01-14-2011 #21parallx Guest
So you equate brand new released games, sold in stores TODAY, to out of print hardware, which to some degree is unobtainable? I tend to think otherwise. I'm not saying there may be things wrong with it, but not everything revolves around US copyright law.
Personally, I most await things like an XBMC port, additions to/and or a new web browser, and the creative things that people haven't even thought of yet. Besides, coding is an art, and writing an emulator is art. I appreciate the novelty of making a machine imitate another machine, and in these cases, in 1080p with enhanced graphics.
But I'm sure there is an art to playing current games without paying for them... Keep in mind, the original goal was to restore Linux. The original intent of the very first exploit was access to the graphics hardware. Piracy is unfortunate collateral damage (or fortunate if you are a pirate.) Some very ungrateful people in this "scene."
I suspect lots of kids living with parents who's allowance doesn't allow for a new game all the time. I can understand that side of piracy, I was a kid once. I've got a job now, and can afford to man up and pay for games I want to play.
And for the record, I own more actual old school cartridges than you can imagine, along with tons of original hardware. I played atari when it was NEW. We can agree to disagree, I suppose.
01-14-2011 #22semitope Guest
Need this to be translated properly. I couldn't read it.
Is geohot really the only ones with these keys? No-one else can use the fail0verflow information to get further?
01-14-2011 #23routehero Guest
An emulator, such as SNES or MAME, is enabling a user to download a ROM (forgive me if I doubt most people's ability to dump a cartridge or arcade machine to linux/win32), copy to local disk (or USB), and play from there.
They are in effect equal in purpose and ability. Both have the purpose of allowing a user to play the game from local disk, and both have the ability to enable copyright infringement.
It's wonderful that you're waiting for an XBMC (or other) port, but that's not likely to happen. If you do want such a contraption, why not buy a Boxee? It comes with XBMC and is cheaper than a PS3.
Too many devices, you say? More consolidation, you say? Man up and put your equipment in your basement and run an HDMI cable through your walls to your TV. Get an RF-capable remote to control your devices down below.
01-14-2011 #24nipsen Guest
It's a rough google-translation, but they suggest the same others thought when looking at the security design - geohot doesn't have "the root-key", he has a method to extract an existing key-pair.
Just like the last time - the approach he uses isn't going to be impossible to counter, just as it's completely useless for packaging and running homebrew you compile yourself.
But unfortunately, the guy just keeps impressing Sony's producer-spawn, and they go into high gear when it comes to spending resources on legally questionable, and market-hostile ways to limit their customers.
Geohot doesn't seem to get this, that Sony has no interest in keeping their device "unlocked". (Apple did with the iPhone, because it would allow them to sell phones outside the American service providers). And that there will be no silent admittance of defeat for Sony's folks here.
In fact, if Sony really did make a mistake when applying the security model they've developed, Sony will most likely abandon the ps3 and the psn in general. And they will state something along the lines that "crackers destroyed the ps3", made it unfit for the market - and they will believe it as well.
So even though the guy doesn't actually have a way to reverse-engineer the ps3's signing process, producer spawn is going to go off on a rampage. While we're not getting anything useful.
The point is that Geohot isn't contributing anything useful, while making sure that unnecessary steps that inconvenience everyone is taken. We had that with linux as well. Geohot didn't discover anything useful then to actually remove the copy-protection, and the exploit that turned up later wasn't based on a low-level hack.
01-14-2011 #25fldash Guest
geohot seems to think that by touting his anti-piracy stance and not releasing certain information that Sony cares. Sony doesn't care, they are pissed.
The only thing geohot is doing is slowing down development by not releasing everything he knows about the system. Sony is going to sue (and has already) regardless of him being anti-piracy and keeping things he considers to enable piracy under-wrap.
If he has the NPDRM keys to decrypt he should release them. If he knows ERK + npdrm RIV, he should release it so all our code isn't signed with the same key pair...
01-14-2011 #26DENEGRAO Guest
Geohot is very capable hacker, but his real intent is to work on Sony or Nintendo or Microsoft, so if a was a dev, i will never wait for something from him. About the devs, stop complain about Geohot and do what you gotta do!
01-14-2011 #27Tatsh2DX Guest
Geohot is stupid in one way: why would you give out your name? He thinks because what he has done was apparently legitimate especially since he has never directly enabled piracy that he can give out his name and expect no scrutiny. How dumb is that? The Carnegie Mellon professor is doing the same and risking the same exact thing. Would you really want to lose your job for posting some encryption keys on a server you DO NOT own?
Even if you have an on-line nick, you still gain the popularity. So I do not get the point. I'm sure all of us think highly of other hackers who do NOT give out their real name. Is Hermes really his real name? Is Waninkoko his real name? NO. How about all those release groups who NEVER release any nicks of crackers.
Hermes maybe didn't use git (Marcan, another one stupid enough to give out his real name) but he did get something working EVERY TIME and nobody gave a shit that it came in a RAR file. If I wanted someone to contribute I would want that person to join in and use the same software; however, just because they don't DOES NOT discredit them.
We all take nicks on here and elsewhere (let's say, private torrent sites) for a reason!
'We're security researchers, we shouldn't fear revealing our names, let's take the hit!' <-- Yeah because you have apparently NOTHING else to do. How stupid.
01-14-2011 #28tilla Guest
The broader implications of this case are important though, one could argue. If allowed to go to court and Sony loses, it creates a permanent legal precedence against Console manufacturers able to abuse customers like this. I'm all for that.
01-14-2011 #29Tatsh2DX Guest
I know many developers will happily make cool stuff, maybe a lot more open source stuff will come out, but who will make the big games most people want to play if they cannot eat?
On another note, maybe these systems could stop relying upon a 'global' copy protection. iPhone and iPod Touch for example both utilise encryption of the ELF files, virtually no asset protection, but they have taken away the need for the developers to find copy protection solutions (although many still implement checks), and so have console manufacturers; where virtually no game has ever had an issue running once signature checking or any type of global copy protection was removed (modchip in PS1,PS2; modchip and softmod with Wii; modchips and softmod with Xbox1; firmware check on 360). Then after that, we would of course have to wait for any apps and games to be cracked just like on PC. Since more things are moving to web-based subscriptions (giving code back only upon successful login, such as the new Ubisoft games), it will be no surprise when there is no way to crack many of these applications.
It is amazing that all these device makers would want one single point of failure for EVERY game/protected application.
01-15-2011 #30squarepusher2 Guest
By all means support the industry by forking out 30-40 bucks for a copy of Super Mario All-Stars Wii that is the exact same thing as this copy of Super Mario All-Stars that I own in cart form and in ROM form - only problem is - back in 1993, it was actually value for money, now - it's a goddamn rip-off.
Companies are within their legal rights to defraud millions of customers by selling them what amounts to 1-2MB downloads at unreasonable prices (a 16Mbit ROM on a 4.7GB DVD? Really? You equate that to 'value for money'?) - and you want to talk about poor little developers getting burned by piracy - by a SNES emu of all things?