tell police anything about what you download because it would be against private life laws
in other words, its almost impossible to get arrested for piracy in canada

Even in the states, there is almost never anyone getting sued for this kind of stuff. Going after an average person is not worth it. You will sue them, you will have to pay the lawyers and then make the person you're suing pay a ridiculously huge fee that they will never be able to pay, so you will have wasted your time and money suing someone for almost zero gain.

They will only go after the big fishes, which an average person isn't.

I do agree with you though, Canada has much better copyright laws (if you're a consumer).

 

[FAST6191]

The only thing that is illegal is copyright infringment, like playing backups on your consoles. However, let's be realistic here. There is nothing they can do to stop you from doing so or even nothing they can do to you if you do it. You can pirate all you want, you're never gonna get sued.

Just to be a pedant I have to say "backups" would be fine. Play backups of games you own all you like (barring whatever else applies as far as protection bypassing).

If you don't own said copy of the game you are playing (or you are using it such that you are running more copies at once than you would normally) then you are doing something that definitely contravenes a law. As others said you are unlikely to get locked up or even bothered for it but that is a different matter.

Backups became the euphemism of choice; "I would like to play a backup of my game as I fear it getting scratched/don't want to swap all the time" is a fine discussion to have, legit even. Hoisting the jolly roger and saying "I want the entire game library for [console] as I just found this torrent and a several TB bit of storage to play it all from" is less justifiable if the law comes knocking.

 

[kingaz]

Just to be a pedant I have to say "backups" would be fine. Play backups of games you own all you like (barring whatever else applies as far as protection bypassing).

If you don't own said copy of the game you are playing (or you are using it such that you are running more copies at once than you would normally) then you are doing something that definitely contravenes a law. As others said you are unlikely to get locked up or even bothered for it but that is a different matter.

Backups became the euphemism of choice; "I would like to play a backup of my game as I fear it getting scratched/don't want to swap all the time" is a fine discussion to have, legit even. Hoisting the jolly roger and saying "I want the entire game library for [console] as I just found this torrent and a several TB bit of storage to play it all from" is less justifiable if the law comes knocking.

Under U.S. law, the protection bypassing is what screws you. Thank you DMCA you defective POS.

 

[notimp]

@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 win by mentioning "The library of congress" as being on the other side of the argument.

It isn't but nice attempt at name/reputation-dropping, 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 / exemptions.

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 hackers are allowed to distribute all methods and programs they have created in that effort, as long, as do not contain proprietary company 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).

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

Looked up the "but its legal on phones" case - this was a legal clarification made by the library of congress in regard to an EFF inquiry to remove "legal uncertainty" - which said, yes - its legal to hack phones.

The reason given was:

But the Copyright Office concluded that, "while a copyright owner might try to restrict the programs that can be run on a particular operating system, copyright law is not the vehicle for imposition of such restrictions."

https://www.wired.com/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/

Huh - seems like a pretty distinct statement, huh?

Too bad the EFF didn't also ask for the legal status of "console hacking" - so now according to you (and you only) it is illegal despite of

- the actual text of the law
- the actual intention of the law
- all case laws I could come up with
- the interpretation of the law, by most people on stackexchange
- another mention of the intention of the exception to the law (copyright law can not be used to prevent people from running software on your proprietary OS/plattform)
...

What would it actually take to change your opinion?

Should I just stop posting in here, would that help?