The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
from the ordering-the-impossible dept
When you watch politicians and judges make total fools of themselves on technology issues, sometimes you wonder if there just isn't a better system overall out there. Take, for example, the already ridiculous situation in which George Hotz (Geohot) has been gagged for his basic hack of the PS3, allowing it to re-enable a feature that Sony used to include, but has since removed. Remember, if he had done this same exact thing on an iPhone, it would be allowed. But because it's a slightly larger computer that you don't carry in your pocket, it means this could lead to jailtime.I'm still waiting for someone to explain how all of that makes any sense.
However, making the scenario even more ridiculous are the details that the judge put into the temporary restraining order. Not only is Hotz supposed to shut up, but he's also been told to turn over basically all of his computing equipment that might have included some or all of this code. As his lawyer notes, the code itself is less than 100 kb of data. It seems pretty silly to force him to turn over all of his computers and storage -- including terabytes of data -- over one little crack.
Furthermore, the judge has ordered Hotz to "retrieve the code" that has been distributed. Yes, think about that for a second. Retrieve the code. As if it were a dog that went out for a saunter. You don't "retrieve" code once it's out there on the internet. It doesn't go away. You would think that anyone alive during the whole AACS debacle would recognize the pointlessness of trying to suppress released code that is already of great public interest.
It's scenarios like these that make me wonder what the judges who make such orders (and the politicians who make such laws) are thinking (if they're thinking) when they do so. They're trying to legislate or order the impossible, and it doesn't increase respect for the law. It does exactly the opposite. When the rules are completely ridiculous and try to order the impossible, all you do is end up having everyone mock our laws and our judicial system, while doing absolutely nothing to respond to the underlying legal issues.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: gaming console, george hotz, hacking, injunction, ps3
Companies: sony
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Once again, Mike, you don't understand the process. Judges don't make or write such orders. They hear motions and grant motions, and then sign orders prepared by the winning party. If the judge issues an opinion that he wrote, it's called an opinion.
Let's imagine that the judge looked at the "retrieve the code" portion of the order provided by Sony's attorneys and said, "This is asinine. There is no fricken way you're getting that code back again."
The judge saying that does not change anything. Sony obviously wanted that in the order. Why else would they put it in? So regardless of the opinions of the judge, if Sony wants it in and an opportunity to tilt at windmills, that's their prerogative.
It's not like it's the judge's job to enforce it. If Sony wants to waste their time enforcing it, that's their decision to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are saying it's requisite for judges to give legally binding orders to people without scrutiny or judgement on their part, just because a plaintiff asks them to? And that it is okay for judges to hand down orders that are literally impossible?
That doesn't make sense...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are saying it's requisite for judges to give legally binding orders to people without scrutiny or judgement on their part, just because a plaintiff asks them to? And that it is okay for judges to hand down orders that are literally impossible?
That doesn't make sense...
This whole article is FUD and the judge didn't order anything that was impossible. I highly recommend going to the source rather than believing Mike's take on things. I often find that Mike has misrepresented the truth. The judge ordered Hotz to retrieve the information from places where he posted it. Facebook is such a place. Nothing impossible about that.
To read techdirt properly, you need a hefty dose of skepticism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have you ever used Facebook or YouTube? It's just as easy to remove your own post as it is to post it in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Frankly just the use of the word "retrieve" demonstrates cluelessness. Yes it may be possible for him to *delete* some postings that he is made, though it's likely there are others where he cannot, and in any case none of that is "retrieval" - it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of data, which is also why the lawyers would request such an utterly pointless injunction in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The word "retrieve" was used because he is being ordered to remove posts he's made on the internet as well as retrieve any actual documents that he's put in the hands of third parties. That choice of words does not reflect the judge's grasp of the technology. Give it up. So desperate to find anything wrong with this order... Not focusing on the underlying issues that actually matter... Hurts to read techdirt today...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean, if the defendant is liable for creating code that makes piracy possible, isn't Sony equally liable for creating the devices and software that made this code possible? Perhaps the game companies should sue Sony for distributing a platform on which piracy is possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean, if the defendant is liable for creating code that makes piracy possible, isn't Sony equally liable for creating the devices and software that made this code possible? Perhaps the game companies should sue Sony for distributing a platform on which piracy is possible.
Really? No offense, but that's a pretty silly argument. I suppose that would make women liable for their own rape if they wear sexy clothes. And convenience stores would be liable for their own robbery because they keep cash in the drawer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh! It's a mystery!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh! It's a mystery!
Since when did I ever say I wonder why people think I'm close-minded? Nice strawman. As to the rest of your nonsense, get back to me with specific examples that I can respond to. Otherwise, go fly a kite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Off target analogy. Its more like a cash register manufacturer selling a till which is advertised to be secure but which is actually easy to break open. The convenience store could certainly sue the manufacturer if they were robbed by that route.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lawyering in a nutshell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The judge is not ordering the impossible. Give it up, Bernie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you put something on the internet you completely lose control of it. You don't know whether it's been forwarded copied, backed up, exists on some guys USB device, CD or what. It is literally impossible to regain control over it.
That's why I tell my kids to be VERY CAREFUL as to what they put on things like faceless book.
So, how can one expect this poor guy to retrieve all of the copies?
Sony already knew this. This is simply an attempt to force punishment on this guy by a heartless and ruthless corporation and the technologically incompetent judge went right along into the black hole at the urging of Sony.
Let’s say they can find all of the copies which is completely impossible. Let’s also assume that some of the copies are in the PRC (Peoples Republic of China for those of you that are intellectually challenged). Do you really thing that the communist in china are going to honor this lame judge’s order?
Of course not, they'll have a good laugh and flatly state that there is no such thing as intellectual property, rights or anything else like that in the PRC.
So, in this hypothetically impossible situation you’re still stumped...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He is not being being ordered to retrieve all of the copies, including the ones that it would be impossible for him to retrieve. That would make no sense. The fact that it would make no sense is your first clue that maybe you should look into what the judge actually did order rather than take someone else's word for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point would be to order Hotz to minimize the damage that he's caused as best he can. Seems perfectly logical to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The maths doesn't work:
Let X= number of existing copies = "Unreasonably large number of copies approaching infinity"
Let Y= copies directly caused by any Author
Let Z= amount of author-created copies that cannot be removed
In this case: X - (Y - Z) = X
Conclusion: Pointless order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read again before you get all rambo'd up. I really don't give a flying f*ck about the guy in question nor what he did and I didn't comment on that in any way. I don't have a PS3 for probably pretty much the same reason he "hacked" it so any interest I have is in the general principle. Nor did I suggest in any way there should not be concequences for breaking the law - the fact that it's a stupid-ass law designed to get the government to prop up Sony's business model artificially I didn't comment on either.
I merely pointed out that any "benefit" in the judgement was non-existent and that the "additional harm" of any direct copies of the code made by him was vanishingly small and so in my opinion the judgement was pointless. If the intent was to have him waste his time as part of the punishment, then a community service order would have served better don't you think?
Interesting that you used the word "scapegoated" though as the term is usually used to imply a wrongful burden of punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except that minimization isn't possible. At all. Any effort on his part to retrieve even his own posts is going to result in more publicity of this code, not less.
Thus showing that this judge, like many judges, does not understand the Internet.
Which is the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thus showing that this judge, like many judges, does not understand the Internet.
Which is the point.
Even if having him go through the motions accomplishes next to nothing in keeping the code from being spread, it's the principle of it that matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personally, I think that Sony had to go for a lawsuit to stop him from further sharing/development of the code and also to show to game developers/publishers that they take the issue of hacking very seriously. Game developers/publishers would be miffed if Sony didn't do anything about it.
As for the judge passing the injunction, it is the lawyers duty to research the matter and explain the situation so that the judge can make the right decision. And don't forget there's also the defence lawyers so if you feel there's a lack of understanding of the nature of technology/internet, you can blame the defence guy for not putting the right argument forward.
As for the right to do what you want with your legally owned property, that right is defendable up to the point that you infringe on another persons' rights. Sony removed the 'Install another OS' feature for security reasons but customers were rightly miffed and had every right to sue. That I totally agree. But what Geohotz is doing is giving the keys to opening up the PS3 to anything. To my understanding, it is the hack of all hacks. And although one may argue that the code does not implicitly enable/encourage pirated games, there is a very high risk that other people with the Geohotz hack would do that. It would be silly to ask Sony to wait until somebody has done it before trying to stop this problem. They have to nip it in the bud somehow.
To me, it's like a hacker releasing the codes/control of nuclear missiles and saying it's not his responsibility if somebody else used the code for malicious intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Although... Bapple?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, to "retrieve" would mean that any copies must be deleted from where they are and copied back to where they came from, which is silly for electronic data. A better way of phrasing it would have been to "delete all copies personally created by the defendant".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Deny such a bad order?
I mean seriously, how is the Judicial Branch supposed to retrieve a code that is firmly placed on the internet?
Don Quixote's windmills don't move as fast as the distilling of info on the web.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, the judge's opinion does matter. He isn't required to sign an order. It doesn't matter who committed the words to paper, if the judge signs the order, it's his order. If the order said the defendant should stand naked in the town square, does the judge have to sign that? Can he say "No, that's asinine. I'm not signing that"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Judges do often write their own orders, although more often they address proposed orders. If a judge should find a proposed order to be impossible to carry out, he or she could simply strike part or all of the offending portion of the order before signing under the basic legal maxim, "A l impossible nul n est tenu." or a more modern variant, "The law neither does nor requires idle acts."
Yes judges can and yes judges indeed do this sort of thing regularly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judges..
If the order had included a provision that Hotz surrender his first born child they would probably have signed it without comment as long as Sony paid the judge enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judges..
What options does Sony have right now? It's not like they can come up with another business plan for the PS3 5 years into it's life cycle which is expected to be at least 10 years. You can't bash Sony for wanting to protect a working business model anyway. We sure talk a lot about outdated and useless business models on this site, but the one the PS3 uses is perfectly fine.
Furthermore, if Geohot didn't trying using the OtherOS function as an attack vector on the PS3 then that feature would never have been removed. It was the hacking communities actions that brought that about. Sony could have reacted to Geohots hacks a little differently, but again when it comes to consoles, once it becomes a wide open platform it dies. Look at the PSP for example. The PSP was destroyed due to hacking, nothing to do with a bad business model.
I'm not agreeing with everything Sony is doing, but no one seems to be able to come up with better options for Sony to deal with this situation. It's easy enough to point and say they're doing it all wrong, but not quite as easy to come up with a solution is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Judges..
I guess faulty hardware, poor game portability from parent systems, low battery life, prohibitive pricing on the PSP and its games, and the sheer dominance of Nintendo's own hand-held systems had nothing to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Judges..
Nope, no business decision was wrong there. All "hacking's" fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hacking an Iphone doesn't have the same implications as hacking a game playing system has. Sony purposely sells the consoles at a low price, and sells the software / games at a higher rate. Keys to the hack are not only the ability to load another operating system (nice but not relevant for most people) but also to replicate / duplicate games and pirate them (of interest to most people). It also allows users to change the gameplay in sharing network games, thus hurting other users who are not cheating in this manner.
The potential harm to Sony's customers outweighs any benefits. The hack isn't just to change a feature or whatnot, but purposely to be able to make the machine violate copyright and allow widespread piracy of PS3 games.
The "retrieve the code" thing is there likely as Ima Fish explained, it was part of a motion made by Sony and granted by the judge. It creates a great indication of the harm that can be done by releasing code like this in the wild. 10 lines of code, 10 k or code, or 10 meg, it isn't the size that matters, it's the intent.
If nothing else, this shows the costs of piracy, one of those things you try hard to deny. Sony's market for PS3 games will likely be impacted by people using this code to copy disks rather than buy them.
Congrats to Sony for the win. Too bad that too many people around here won't understand why it is an important win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are making it sound like only a few people were using that feature, but that's not true. There were a tonne of universities and labs that bought whole rooms full of PS3s because the alternative OS feature allowed them to build cheap supercomputer clusters. These are legitimate consumers who spent thousands of dollars on Sony equipment, and then found that the only value that equipment had to them was removed.
If Sony is allowed to do that, shouldn't those people be allowed to modify their legally owned devices to restore the function that they paid for fair and square?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Can you cite any examples of large scale PS3 clusters that were ruined by this?
The universities, the military, all of those guys aren't going to hook up their PS3s to the net as game playing machines to get the update anyway. They don't have any issues, they stay on the previous firmware and keep all of their features that they think are valuable to them. As a game player, I think it is much more valuable to have an enjoyable game play experience, both in solo games and in the online / shared environment. The Sony product would love much of it's value to me if the online game play was corrupted or significantly impacted by hackers.
Sony wasn't in the business of selling cheap computers (at a loss) - they were doing the classic razor / razor blade thing. The Razor is cheap, the blades are expensive. If lot of people are buying the razor but not buying blades, then you have to change the product or business model to make it work out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why should the PS3 be treated any differently?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So the fact remains: Sony got consumers to by a product, then pulled that product out from under their feet. You can say they had no choice, but that's their problem - perhaps they made some dumb business decisions, but I fail to see how that means people shouldn't be allowed to modify devices they legally own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So the fact remains: You don't have much of a leg to stand on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This isn't about Sony not releasing future products in the same category. It's about them stripping the functionality of an existing product thus that those who bought it for that exact reason are now excluded from all of the upgrades and support that they were told they would have when they made the purchase.
Let's say a company is selling office printers with some new super-high resolution. A bunch of offices buy them for their high-res printing needs. But then someone else figures out how to modify them to print on linen paper and starts using them to counterfeit money. So the company releases an update that disables the high-res printing, and tells companies who are using it legitimately that they can no longer upgrade their software or replace any parts if they want to keep using the feature. Doesn't that seem like a rather questionable business practice? Don't those legitimate users have a reasonable argument that they were ripped off?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If Geohotz just wanted Homebrew they he should help protect from other hacked from piracy but I doubt that. His ego has been groomed and he will just walk away.
To use your example Sony is the beaten wife who provides a service like cooking the dinner but makes a mistake and Geohots takes advantage and beats her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Jeez... why do people comment on things that are above their heads?
Besides, Sony has distributed custom firmware to these few individuals, and they are always able to downgrade back to defaul system settings... since they are using the device for it's computing power, and not for gaming... this HAS ABSOLUTELY NO AFFECT ON THEM.
How can someone who has access to the internet be so ill informed? Pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Marcus Carab.
So yea a lot of people were using the other Os, but again it was ruined by the hackers who have nothing better to do than ruin something very helpful for everyone else.
By the way if the universities using the other Os feature didn't update their consoles, they could still use the feature. Whether or not that was secure is beyond me, but I can assume that they would probably still use them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Marcus Carab.
Common sense, on the other hand would suggest that while they certainly have a "right" to remove the feature from any further PS3 consoles they sell, it is a highly dubious move to remove it from existing consoles that have been paid for with that feature as part of what was purchased.
Nor does it seem a very smart or fair move on the part of Sony to remove it since clearly it is significantly more likely to disadvantage paying customers who were only going to legitimately use the feature that it will the hypothetical pirates you suggest were the real target.
Cracking any device is always going to be possible and is already illegal so annoying customers who don't just because someone actually managed to do it seems petty to me. If that really was why they pulled the feature and they didn't anticipate it happening that suggests a horrible degree of shortsightedness on Sony's part akin to being suprised that another cat might have the temerity to come in through your catflap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, you're saying that because Sony has an unsustainable business model, it's OK for a judge to rule that people aren't allowed to do what they want with their own property, and it's OK for Geohot to have his first amendment rights impinged?
Sorry, but if Sony made a bad business decision, they are the ones who should be paying for it, not anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can't play games on an iPhone? Jailbreaking your iPhone doesn't allow someone to install pirated and third-party apps? You haven't explained how the two are different.
Sony purposely sells the consoles at a low price, and sells the software / games at a higher rate.
That's a business model, not a legal argument. It isn't the government's job to make someone's business model profitable.
The hack isn't just to change a feature or whatnot, but purposely to be able to make the machine violate copyright and allow widespread piracy of PS3 games.
Geohot's hack specifically did not allow duplication of games.
If nothing else, this shows the costs of piracy, one of those things you try hard to deny.
What shows it? You haven't said anything about the cost of anything. Do you know nothing but unfounded assertions?
Too bad that too many people around here won't understand why it is an important win.
Oh, I understand that it's "important", just probably not in the direction you think . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now they can change out their PS3 computer parts. The fact is, the harm of Sony's litigation route trumps ALL of the benefits that their customers could see. Sony should be focused on making the PS3 better, not suing a hacker.
Think about how the Kinect has found greater uses outside of the 360 and you have a damn good comparison.
Seems to me that Sony has a lot to learn in the video game market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most of the people that i know that have a cracked xbox actually have 2 xboxes. One for online play and the other for hacked content. I think it's a total win for both the customer and microsoft. The more appealing the game's online content is, the better chance that those guys go ahead and buy a game they downloaded so they can play online, they won't use the hacked xbox online for fear of having it bricked. So not only do they buy more than one console, they are also exposed to more games. In some cases they download and play a game, that they normally wouldn't give a second look at in the store, find that they like it, and buy it because they want the full features.
I think sony is missing a hell of an opportunity. But whatever, they will continue the whack a mole game until they figure it out just like the AA's....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your idiocity
Do you or do you not own a product when you purchase it?
Just answer the question.
Do you or do you not have the right to use that product for personal use in any way you see fit as long as it does not break any laws?
When I purchase a PC with Windows on it and I decide to write say a plug in that allows me to switch the OS to say Linux is that illegal?
Again, just answer the question. Never mind that someone might take my code use it to switch to Linux and run some super duper disc duplicator so that they can illegally distribute content...
It's like a gun. A gun never killed anyone. Let me say that again, a gun never killed anyone. It's the person behind the gun. The gun is simply a tool. You can use it to go out and get your supper or kill your neighbor. It's all up to you. That’s why gun manufactures cannot be sued because some idiot chooses to rob a bank with one.
When decisions like this are rendered they compromise the Freedoms of everyone. I could give a rats @$$ about Sony's lame argument that it's going to hurt their content providers. That is not the point. The point is 'do you or do you not own something that you buy.' If you don't then you better get ready to convert totally to communism because one of the cornerstones of the communist manifesto is no ownership of property.
Is this what you are really supporting?
Oh and by the way it is importaint. An importaint attack on our personal freedoms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your idiocity
Do you or do you not own a product when you purchase it?
It depends on the product. You may own the device, but the firmware and software running it may only be licensed.
Do you or do you not have the right to use that product for personal use in any way you see fit as long as it does not break any laws?
yes, but that would include not violating the license agreement for the firmware and software. You can use the physical hardware any way you like, including turning it into a boat anchor if you like.
When I purchase a PC with Windows on it and I decide to write say a plug in that allows me to switch the OS to say Linux is that illegal?
Not an issue. As long as you don't have to hack windows (modify code that is protected by encryption) you can do what you want.
Here's the thing: Sony is obligated to block any security hole that exists on it's consoles, so that all users get a good, secure, and proper game play while using the console online. While offering the option for a different OS boot was nice, it does create a massive security hole which Geohot and others pointed out and provided an exploit for. Sony did what any company would do, and blocked the security exploit.
If you do not want them to do it, do not upgrade your console. You can continue to do whatever you want with your non-upgraded console, but you will not be able to use it online.
Your personal freedoms are not harmed. You can write you own firmware and OS for the hardware you purchased, and do whatever you like with it. However, if you intend to use it online as a PS3, Sony needs to make this update to your system to make it secure before it can be used for online game play.
The point is 'do you or do you not own something that you buy.'
As I said before, yes, you own the hardware (similar to the idea that you own the CD you purchased), but you have only licensed the software invovled. Once you learn and understand that very basic concept, the rest of your arguments sort of fall apart.
Nice dance, perhaps you can learn some new steps that don't involve walking for another cup of koolaid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your idiocity
I did not receive a licence with my PS3. I bought it with cash in a store henceforth it was a sale. If I buy a product or service on licence from somebody, the two of us sit down, write out a contract and the both of us sign it. I don't see how its legal for a company to SELL me a device, for me to pay cash and then AFTER THE SALE, for them to then slap down terms and conditions on how I use the product.
"Your personal freedoms are not harmed. You can write you own firmware and OS for the hardware you purchased, and do whatever you like with it."
My freedoms were harmed. Sony basically said that once the 3.15 firmware came out, I had two options
A) I could keep the OtherOS, but lose all connectivity to Playstation Network and lose the ability to play future PS3 games and Blu-rays.
B) I lose OtherOS, and retain PS Network and games + blurays.
I don't really care about the Network, if they want to keep me off their network fine, its their network. However, the fact they held my console to ransom, forcing me to choose between one of two unpleasant scenarios, was a kick in the teeth to me as a loyal customer. I don't care that they perceived OtherOS as a security risk. Microsoft knows Windows has tons of security risks, but when have they ever pulled an advertised feature from said OS over a security risk? Well, I chose option 3: I stopped using my PS3, thus depriving Sony of income from any potential game purchases I would have otherwise made.
"As I said before, yes, you own the hardware (similar to the idea that you own the CD you purchased), but you have only licensed the software invovled. "
That is a very scare slippery slope. With a widespread Internet, practically any electronic device can be online, and have manufacturer's updates, thus having a similar scenario, where the customer is held to ransom over perfectly legal usage of their device/being punished for the actions of others in a legally gray and dubious area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let me get this straight, if I'm sued by the Copyright Group, we should just allow the prosecutors to take all of my info down so they can try to demand money from me through a form of legal extortion?
Is that what you're saying? Or is there more to this story that you need to explain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That said, rhett is exactly correct that the lawyers get paid to explain the issues, legal and equitable, and to advocate for their client. Here, they failed (which happens to the best, from time to time). It may be that they were up against a brick wall - the judge, although lacking any preconceptions, simply was incapable of understanding the issues. That happens from time to time, too. Or it may be that they simply backed off the good arguments and appealed to some crappy one.
They could have argued that the DMCA, as applied in this case, is unreasonably vague and that it chills First Amendment rights, and that there is no evidence that Hotz breached a contract, and that providing a means for other individuals to breach a contract has never been actionable unless it actually induces a breach, and that reverse engineering is generally protected, even from the DMCA. They could have pointed out that there are really two allegations of wrongdoing that have to be unwound: creating the bad program, and distributing it. They could have pointed out that the first is protected and the second is a pure speech act, and it is only by conflating the two into a single bad act that Sony is able to make this look like something the government could prohibit. Perhaps they did point those things out and the judge just did not get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now, imagine a judge ordered a murderer to "unmurder" the victim right now. What would you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Judges are paid to adjudicate. They need to know how to adjudicate. But they do not need to know the technical details of every case brought before them in order to do that. The judge is just supposed to weigh the arguments and apply the law.
Note that your requirement that the decider of fact understand technology carries a scary implication: accused violators of criminal laws pertaining to computers should not have jury trials. But that can't be right.
When an issue arises during litigation that is too technical for the judge, the parties should bring in experts who understand the issue to parse it and explain it. If Hotz's lawyers failed to do that and it resulted in a bad ruling, shame on them. That is not why the judge screwed up, here. She screwed up because she applied the wrong standard incorrectly. But that was not because she did not understand how the tubes connect to the webs, it was because she got bamboozled by flashy advocacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a simple misunderstanding...
Clerk (writing down): "And retrieve the code." Here, your honor, ready to be signed!
8^)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Solution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You've mentioned this before, and I have the feeling you're trying to make an Equal Protection argument. It may seem unfair that jailbreaking an iPhone is legal while doing the same with a PS3 is not. The fact is, the legislature may proceed one step at a time in its regulation of such things. Equal protection does not mean that every single device that can be jailbroken must be regulated all at once. "It is no requirement of equal protection that all evils of the genus be eradicated or none at all." Railway Express Agency v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949). There simply is no Equal Protection violation here.
Furthermore, the judge has ordered Hotz to "retrieve the code" that has been distributed.
You're misquoting the judge. Are you doing so intentionally? The judge said: "It is further ordered that Defendant Hotz . . . shall retrieve any Circumvention Devices or any information relating thereto which Hotz has previously delivered or communicated to the Defendants or any third parties."
This means that he needs to remove the information from places where he posted it, like YouTube. It DOES NOT mean that he has to remove all copies of it from the internet. That would be stupid. The judge understands the technology just fine, as do the lawyers who drafted the words the judge signed off on. The fact that you have to misquote the judge and draw conclusions that just aren't there shows how desperate you are.
I like it though... it gives us fodder for debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or, you could take his question at face value and ask yourself "does this make any sense?"
Pointing out that the law doesn't provide for things making sense is great and all, but really the answer to his question is "No, it doesn't make any sense at all."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're misquoting the judge.
Let's parse the quote you posted:
"shall retrieve [..] any information [..] which Hotz has previously delivered or communicated to [...] any third parties."
Nope, the paraphrase seems pretty accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"shall retrieve [..] any information [..] which Hotz has previously delivered or communicated to [...] any third parties."
Nope, the paraphrase seems pretty accurate.
I agree it's an accurate paraphrase. It's just wrong to use quotation marks unless you're actually quoting something. Regardless, the point is that whatever posts Hotz made on the internet are retrievable, and that's all the judge is ordering him to retrieve. If someone else copied Hotz's posts and posted them elsewhere, that's not Hotz's problem. The whole point of this article is "Look how dumb the judge is!" I don't think the judge looks dumb at all. Hotz is being ordered to take down the posts that he made. That's all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simple reality, in a combination of hardware and software you buy together (as a unit) you own the hardware, but you only license the software, which can be modified from time to time, especially for security issues.
It's a major decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simple reality, in a combination of hardware and software you buy together (as a unit) you own the hardware, but you only license the software, which can be modified from time to time, especially for security issues.
It's a major decision.
I got the point alright. Rather than focus on the underlying issues, let's call the judge dumb!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, frankly I think accusing me of a "god complex" is a little extreme, but that's totally okay because I was being intentionally extreme talking about Joe's martyr complex too. So fine, we'll drop the fake psychological diagnoses for now. It would be easy for us to go back and forth all day accusing the other of having a complex when obviously the reality is that both sides here truly believe in their own interpretation of the facts. I'm not of the crowd that believes all the folks like Joe are paid shills (even if they themselves like to constantly suggest that Mike has some evil alternative motive)
As far as the rest of your point goes, I don't know why you think distributing code is the same as threatening someone. You can say it will "CLEARLY" lead to piracy, but what does that have to do with it? If you sell handguns, one of them is "CLEARLY" going to be involved in a robbery eventually. If you sell printers, someone is "CLEARLY" going to use them to attempt counterfeiting. If you sell cars, plenty of them are "CLEARLY" going to end up speeding and running red lights.
Why should distributing a software patch with perfectly legitimate uses be any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But if you own the hardware then you have the right to replace the licensed software with 3rd party software (eg Other OS)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't think for one second that Mike is "wrong" on accident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
WE'RE ALL OUT TO GET YOU JOE! YOU ARE A MARTYR AND A HERO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, Marcus, you're piercing insight slays me. Not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"You've mentioned this before, and I have the feeling you're trying to make an Equal Protection argument."
(then a little later)
"It is no requirement of equal protection that all evils of the genus be eradicated or none at all." Railway Express Agency v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949). There simply is no Equal Protection violation here.
Erm, ok....uh...except he never said that, and you only "felt" he did, then used that quote to counter the argument you yourself invented because you "felt" it. There is a term for that, its called a strawman argument, and its widely used by people who really want to attack someone but dont have either the skills or a factual statement to play off of.
Your "Aha! GOTCHA!" tactics in these arguments, and your insistence on misrepresenting what people actually say only serves to undermine YOU, not the other party. That and the incessant name calling make you look like a loudmouth corporate shilltard who cant debate the actual merits (hi TAM! hi Harold!) and has to resort to cheap shots in a desperate attempt to undermine the debate in ANY way.
This is why no one ever takes your side or engages you in rational discourse: there is no point as you will either a) run from the argument and make a specious claim like "you obviously dont get it" or b) make a side-argument only tangentally related to the point at hand and then arrogantly call people names and declare "victory."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is an ex parte TRO. Sony has not shown that Holtz did anything wrong. They have demonstrated to the judge's satisfaction that they will be irreparably injured if the code gets out (too late!) and that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the case. But they made that showing without briefing by Holtz's lawyers - Holtz had notice, but no meaningful opportunity to be heard. That happens later, at a show cause hearing. This is an impoundment and gag order prior to that hearing. It is not clear that Judge Illston even had the benefit of a First Amendment argument, let alone the time to consider it.
Sony argues that it is a violation of the DMCA for Holtz to gain access to root keys at all. The DMCA makes it illegal to use circumvention devices to gain unauthorized access to copyrighted works. There is no evidence that Holtz did so - he has no more access to the Playstation OS than he had before, its just he now can enable it to do things that it would not previously do. That is, he has gained access to functionality that was already present, but not to any copyrighted work. There are limits, including a right to reverse engineer, on the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. It seems as if the case against Holtz is actually not very strong at all. In light of that, doesn't it seem inappropriate for the Court to issue a gag order suspending his right to speak? Doesn't it violate the TRO standard, when the TRO cannot remedy the alleged irreparable harm (because it has already been done)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If that is what the judge meant then why didn't she say so. Any reasonable interpretation of the word retrieve means more than that and you know it.
You would get more respect around here if you refrained from trying to defend the indefensible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You would get more respect around here if you refrained from trying to defend the indefensible.
Considering all of the stupid posts that get marked as "insightful," I don't know that I do want any "respect" around here.
As explained already in this thread: (1) the term was not written by the judge, and (2) the term chosen was broad because it means to retrieve both the posts on the internet and the hard copies that were given to third parties.
The fact that so many people think the judge is dumb over this only shows how incredibly stupid people around here are. It says nothing of the judge. The only thing "indefensible" is the premise behind this whole article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
that would make Sense.
:P
(also, the 'general opinion of the public' is often even more arsine than the lobbyists... just different people getting screwed over for different reasons (indirect results of foolishness rather than direct results of greed))
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sony /sold/ me a house. This house's address was "PS3" and one of the features it had was a really big Backyard that had a name: "Other OS." In the backyard, it was large enough to do an immense amount of things in. Something else it was sold with was regular maintenance by Sony, they'll come out, fix up my house, exterminate bugs, ect. One day sony realizes that their shed they had locked up in the back yard? The lock on it wasn't so strong and some people were stealing tools out of it. So sony maintenance showed up and locked off the back yard. Which is sad, because a lot of people bought these sony houses because it had such a large back yard. One day, a guy named hotz got into his backyard and left the shed alone. Is he in the wrong?
There's plenty of reasons to mod other than to steal and pirate. --> http://www.scorehero.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=33&sid=aa28eecb54535cf87a1e220d9c9c538d http://anythingbutipod.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's awesome. Why don't they just tell him to go retrieve the Voyager spacecraft while he's at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Noooo...it will come back as V'Ger and try to exterminate us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
NO its like buying a house with no door when youve got kids but you call sony and they attach a 10inch thick steel door for your safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sony has found a technical answer – or sort off
At least they have experience on that field, it was Sony's music group who distributed a rootkit on their CDAs after all.
Cheers,
Drizzt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's in GeoHot's interest, because if Sony was right and he was still working on his stuff, what he does from then to now is considered into the damages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws for hacking and pirating etc have all changed what you could do about 10 years ago isn't allowed under law.
Sony removed it because he made videos and shows telling people how he's been hacking the PS3 and how far he got with using the OtherOS feature.
That was there to allow people to use it for homebrew Yellowdog lnuix was homebrew Geohot killed that home brew on the spot.
Ask those devs if they are happy about that.
Hacking an Iphone isn't allowed either, it comes down to the patent owner if they want to sue or not.
Anyway,
When your hauled into court both sides have to have all evidance and on Geohots side he has to pass everything over to Sony so they can work out what they need to do in court, even if you don't like it, don't hand it over and your in contempt and can be kept in jail while the police go and get the evidance.
The court requesting the data to be pulled off the net is what geohot has to comply with if he doesn't then he can be in contempt and be held in jail that is his problem he released the code and programs without thinking of the end results.
As you've just written everyone hosting this code/software only damages his court case it works against him in every way and yet these people don't care because they think they are helping him with his case.
Judges don't need to know something or understand that's what the lawyers are there for, to prove their side's point.
The judges role is to make sure the law is applied correctly and geohot won't like this one bit as he has broken multi US laws.
Sony haven't even sued him as an enabler of piracy on the PS3 yet so there might be another court case after this one.
Law isn't always fair though, and someone will lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, the order was from Sony approved by the judge. The word "retrieve" was also meant to be broad and vague so it can be used in many ways to get the keys back.
Funny comments here from a lot of ignorant people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't copyright a key. It doesn't fall under the list of types nof work that are protected by copyright.
And retrieve - in a computing context merely means "make a copy of" so actually he isn't even being asked.
Funny comments here from a lot of ignorant people.
The usual way that the past greets the future...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just to get back other OS?
Im all for modding a product that you purchaced but when you go about it by giving the world the keys to the kingdom and saying " Now no funny stuff" is fucking retarted. I hope he and Fail0ver have to feel the burn from this for a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No
For the PS3, he hacked into the PSN, which is a service that Sony provides, and Sony owns the PSN and all the data in the PSN.
For the iPhone, he hacked into the iOS, which is not a service that Apple owns. iOS is an OS for the phone that the user owns for buying the device.
I hope that's a bit more understandable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]