The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology

from the ordering-the-impossible dept

Tue, Feb 1st 2011 8:07am — Mike Masnick

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

146 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ima Fish (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:22am

"It's scenarios like these that make me wonder what the judges who make such orders"

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 thread ]
Thomas (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:36am

Judges..
are not noted for knowing anything about technology. Many of them probably still have corded landline phones. Sony is just showing themselves to be part of the entertainment industry cartel - using lawmakers and judges and the DOJ to protect their business model.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:38am

Two posts on the same subject in 24 hours. Damn Mike, you must be jumping up and down and screaming obscenities at this one. Too bad you are just missing the boat.

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 thread ]
rhett, 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:41am

Its also not the judges job to understand technology. Its the lawyers job to explain it thorough so he can temporarily understand the issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:43am

Re:
So how do you respond to the fact that Sony removed a legitimate feature without warning?

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 thread ]
Rob (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:45am

Re:
Obviously you have never head of the app on the iPhone called Installus after jailbreaking. Plus I am pretty sure the user base of the iPhone greatly outnumbers the PS3 base.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:46am

Re:
I'm hoping someone can expand on what you've said here because it doesn't sound right to me.

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 thread ]
Jay (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:46am

Re:
Couldn't the judges, ya know...

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 thread ]
Rich, 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:48am

Re:
Wait a minute. You don't think it is the responsibility of the judge to understand the issues he/she is ruling on? He should just blindly assume the lawyers are being truthful and accurate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:48am

Re:
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.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:50am

Re: Re:
Marcus, the reason they bought them wasn't as a game playing system. Sony didn't intend to sell computers, they were selling game playing systems. In order to remain in that market, they had to make sure they didn't have other uses. Further, in offering the "alternate OS" feature set, they had inadvertently created a potential security hole.

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 thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:51am

Re:
Hacking an Iphone doesn't have the same implications as hacking a game playing system has.

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 thread ]
Vic, 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:53am

Just a simple misunderstanding...
Judge: Yes, I am signing that. And, hey you, retrieve me my coat...
Clerk (writing down): "And retrieve the code." Here, your honor, ready to be signed!

8^)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:54am

Re:
The military would like a word with you concerning the benefits of that hack.

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 thread ]
AJ, 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:55am

Re:
IMO
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 thread ]
Grimby, 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:55am

Re: Judges..
You can't really blame Sony for not wanting the PS3 to be an open system where anyone can easily pirate games. Sure, their lawyers may be asking for some silly things but in reality what else are they supposed to do? They aren't protecting some archaic business model, in fact Sony has been pretty damned good with the evolution of the PS3 by trying to get more services added to the system.

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 thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:55am

Solution?
Furthermore, the judge has ordered Hotz to "retrieve the code" that has been distributed.
Since the judge probably won't be able to tell the difference he can just email all the PS3 users he knows and say "can you email me the code back please". A week later, 30,000 versions of the code in his inbox. "See your honour, I've done everything I can - I've retrieved 30,000 of them, you can't reasonably expect me to do any more can you?" - Simples :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:56am

Re:
Are you NUTS?

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 thread ]
AJ, 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:57am

Re: Re: Re:
When the customer can now make/copy the razor blades, it's time to change the model.... or start suing your customers and calling them crooks? /sarc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Grimby, 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:58am

Re: Re:
You think every judge should be an expert on every topic imaginable? That's just naive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheStupidOne, 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:58am

Re:
So you argue that Sony's business model and profits are more important than my being able to use my things the way they were advertised that I could use them. Geohot enabled anyone to install what they want on their PS3 which re-enables a feature that Sony advertised and then removed from their system. Yes, it will eventually enable piracy, but he explicitly did not release a hack to enable piracy. Any further hacking to enable piracy would be done by someone else. Finding Geohot responsible for what other people will do is reprehensible. It does appear to be allowed by the DMCA, but that does not make it right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:02am

Re: Re: Re:
If you're selling razors at a loss and the blades at a high margin, and you discover that people are buying your razors but using some other blades, you can change your design so that future razors will longer be compatible with those blades, but you do not have the right to modify the razors people have already purchased in order to make them incompatible with those blades. Nor do you have the right to forbid people from buying your new, non-compatible razors and then modifying them to make them compatible.

Why should the PS3 be treated any differently?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:02am

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how all of that makes any sense.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:07am

I agree with Ima. Blame the lawyers asking for absurd things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:08am

Re:
Actually, it legally is. IF the judge doesn't understand the basics, then they should recuse themselves from judging that case. Ignorance is NOT bliss, unless you're a 'lobbyist'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:11am

Re: Re:
I'm hoping someone can expand on what you've said here because it doesn't sound right to me.

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 thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:12am

Re:
You've mentioned this before, and I have the feeling you're trying to make an Equal Protection argument.

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 thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:13am

Re: Re: Re:
Explain to me how you "retrieve" something from Facebook, or from anywhere online...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AJ, 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:15am

Re:
Damn Joe.... I was with you 100% until you tossed in "....shows how desperate you are". Why do people insist on taking things to a personal level? If Mike is wrong, and in this case he may be, why not just argue the point instead of insulting him or anyone else...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:16am

Re: Re:
Furthermore:

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 thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:17am

Re: Re: Re:
It's true that they won't update immediately, but several of these people (including the United States Air Force) have stated that this creates a problem for them since they will be unable to maintain, update or expand their systems in the future.

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 thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Explain to me how you "retrieve" something from Facebook, or from anywhere online...

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 thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:26am

Re: Re: Re:
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.

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 thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:26am

Re: Re:
Damn Joe.... I was with you 100% until you tossed in "....shows how desperate you are". Why do people insist on taking things to a personal level? If Mike is wrong, and in this case he may be, why not just argue the point instead of insulting him or anyone else...

I don't think for one second that Mike is "wrong" on accident.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:34am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if he's ever emailed it to someone? or posted it in a forum or comment thread that *doesn't* allow deletion? And if it's cached by various third parties?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:36am

Forget the hacks. Better question, isn't disabling functionality after you make the sell to a customer something the FTC should be investigating? It sounds like bait and switch to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:36am

Re: Re: Re:
Oh right, the nefarious Techdirt conspiracy. Still haven't quite figured out what it's supposed to be accomplishing, but I'm not one to shatter someone else's happy paranoia.

WE'RE ALL OUT TO GET YOU JOE! YOU ARE A MARTYR AND A HERO!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MAC, 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:37am

Re: Your idiocity
Ok coward, let�s dance.
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 thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jimmer, 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:40am

Re: Re:
Sony didn't remove the feature without warning. It was well known weeks in advance that Sony was prepping a firmware update to remove the feature due to a potential security threat. A threat brought on by GeoHotz. He is the reason this whole thing started. Not Sony. Sony was just trying to protect their investment, as would anyone else in that situation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Berenerd (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have you ever used a public usenet or BBS system? Apparently not as post there get cached and often re-posted. Go back to bed, Joey.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If it's impossible for him to retrieve, then it's impossible for him to retrieve. It cracks me up you guys think the judge is ordering the impossible. Focusing on the choice of the word "retrieve" is silly. If the judge ordered you to "retrieve" your post from Facebook, would you know what the judge wanted? Of course you would.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have you ever used a public usenet or BBS system? Apparently not as post there get cached and often re-posted. Go back to bed, Joey.

The judge is not ordering the impossible. Give it up, Bernie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liz, 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:49am

Re: Re: Judges..
Look at the PSP for example. The PSP was destroyed due to hacking, nothing to do with a bad business model.

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 thread ]
el_segfaulto (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:51am

Re: Re: Re:
If Sony inadvertently left a security hole in OtherOS that is their problem, not mine. If GeoHot went exploring around that, it does NOT give Sony the right to arbitrarily remove an advertised feature. Blaming GeoHot is like blaming a beaten wife's black eye on her bad cooking rather than the sadistic bastard that actually inflicted the damage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atkray (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:53am

Re: Re:
Which leads to what I think is the key, if Sony is concerned about hackers/cheaters(and lets be truthful most of the people with modded consoles are not hackers by any stretch of the definition, they merely use tools created by others)disrupting online play, Then Sony needs to secure it's network not the hardware that people have bought and paid for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:55am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I would be able to figure out what he wanted. And I would also be terrified that a judge with such an obviously vague grasp on technology is in any way related to a case with so many technological issues at play.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zach C, 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:55am

Re:
"So regardless of the opinions of the judge..."

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 thread ]
Jason, 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:56am

Re:
"Judges don't make or write such orders."

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 thread ]
David Canton, 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:57am

Need a new rule. No judge may render a decision and no legislator can pass a law relating to anything digital, or to the internet - until they have consulted with someone unnder the age of 20.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MAC, 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You really don't need to be talking about a subject that you have absolutely no clue on.
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 thread ]
RD, 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:13am

Re:
Wow where to begin with your specious bullshit.

"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 thread ]
BigKeithO (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:16am

Re: Re: Re: Judges..
Or PSPGo with its non-compatibility with the original PSP's UMD format and download only game purchasing option.

Nope, no business decision was wrong there. All "hacking's" fault.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, how can one expect this poor guy to retrieve all of the copies?

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 thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:20am

Re: Re:
I feel that this is his argument based on all of the statements I've read of his that he's made on the subject over the course of many posts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Modplan (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that such material would still be readily available would seem to defeat the point of ordering copies to be retrieved in the first place, particularly when it isn't difficult for others to continue distributing the material.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I would be able to figure out what he wanted. And I would also be terrified that a judge with such an obviously vague grasp on technology is in any way related to a case with so many technological issues at play.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Focusing on the choice of the word "retrieve" is silly.

Lawyering in a nutshell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that such material would still be readily available would seem to defeat the point of ordering copies to be retrieved in the first place, particularly when it isn't difficult for others to continue distributing the material.

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 thread ]
Chris-Mouse (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:36am

Re:
Sony purposely sells the consoles at a low price, and sells the software / games at a higher rate.
This is entirely a business model decision that Sony made. They could also have made the console expensive and sold the games cheaply, or priced both so as to make a reasonable profit either way. It's pretty clear to me that Sony wants to keep the console locked down purely to protect the business model they chose, otherwise, why would Sony care about what I do with the hardware once I've given them my money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:38am

Re: Re:
That's silly, misguided, and absolutely unsupported. Very few judges have ever murdered anyone. And yet many of them oversee murder trials. It would be an awful world in which we required judges to commit crimes before they could sit on criminal trials. It would be an unfair world in which we required them to be criminal lawyers (either adopting the views of the accused in every case or of the state). Far better for them to know about trials, about litigation more generally, about the rules of evidence and courtroom conduct, and learn the subject-matter of the dispute without carrying in their own preconceived notions and opinions. It is a Good Thing that judges have not already thought through issues and researched them before they sit behind the bench.

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 thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the internet. Once its out it is out. Deleting it in a couple places accomplishes nothing other than giving the entire public the impression that the judge and lawyers are complete idiots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eugene (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:55am

What we need here is Matlock in that courtroom, taking everyone up to the roof with a feather pillow and a fan for a fun object lesson in information dispersal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, as you know, it's not likely we're going to agree on the underlying issues either. I still believe that this order suggests the judge doesn't understand the technology. But even putting that aside, I don't think it makes any sense for it to be illegal to modify a device you own, or for a tool to be considered illegal independently of how it is used.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what you are saying is that what they currently bought isn't impacted at all (contrary to what you stated) and their only problem is that they aren't able to get super cheap computers anymore. You somehow think Sony should keep maintaining a feature for them so they can get a big discount on computer equipment.

So the fact remains: You don't have much of a leg to stand on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:00am

Re: 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.
So if I were to get 20,000 gallons of bright green paint and tip it from a helicoptor over the statue of liberty and a judge ordered me to wash off the bit I could reach from the ground, that would be worthwhile would it?

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 thread ]
The eejit (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:00am

Re: Re: Re:
We're not discussing murder, we're discussing tech. And soemone who doiesn't understand the basics cannot grasp how much of a difference it is from the real world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eugene (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:03am

Re: Re: Re:
I think most judges understand the concept of murder. If a judge recognized that he didn't understand what murder was, then I would hope that judge would have the sense to remove himself from a murder case. And possible from any sharp objects or firearms for that matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:06am

Re: 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.

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 thread ]
Jimr (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:07am

Has the judge request the internet be put on a Datassette so he can view it at home on his Commodore PET in the evening?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:09am

Re:
Or how about they just listen to the general opinion of the public once in awhile instead of only the rich lobbyists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:10am

Re:
Hacking an iPhone has exactly the same implications as hacking a game playing system. Both the game system and the iPhone rely on games for much of their income. If you hack an iPhone you can get around the app store to install paid apps for free. If you hack a playstation you can get around paying for games. In both cases there are benefits to hacking the system as well such as adding features that were not originally allowed by the manufacturer such as the Air Force PS3 Supercomputer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:11am

Re: Re: Re:
Now that's a strawman. Nobody said the judge should be a hacker that illegally modifies techy things. He should know how these techy things work. He can't think the internet is a series of tubes.

Now, imagine a judge ordered a murderer to "unmurder" the victim right now. What would you think?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, as you know, it's not likely we're going to agree on the underlying issues either. I still believe that this order suggests the judge doesn't understand the technology. But even putting that aside, I don't think it makes any sense for it to be illegal to modify a device you own, or for a tool to be considered illegal independently of how it is used.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:13am

Re: Re: Your idiocity
When you start with "let's dance", I know I can see a major ass rant coming that will have little to do with facts, and a whole lot to do with kool aid. But hey, you want to play, let's play.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:16am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you got the point, it's more interesting to make fun of the judge than to deal with the actual decision, because the actual decision sets an important precedent that most TD readers (and leadership) do not like.

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 thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:22am

Re: 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.

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 thread ]
Eric, 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:56am

On another site, somebody had posted something to the effect of "Okay, sony. I'm just going to break the lock on your house, and whatever people do after that is their fault, not mine." This made sense, until I realized that the analogy didn't fit. Someone on the same site said, "There is no reason to mod or hack your system other than pirate games. None." This is SO wrong.

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 thread ]
I-Blz, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This thread confuses me....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:04pm

"Furthermore, the judge has ordered Hotz to "retrieve the code" that has been distributed. Yes, think about that for a second. Retrieve the code."

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 thread ]
Jay (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please explain that... It's a fruitless exercise in futility...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:51pm

This is like selling a car with a sunroof and then on a routine oil change a software update disables the sunroof.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RikuoAmero (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Your idiocity
"It depends on the product. You may own the device, but the firmware and software running it may only be licensed."
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 thread ]
RikuoAmero (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:18pm

Re: Solution?
What I wear a T-shirt with the code? Am I supposed to take it off in public and email a snapshot of me standing in the street in the buff?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hehehe. Getting desperate are we?

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 thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't be confused. Joe is just attempting to diffuse my highly accurate depiction of his martyr complex by laughing at it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, yeah, obviously it's a silly argument. That was kind of my point. It's very silly - just as silly as jailbreaking being illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't be confused. Joe is just attempting to diffuse my highly accurate depiction of his martyr complex by laughing at it.

Yeah, Marcus, you're piercing insight slays me. Not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich, 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:02pm

Re: Re: Re:
There is a long stretch between understanding and expert, but thanks for taking the argument to an illogical extreme.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sneeje (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and you wonder why people think you're close-minded. Let's see, arrogance, name-calling, very selective and biased presentation of the law...

Huh! It's a mystery!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:18pm

Re: Re: Solution?
What I wear a T-shirt with the code? Am I supposed to take it off in public and email a snapshot of me standing in the street in the buff?
He might even get extra credit for that, I guess it depends what you look like. Sony do seem to want the shirt off your back quite often so it's in keeping.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:20pm

Re:
Why don't they just tell him to go retrieve the Voyager spacecraft while he's at it.

Noooo...it will come back as V'Ger and try to exterminate us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and you wonder why people think you're close-minded. Let's see, arrogance, name-calling, very selective and biased presentation of the law...

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 thread ]
Ade, 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:40pm

Re: Re:
Microsoft was initially against the Kinect hack but soon realised that it made for good 'social advertising' of the product. And most importantly, none of the hacks so far are causing any damage to their business model (it's not like a hacked Kinect would allow pirated games to be played). Trust me, if a hacker released a code that opened up the XBox system to anything, Microsoft would be doing the same thing that Sony is doing right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Focusing on the choice of the word "retrieve" is silly until you're ordered to show cause re contempt for not doing what the judge thought (or the other party thought) he ordered you to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ade, 1 Feb 2011 @ 3:03pm

Law is never a straightforward matter. Most of it is posturing.

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 thread ]
Richard (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 3:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And convenience stores would be liable for their own robbery because they keep cash in the drawer.

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 thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 3:08pm

Re:
Shhh! Making cogent points is frowned upon by the techdirt minions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 3:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you got the point, it's more interesting to make fun of the judge than to deal with the actual decision, because the actual decision sets an important precedent that most TD readers (and leadership) do not like.

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 thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 3:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not a "decision" yet - it's a pre-trial injunction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 3:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you own the hardware, but you only license the software, which can be modified from time to time, especially for security issues.

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 thread ]
Matt (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:00pm

Re:
I'll bite, joe. I agree that there is no equal protection problem by nature of regulating a PS3 versus an iPhone, and I do not particularly care if the order is poorly or expertly worded to force Holtz to take down his posts on the Internet. But there are still serious problems with this order, and the law it seeks to enforce.

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 thread ]
Drizzt, 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:03pm

Sony has found a technical answer � or sort off
It seems like the latest firmware for the PS3 has a rootkit built in (remote code execution): http://www.jailbreakscene.com/2011/01/official-ps3-firmware-v356-has-rootkit.html

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 thread ]
herbert, 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:17pm

rather like King Canute telling the tide not to come in. bloody impossible! before putting any type of case involving technology, judges should be made to study that technology so they understand exactly what they are listening to and ruling on! for people that are supposed to be so knowledgeable, they behave like total morons! then it's the innocent usually suffers needlessly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:26pm

Re: Re:
I appreciate the wonderful comment and I applaud someone talking about something related to this case that actually matters. I'm not up-to-speed on the case just yet, so I can't answer your questions intelligently. When I get caught up, hopefully tonight, I'll get back you...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chargone (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and the degree of idiocy and rip-off-artistry (I'm sure there's an actual word for that) involved in that dynamic is enough for anyone with a brain who is not actively making money off it to be able to see that it is a Bad Thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chargone (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:33pm

Re: Re:
but, but, but....

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 thread ]
plmko, 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:06pm

LOL pure ignorance this article. The temporary junction doesn't mean the court has sided with Sony, it just grants a halt to the actions of the persecuted (GeoHot) so he doesn't do any more damage whilst the court considers the facts again and recommends the best way to hear the case.

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 thread ]
James, 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:17pm

Re: Re:
None of those computers were forced to get the update. In fact, unless they decide to hook up entire computer farms to PSN or do some gaming with newer games on all of them, they can't update them. And yes, Sony is allowed to do that. Plus, you're conveniently forgetting that the entire reason they took off the feature was because breaking PS3 security was possible with the feature intact, so hackers forced it off to begin with, and then used it as a justification for their newer, more successful hacks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ppSucks, 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:01pm

Re: Re:
You are wrong, all those institutes can still use the PS3 as they did before. They have NO REASON TO UPGRADE THEIR FIRMWARE SINCE THEY ARE NOT ON PSN.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:13pm

Re: Re:
What about the fact that Sony gave a warning that if you chose to update to that new version update, it would remove the alternate OS option? If those universities were dumb enough to update anyway, they had only themselves to blame. I honestly don't believe this an actual fact, and if it was again Sony warned everyone to think twice before updating to that system update. And if the alternate OS was the only integral thing that those universities needed they had no reason to further update those systems, since it's mostly bluray player firmware updates, photo and video updates, PSN updates, which aren't needed if you're not gaming or watching movies on the PS3.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zag (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:31pm

It's called being made an example of.

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 thread ]
inja, 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:32pm

Re: Re: Re:
Can you define all of the circumvention devices the judge was talking about- if not then how can you comment on the judges choice of words when you dont have a cue what hes talking about. the word retrieve was use so theres no loopholes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Inja, 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:49pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sooo what your saying is the judge allows hotz have his hacks (which hes just been sued for) readily available on his youtube, facebook etc. Are you stupid, they cant go after everyone involved so guess what your nerd hero just got scapegoated- its like a pedophile being able to keep his pictures of rape victims. hotz being the rapist and ps3 that got raped.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 12:53am

Most on here sound like worthless pirates defending another worthless pirate. I hope they make a HUGE example out of this prick.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 12:54am

It's not his own software but it's Sony's master key which was copyrighted.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 1:13am

Re: Re: Re:
Do you think they go to gamestop and buy PS3s for research purposes? They don't the PS3s they use are bought direct from Sony and have no access to PSN and can't play games. It uses the processor. Thats it nothing more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 1:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes it does actually. First it was not an advertied feature. Show me a newsprint advertising the feature. If you think about those E3 interviews they are private shows and they are not covered by advertising laws. You do have the right to mod your console but not PSN and its features. They are owned by Sony and they can do what they like with them. To sign up you have to agree to the T&C which states you can't mod the software and they have the right to add and remove features at will. Hell someone sued Sony because they were banned for racist speech broke his freedom of speech. He lost because PSN was a private network. This is the same.

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 thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 2 Feb 2011 @ 2:13am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
its like a pedophile being able to keep his pictures of rape victims. hotz being the rapist and ps3 that got raped.
Gosh I never thought of that. That's exactly what it's like. Pedophilia, rape, murder, arson, drowning puppies and killing kittens, clubbing baby jesus with a seal, treason and sedition. If you're going to go for pointless hyperbole at least put some effort into it.

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 thread ]
Jack, 2 Feb 2011 @ 3:55am

Re: Re:
Yeah, because Universities, the army and labs bought their PS3s of Gamestop innit? They have their own, specific ps3s bought directly from Sony. They still have their other OS, don't worry so much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 3:59am

Re:
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.

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 thread ]
Richard (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:04am

Re: Re:
Plus, actually, in the proper technical sense, retrieve actually means "make a copy of something that is stored in a (relatively) remote location". It does NOT actually imply the deletion of the information stored there. Geohotz could satisfy this demand by simply making a copy of the specified information and leaving it up
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AJ, 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:52am

Re: Re: Re:
Well maybe you should start thinking then... because your obviously not right now.... You beat everyone else over the head with your "Law and Facts", but you'll pass judgement based on what you personally think? Double standard much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 5:31am

It's not his own software but it's Sony's master key which was copyrighted.

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 thread ]
Richard (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 5:32am

Re:
Strange how people on your side of the argument offer nothing but insults most of the time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 5:33am

Re:
And retrieve - in a computing context merely means "make a copy of" so actually he isn't even being asked to delete the stuff - if you take the sentence literally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark, 2 Feb 2011 @ 6:11am

Re: Re: Marcus Carab.
It was Sony's right to remove that feature, especially since other Os was being used in conjunction with a USB crack to play pirated games. This was an attempt to stop piracy by Sony, but The hackers ruined it for everyone else. They decided to abuse the feature that Sony put in, and now everyone has to suffer. It's sad because other Os is now ruined for many by the few.
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 thread ]
average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 6:40am

Re: 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.

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 thread ]
Daniel, 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:10am

Just to get back other OS?
Really guys, why is everyone seem to have the same thought that he was being noble and restoring what Evil Sony took away? He published the Root keys, basically saying F U Sony, instead of making some custome FW with just other OS option, no HDD back up or illegal software, he ( and Fail0verflow) had to be rebels if you want to call it and publish the keys.

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 thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:20am

Re: Re: Re: Marcus Carab.
It was Sony's right to remove that feature
Really? Legally, perhaps you are right. I don't know and almost certainly very few people actually do because the whole area of contracts entered into without knowledge is a very murky grey. It's certainly the intention of Sony and many other companies pretend that you are renting something rather than buying it and everything about it still belongs to them whatever the actual "truth".

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 thread ]
Nick, 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:20am

Re: Re:
Removing other OS has nothing to do with this, it may be part of the cause, but 2 wrong don't make a right as they say. Also it makes no sense saying people were making supercomputers as he was not doing that and I seriously doubt anyone other than the military has done that. Also these hackers had no mention of computer clusters, they just want linux back, which is stupid....IF YOU WANT LINUX/HOMEBREW: Use a computer!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:43am

Re: 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.
Or to stretch an already silly analogy past breaking point, Its like a cash register manufacturer selling a till which is advertised to be secure but which is actually easy to break open and then when it's broken open responding by banning the storage of �5 (or $5 if you prefer) notes in the drawer of every register they sold.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert, 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:06am

No
I don't think you understand the difference between the iPhone and the PS3.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:21am

Re: Re: Re:
Well actually Sony got into something of a scuffle with the airforce because they wirelessly bricked the OS feature in their PS3s that they bought for such a supercomputer cluster. Also, Sony should have thought about the consequences of putting an OS feature in a console before releasing it. You'd think a mass of programmers and computer specialists would catch things like the security holed before putting them out into public. Also, the argument that they don't want a machine that can other things so they can remain in the market is not sound. Irregardless of who buys them to use as computers as opposed to gaming machines, the same amount of people that would buy them to play games will still buy them. Why wouldn't they? That doesn't make sense if anything Sony cut their console sales considerably by taking out this feature because the part of the market that was willing to buy PS3s en masse to use as computers is no longer there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Inja, 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:36am

Re:
This is like selling a car with a sunroof and then on a routine oil change a software update disables the sunroof.

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 thread ]
Alex, 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Marcus, if you're going to accuse Average Joe of having a Martyr Complex, I would hope you would be willing to see your own God Complex in this scenario. Same with Sneeje and Killer Tofu. Kind of interesting to see the members of the site gang up on a person who is voicing their own opinion in a comment section and telling them that it's wrong. I know that Hotz claims that he had no intent of piracy, but if that were the case then why did he highly publicize everything he did and release the master keys for Sony's software when those CLEARLY would lead to piracy? If the judge can be "dumb" to you then you have to also realize that GeoHotz is smart. He has done this before with the iPhone. So when Sony succeeds in getting a restraining order that makes me happy. I'm sick of this BS, if you wanted it for other OS, then that's fine but that makes it YOUR prerogative in your own home, it's perfectly okay to tamper with something in your own home and hack and do whatever you want. But as soon as you go online and cheat in a game, or release master keys to software for all to see then THERE is a problem. It's the same with making death threats on the web. You don't threaten someone on the web and just get away with it if the other person is murdered. You would be the number one suspect. And furthermore, I personally hope Sony completely wins this case. I don't want to see GeoHotz's face anymore, I want to see him "hung from the highest branch" so to speak. His errors on display for all to see. Piracy in gaming is completely different from piracy in music and film. Those are of course all my opinions as well. You don't need to agree with any of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alexander, 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:42am

hmm
Marcus, if you're going to accuse Average Joe of having a Martyr Complex, I would hope you would be willing to see your own God Complex in this scenario. Same with Sneeje and Killer Tofu. Kind of interesting to see the members of the site gang up on a person who is voicing their own opinion in a comment section and telling them that it's wrong. I know that Hotz claims that he had no intent of piracy, but if that were the case then why did he highly publicize everything he did and release the master keys for Sony's software when those CLEARLY would lead to piracy? If the judge can be "dumb" to you then you have to also realize that GeoHotz is smart. He has done this before with the iPhone. So when Sony succeeds in getting a restraining order that makes me happy. I'm sick of this BS, if you wanted it for other OS, then that's fine but that makes it YOUR prerogative in your own home, it's perfectly okay to tamper with something in your own home and hack and do whatever you want. But as soon as you go online and cheat in a game, or release master keys to software for all to see then THERE is a problem. It's the same with making death threats on the web. You don't threaten someone on the web and just get away with it if the other person is murdered. You would be the number one suspect. And furthermore, I personally hope Sony completely wins this case. I don't want to see GeoHotz's face anymore, I want to see him "hung from the highest branch" so to speak. His errors on display for all to see. Piracy in gaming is completely different from piracy in music and film. That is of course my opinion and you don't have to agree with any of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:44am

Re: Re:
they attach a 10inch thick steel door for your safety.
I'm on tenuous analogy patrol.... you forgot "and don't give you the key to it."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, in this particular comment, I was just hoping to remind everyone that we are not talking about a final ruling here, just a pre-trial injunction. I was afraid we were losing perspective a little.

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 thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:10pm

Re: Re:
Hey, I defend you from people calling you a troll. The least you can do is refrain from calling us minions.

Although... Bapple?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:16pm

Re: Re: Re:
LOL! Thanks, Rose. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:56pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That some lawyer had done a really, fabulously bad job.

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 thread ]
Jeff Rife, 3 Feb 2011 @ 9:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Removing something from your Facebook page does not "retrieve" it, as there is still a copy somewhere on the Facebook servers.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 11:21am

Re: Re:
To be fair, it's all they have left.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
matt, 26 Feb 2011 @ 11:16pm

Re: No
He didn't hack the pan. What the hell are you on about
[ link to this | view in thread ]
matt, 26 Feb 2011 @ 11:17pm

I mean psn
[ link to this | view in thread ]