Judge Lets Sony Go After PS3 Jailbreaker's PayPal Account
from the seriously? dept
Sony's ridiculous and over-aggressive lawsuit against George Hotz (Geohot) for jailbreaking the PS3 keeps reaching new absurd levels. The latest is that the magistrate judge, who seems to be rubber stamping most of Sony's requests, is allowing the company to subpoena Paypal for Geohot's account records. We've already discussed how she's allowing subpoenas for visitors to Geohot's website, as well as for whoever watched the YouTube video he put up about the jailbreak. Sony claims it needs access to his Paypal records to prove that people in California may have donated. They want that so that they can establish California as the proper jurisdiction for hearing the case. Frankly, this is ridiculous. First, who donated to Geohot should not be even remotely meaningful in determining the proper jurisdiction for the case. Where Hotz is located should outweigh any donor locations. Second, shouldn't the judge be somewhat concerned with the privacy aspects here? In giving up Geohot's Paypal info, isn't this exposing the info of anyone who might have donated, without them having the ability to stop it?
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
remember its not just PS3's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: remember its not just PS3's
Sorry, I mean absolutely no disrespect to spike, I always make obvious and obviously non-insightful comments all the time, there is nothing wrong with making a non-insightful comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: remember its not just PS3's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: remember its not just PS3's
That's a strawman, because that's not what I said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: remember its not just PS3's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: remember its not just PS3's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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 ]
Hey, remember when the United States government arrested Tommy Chong for selling bongs, sent him to jail, and then everybody stopped selling bongs?
The system works!
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you not understand how jurisdiction is determined? Your attempts to badmouth any and all attempts to enforce IP laws would have more sway if you indicated that you even understood the reasoning behind the actions that you're badmouthing. Try explaining what the theory is, and then explain how you disagree with it. Give us some analysis.
Second, shouldn't the judge be somewhat concerned with the privacy aspects here? In giving up Geohot's Paypal info, isn't this exposing the info of anyone who might have donated, without them having the ability to stop it?
Same comment. Perhaps an explanation of how financial information is turned over in infringement cases as a matter of course, and then an argument about how the reasoning there is flawed. Otherwise, you just appear to be disagreeing because you don't like the outcome. You're working backwards. Walk us through you're analysis. Explain to us what the status quo is, the reasoning behind it, and then you're reasoning for why it's wrong.
Just a suggestion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please explain how you think it works. Seriously, I would like to understand why you think it makes sense to determine jurisdiction based on where people who donated live.
"Perhaps an explanation of how financial information is turned over in infringement cases as a matter of course"
This is pretty clear cut. Even if you can come up with a compelling reason that Sony (remember, this is not a criminal case) should have GeoHot's financial information, how can you justify giving them a list of names of people not involved in the case - particularly without giving them any opportunity to oppose the request. Regardless of what this is doing to GeoHot's right's, there are clear privacy concerns for the people not (currently) being sued. They should be protected but are not even allowed a representative here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is unlikely to happen. I think you hit the nail on the head with this one: Mike doesn't like what is going on, and as a result, anything that happens is somehow bad or unfair or somehow special to Geohot.
Mike, news flash: The guy appears to have broken the law. ony is not only within their rights to go after him, they are well within their rights to use all of the available means the legal system puts at their disposal to do so. I suspect Sony is looking at his paypal account to confirm jurisdiction, getting the case into a state (like Cali) where their lawyers practice. I wouldn't be shocked if they are also looking to see if there is a "commercial" angle to this, or even looking at the money flow to see who else is part of the deal.
I am sorry you don't like Sony's actions. But you know they are legal. You often support and defend pirate / torrent sites rights to exist and operate as a result of small cracks in various laws. Don't be upset when the other side uses those laws the swat the flies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What law?
[ 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: Re:
Wouldn't this be a case of that? He was trying go get his PS3 to talk to his Linux programs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
[ 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:
Here's another link to the DMCA text:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Section 1201(b) was purposefully written so that circumventing use restrictions is not unlawful. This preserves fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wouldn't this be a case of that? He was trying go get his PS3 to talk to his Linux programs.
..
Sorry that is not in the current incredibly short and pathetic list of exceptions. Note that even making backup copies of your own personally bought DVD's is technically a violation of the DMCA.
But GeoHotz was not "circumventing a technological protection measure that effectively controls access to a protected work" - since there is no protected work in a PS3 running LInux!
So how was he breaking the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.ps3hax.net/2010/01/ps3-finally-hacked-by-geohot/#axzz1Gt4OAI8h
Sort of self explanatory, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, not really. If GeoHot's intentions (don't know - guessing here) were to replace the Other OS option then what he describes in his blog sounds like the first steps towards that. Still looks like circumventing the technological protections in order to gain interoperability between the PS3's OS and Linux programs to me.
[ 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:
Perhaps. But was it a step towards restoring the Other OS feature?
Look, I don't know all the specifics of this case. But it seems to me that the intent of the exception described in the text of the DMCA law at subsection (f) was included by congress for a situation exactly like this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No.
I repeat - where is the protected work?
There are many perfectly legitimate reasons to do what GeoHotz has done - such as to allow user written games to utilise the graphics hardware. We have a whole labful of PS3's that are sitting idle because of this stupid barrier.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are confusing the fact that occasionally such s/w can impede an otherwise legal act with the fiction that you can legally stop any act by inserting "protection s/w" in its path even if such s/w is not in fact protecting anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However your interpitation is wrong he went around the ineffective measures so he could install linux, because those measures prevented him from doing that. The ps3 systems as a whole is the protected work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So how does Geohot's hack enable you to produce illegal copies of "the PS3 system as a whole"?
In any case - as a utility article - the ps3 system as a whole is not eligible to copyright protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So how does Geohot's hack enable you to produce illegal copies of "the PS3 system as a whole?"" [i think the question mark still goes in the quotes even though the quote isn't a question]
It doesn't. I was referring to this part of the DCMA "circumventing a technological protection measure that effectively controls access to a protected work"
you don't have to copy or produce anything. By circumventing the protection on it you are already in violation. Again though any controls that can be circumvented obviously were not effective.
"In any case - as a utility article - the ps3 system as a whole is not eligible to copyright protection."
Its a fishy loophole as I understand it but it goes something like this. The hardware that makes your ps3 is a unique configuration (not to mention the proprietary parts inside) in addition it requires unique software to run. If you installed the ps3 operating system on a dell computer, or a xbox360, nothing useful would happen. If you installed windows on a ps3 it wouldn't work. (otherOS works in conjunction with the ps3 OS, in other words you cant strip all the code out of a ps3 then install an operating system). Obviously the OS is copyrightable, im pretty sure the hardware configuration is as well. So in the eyes of the law the ps3 is not a computer running Sony's code its a special machine that is made up of parts you might find in a computer that runs a special code and it makes up one whole protected unit.
"http://www1.edge-online.com/news/british-court-ps2-not-a-pc"
Its old news I know, but it reflects what I am talking about. I believe they were able to get ps3s shipped to America as computers which is funny because in one of the geohot complaints they state that it is not a computer. [citation needed; if someone links the pleadings again I'm sure i can find it]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The system works!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's right. And these aren't even cracks in the law being exploited. This is just standard operating procedure. Mike appears to only disagree with the procedure because it's being used against a pirate. What it really boils down to is that Mike thinks piracy should not be illegal. That's fine if he thinks that. It would be a lot clearer for everyone if he just admitted it though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I mean, you say it every single chance you get...for what? Let's assume that you even manage to get the majority of people who read this site to believe your claims...what then? Is Mike suddenly supposed to turn into this cackling mad villain with some grand scheme to take over the world? Are we all supposed to run screaming from the website in abject horror as we realize we've been "deceived" for years?
And by the way...Mike doesn't think Piracy should be illegal. He's said as much multiple times. You do a quick, 10 second search and you'll find multiple articles on why he thinks Piracy should be acceptable. Of course, he doesn't believe that you should break the law just because you think the law is wrong...which is probably what you're trying to imply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a series of business models predicated on widespread piracy.
See, without the hollywood movies, the popular label artist music, and commercial software being pirated and made available, most people wouldn't have P2P software on their systems. Why would they? So they can share the latest Cory Smith ditty? It's a non-starter, and Mike knows it. The "good stuff" is what keeps the pump primed and keeps people focused on the torrent sites, which permits the rest of his "widely shared" business strategies can work.
See, if new artists actually had to pay bandwidth to offer potential new fans downloads of their music, most of them wouldn't do it. They couldn't support the costs of the downloads. Business-wise, it wouldn't be a very good bottom line idea.
So Mike ends up in the place where he has to attack every successful defense of copyright (or patents for that matter) because enforcement of copyright laws makes his business models look non-functional.
Mike will never say he supports piracy. He just needs it to be relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
His models just depend on people accepting this fact and realizing that if people make someting other people like they will make money. But they won't do it by pissing off the people they want money from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep confusing Hollywood with the "Good Stuff". Please stop doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The poster you're responding to has a very good point: Mike profits from piracy. From his business to his blog, piracy powers the machine. That might explain a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For someone who constantly claims that I lie and spread FUD, you sure do an awful lot of pure bullshitting yourself.
The above statement that I "profit from piracy" is a pure lie, stated with knowledge that it is a lie. I'm amazed that you would so blatantly lie, though it explains why you are posting anonymously.
If you want to make up shit, go somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just a suggestion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your business models in music are based on free distribution. Without P2P, online distribution would not be free, the whole "infinite distribution" and "no marginal cost" arguments would all go out the window, and you would be left with very little as your starting point for many of the discussions.
Your business models are based on the piracy distribution network being available to others, and to piggy back off of it. Directly or indirectly, you push models that profit from copyright violation. You don't support piracy, you just propose making a living off of using it's services.
Without piracy and it's mechanisms, you wouldn't have the starting point of much of your business proposals. You wouldn't be out there hating on a music industry selling digital music at 99 cents, because there wouldn't be a "free" alternative.
Sorry Mike, but you may not agree, but it is clear that much of your philosophy and business ideas are based on piracy existing, continuing, and growing. You might not like it, you might not agree, but that is what it appears to be from here.
I didn't make shit up. I just said something you don't like.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Online distribution is free. That's the reality. The point is to accept reality and work from there. Something you seem to refuse to do. Why? I have no idea? Why don't you tell us?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See what I did there?
Have a great weekend everyone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If he were an upstanding gentleman instead the brainwashing raptorphile scoundrel that he is he would stick his head in the sand and design business plans as if it where 1989.
We all know that admitting something exists = supporting. Which is why I don't wear condoms because that would mean I'm an STD supporter.
Also the daycare I run only has 3 walls and anyone can come "hang out" with the kids. Because certainly if I took into account, when designing my business, the possibility that the children I am suppose to protect could be kidnapped and/or raped that would mean I am in support of child abduction and molestation.
/sarc
the backasswards logic in this paragraph is just too good to not mention/
"Sorry Mike, but you may not agree, but it is clear that much of your philosophy and business ideas are based on piracy existing, continuing, and growing. You might not like it, you might not agree, but that is what it appears to be from here."
In other words: Mike you may not agree with how I interpret your ideas, but the way I misinterpret you is clear. Your philosophy and business ideas are based on piracy existing, continuing, and growing. You might not like breaking the law you might not agree with how I see things. But that is how I see things therefore that is the way things are. Even though I asked you and you said otherwise and you have never expressly stated the ideas and values I attribute to you they must be true because I interpret that they are the ideas and values you hold. Obviously you deny them because....um....the conspiracy to...ummm speak poorly of...um things you don't agree with. WHICH IS AN ATROCITY. You will agree with anything people do unless they are "bad" people then you do what ever you can to not agree with them even if that means never being able to make any sense. Fox news will tell you who the bad people are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words: Mike you may not agree with how I interpret your ideas, but the way I misinterpret you is clear.
Ahh, such a fail! You tried so hard, but you missed the point. You went all around the point, and tried to discredit my opinion by adding stupidity. Too bad.
No, Mike's business models work on things like "infinite distrubution" and "no marginal costs", but those exist only when people are sharing (via P2P or other means) on a scale that matches actual existing distribution. Sneakernet isn't fast enough or vast enough. Mike's ideas need P2P with the majority of people using it to work. The only thing that keeps the P2P programs up and sharing is pirated content.
People don't create special pirated Cory Smith sites, do they?
[ 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:
"....but those exist only when people are sharing....Mike's ideas need P2P with the majority of people using it to work. The only thing that keeps the P2P programs up and sharing is pirated content."
Whats a majority of people? So since piracy works a majority of people use it now? So a majority of Americans are pirates. America is ruled by the people. Therefore piracy is now legal.
p2p=person to person. You know how many people it takes to work? 2.
Same with bittorrent really all it takes it one person uploading and one person downloading. Its faster with many people on the system but 5 or 10 people is more then enough, as long as one has a decent upload speed, to quickly share a song or a book.
So really as long as I want to give something away all I need is a website(any business or artist should have one already), an internet connection (if there isn't demand for my "whatever" and its larger then a few megs I need a business class connection, unless you have Verizon they give residential users real upload speeds), and someone who wants it. So the artist crippling costs are what again? Lets see to share my bands music I would have to:
1. Write songs(did that anyway)
2. Play songs(did that anyway)
3. Record songs(did that anyway)
4. Put songs on my computer($$$$$$$$$)
5. Tell people where they can get my songs("Thank you for coming, check out our website and drive safe)
6. Pay for my home internet connection.
7. Watch as either 1 or 1,000,000 people download my song for the same cost to me
You realize that because people are downloading X(which is a illegal version of something) that doesn't increase the speed I can, or my ability to, share Y(which is legal). You realize that bittorrent isn't all hosted off some server held in some evil geniuses basement(don't go in MM's basement) The client exists, its free. It requires nothing people don't already have. Before you jump around about business class internet comcast overs a package with more than sufficent upload speeds for $99.99 a month which is like 15 dollars more than i pay for my home connection now.
So if all piracy went away tonight and no one ever downloaded anything illegal ever again I could still share anything legal I wanted for the same price it would cost me today, next to nothing. There is no p2p program the needs to be kept up and running. If i have the software and you have the software boom thats it we are a network. Stopping piracy doesnt get rid of the software it already exists and requires no maintenance.
Please find one sentence to respond to and ignore the rest of post, thank you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Free distribution and piracy are not the same thing. There is such thing as free distribution of CC released content and it won't be piracy.
"Directly or indirectly, you push models that profit from copyright violation."
No, he pushes models that make it legal for others to use ones work without illegally infringing, such as releasing the works under a CC license and profiting from other things. That's not encouraging infringement. Your dishonesty here lends no credibility to your position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmm? This is so clueless as to be laughable. The businesses I talk about do not rely on piracy. They work fine without piracy. They have nothing to do with piracy. So, not sure where this claim comes from other than ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
P2P exists at it's current level only because of piracy. Most people wouldn't bother if all they could get was garage bands and Nina Paley movies. Without critical mass, P2P doesn't function efficiently. The whole "free" infinite distribution thing depends greatly on functional P2P, and everyone being part of it. Without that, it falls apart.
So once you stop being able to just give everything away (because giving it away would now actually cost something), most of your business models (in music and other areas) tend to fall apart. Without P2P, it no longer makes financial sense.
So when you kick that leg out from under the table, the rest of it falls down.
Do you understand where I am going?
[ 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:
Look, if you don't know how P2P works, you really shouldn't comment.
But, since I know you know how P2P really works, and instead you're just making shit up, I'll stop this conversation now.
Do you understand where I am going?
Yes. You think that by misrepresenting me, technology, economics and the law, you might get a rise out of someone.
How's that working out for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OMG his ignorance is just so infuriating i cant stand to not reply.
Oh wait im bored, have no work to do, and typing posts in word at least looks better to passerbys then playing minesweeper or browsing the internet.
Sorry Mike, this slump will end I will stop feeding your trolls. Hopefully soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And when piracy goes away obviously all the technology that people used to pirate will go away too. I imagine ICE will confiscate it.
"P2P exists at it's current level only because of piracy. Most people wouldn't bother if all they could get was garage bands and Nina Paley movies"
Cause if piracy never existed people wouldn't have to invent better ways to share large amounts of information. If sure we would get all our WOW patches and linux builds by mailing cds like AOL did before all this evil tech was born. Also updates to massive server farms, i.e. facebook and google, would be done by a guy putting a floppy disc in each machine. Not to mention the evil BBC how dare they use pirate tech to share their videos and podcasts, it should come by carrier pigeon.
"The whole "free" infinite distribution thing depends greatly on functional P2P, and everyone being part of it."
If everyone has to be a part of it, and your not a part of it how does it continue? OMG your a pirate.
"So once you stop being able to just give everything away (because giving it away would now actually cost something), most of your business models (in music and other areas) tend to fall apart. Without P2P, it no longer makes financial sense."
Again, admitting piracy happened and using any tech that pirates also use makes you a piracy supporter. Thats why I don't use the internet.
"So when you kick that leg out from under the table, the rest of it falls down."
So if piracy, and the technologies it grew, had never happened your ideas about how to make money when people can pirate your goods instead of buy them would be useless.
"Do you understand where I am going?"
Either your going back to 1980 to stop the internet from being born or your going in logic hole and out another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, but your flailing argument doesn't stand up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The purchase agreement cannot override the various trade descriptions and other consumer protection laws that make Sony's actions illegal.
The reason such a case won't get far is the way that these laws are usually interpreted when one of the parties is a major corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suspect that this would at best make some lawyers some money and get everyone a $5 off coupon for your next game purchase, as the OS option likely wouldn't be the reason most people bought a PS3.
[ 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:
You are right that this is what usually happens - that does not mean it is in accord with the spirit of the law as the general public believes it to be.
There is a word for this state of affairs. It is called corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The reason partly has to do with the fact that judges are/were lawyers, corporations hire a lot of lawyers that engage in many lawsuits, lawsuits keep judges employed and so to encourage more of these lawsuits, judges tend to favor the corporations that keep them employed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sony then removes otherOS after realizing that it was needed for the exploit. This pisses off people who had no interest in pirating. These pissed off people put in a couple months work and rip the whole system open with a easy mod any 16 year old with access to google can install and use to pirate. That code is out and nothing they can do can get rid of it.
Seems everything is working out for them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
None of those things is really an overriding need. The overriding need behind all this is something that is not directly legally protectable (arguably it is illegal since it amounts to a restraint of legitimate trade). The real motivation is Sony's business model - which is to sell the consoles at a loss and make up (more than) the difference by controlling (and taxing) the game developers.
There is no legal mechanism to do this directly - which is why Sony resorts to all these contorted arguments about the license agreement and the DMCA.
The fact is that there is simply no need to "protect" the PS3 software from copying - because it is well protected by an unbreakable dongle system - the console itself!
What Sony is actually trying to protect is their right to act as gatekeeper to the PS3 development community - which is a right that the do not legally have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think Sony did it for security reasons. IIRC, I remember reading earlier posts of people saying they think it had something to do with them later not wanting people to use it as an OS because they're selling it as a loss and if too many people end up using it as an OS (kinda like how the govt did) and didn't buy games for it (which is how they plan to make back their money), they will lose money. That's why they flipped out when the government started using it as a cheaper solution, they started revoking the OS feature around the same time that the govt started using it and Sony flipped out. Based on the governments use, they may have figured that more people may end up using it than they had initially planned.
Besides, I don't think any of their actions make it any more secure. If someone wants to hack it, they'll find a way to hack it regardless, since hacking it requires some effort with or without a linux installation. and I doubt those who want to hack it for cheating purposes will bother to install linux on it to hack it, though they might use the loophole that was used to install linux on it to do something much simpler. Not that a linux installation would really be a practical hack, I'm sure a much simpler hack is far more likely to be used. To hack it via the linux installation one would first have to install linux and then make the Linux software correctly interpret the game code without glitches. Running a game directly on top of a relatively bulky linux operating system is processor inefficient and will tend to lead to all sorts of bugs and incompatibility problems. I'm sure Sony knows this. Not that it can't be done, but people who want to hack it will likely find a far more direct, efficient, and simpler way of hacking it that doesn't involve such a huge modification of the firmware in ways that can lead to problems that require work arounds and ways that need one to practically re-write a lot of Sony's operating code in a way that the Linux operating system can better understand, a way that won't conflict with whatever the Linux operating system is doing. What Sony is doing has little to nothing to do with security, regardless of what the non-tech savy lawyers claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(not that they would need to see this linux hack to be able to find the loophole. If they are capable of figuring out how to make the Linux OS emulate a PlayStation game, they are more likely to figure out a way to use the loophole to find a simpler hack. and their ability to use the loophole to find this simpler hack probably means they probably don't need anyone to tell them about the loophole for them to find it themselves).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Class action against Sony over removal of Other OS to go ahead [Groklaw Feb, 2011]
Shows how much you really read, listen or understand then about this whole case and the other case that is a major, MAJOR problem for Sony at the moment and that has major ramifications on Sony v Hotz since Hotz's lawyers will absolutely be looking seriously at the outcome and at specific allegations against Sony [SCEA]
The Amended ComplaintGroklaw, 13 Mar 2011
Amended Complaint filedGroklaw, 13 Mar 2011 Para's 159 to 161 will be EXTREMELY interesting to Hotz's legal team
For other interesting LEGAL analysis of Sony v. Hotz and the class action against SCEA just go to the front page of Groklaw and scroll through.
Or you can just keep quoting erroneous suppositions, your choice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and besides, for security reasons doesn't involve trying to make the software so that a hacker using the software can less easily hack someone else. A hacker using the software that's capable of hacking someone else can do it with or without the firmware update. For security reasons means Sony is updating the firmware on my hardware so that others can't hack me from the outside. It's analogous to Microsoft updating my browser or operating system so that others can't hack me if I stumble upon a malicious website. It doesn't involve Microsoft deleting my calculator so that it won't help me hack others. That's illogical and inconsistent with what most people generally expect out of security updates. Sure, an operating system calculator could help me hack others by helping me do various code calculations, but deleting my calculator doesn't make anyone any more secure. What Sony did has nothing to do with security because it does absolutely nothing to protect me from others. It simply disables a feature that Sony promised they will deliver to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A: if the Linux distribution originated and is being maintained by an external entity (ie: the open source community) then Sony should disclose that and the user should understand that Sony is not responsible for any security vulnerabilities that the Linux operating system has. Most Linux users are pretty tech savy anyways and can keep their operating systems secure, but the point is that it should be pre-understood that Sony allows Linux use as is and hence Sony is expected not to remove the feature since they advertised that the feature comes with the product.
If Sony is maintaining the Linux distribution and its security, then there is a reasonable expectation that they will provide continued security support for the feature without removing the feature. Such is an expected responsibility that Sony implicitly and reasonably took upon itself by offering the possibility of installing Linux with its operating system. Anything else is unexpected and illogical. If Sony wants to later remove the feature the very least they should do is offer a full refund to anyone requesting one on the basis that its lacking the feature (and, sure, this can lead to false refunds, but that's part of the cost of breaking a promise and is the very least they can do).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
dont you have anything better to do? You really hate Mike this much? Because why again? He expresses his opinion, other people come and talk about their opinions. Obviously the majority of us who come here regularly agree with most of Mike's opinions, that's why we come here because he writes about things that interest us and we can all vent our frustration with the world we live in. Mike doesn't actually control anything or shape your world, he obviously doesn't have the ears of very many people who do shape your world. He is not some expert propagandist brainwashing people, I'm sure most of the people who bookmarked this site already felt the way the do now. A couple articles and some forum posts are not going to change peoples world view and if they do that's because they are well thought out, logical, and people have evidence in their daily lives that allow them to accept what they have learned into their world view.
I am happy to discuss topics with people who don't agree with me as I assume most people here are, though I don't like speaking for others. You however don't want to discuss you make statements that you never backup and yell FUD and irrelevant at others all day. When multiple people post long responses to your objections to an idea you scroll through and pick the weakest sentence you can find and attack it. Or you just say your wrong and insult someone.
If your just trying to troll your not very good at it. Trust me I love a good troll but i definitely laugh harder at you (not at your post at YOU) then at any of the responses you generate. I'm pretty sure Mike doesn't stay up all night really irritated by your personal insults. If you think im butthurt trust me I'm not, I'll leave work in 12 minutes read the articles I missed on the train home and forget about this forum until I get bored at work tomorrow. A good troll gets under peoples skin and generates fear and rage your just a nuisance.
I have noticed you going through 3 day old posts and making your comments all over the place. How many pages do you have bookmarked? How often do you refresh all your posts?
We know your not a lawyer, i would bet project assistant at some shitty lawfirm to explain your westlaw access. Although you have never linked from westlaw so you might just know it exists and don't actually have access. If you were a lawyer or as some people guess a law student you would understand that pretty much any law can be argued 8 different ways depending on the situation. We wouldn't need lawyers if this shit was all black and white. But you come back day after day saying how we are all freetarded because we don't see some case with the same fucked up logic you do. Or quoting 100 year old case law for internet cases. This shit has nuance boy, and a lot of it is largely unprecedented. You can't say linking is the same as physical counterfeiting cause its not, just cause you can false logic a old case around a new idea doesn't make you right.
Someone in here does have an agenda. It is you and your Mike bashing agenda. Is this a personal thing? Did he sleep with your girlfriend in college or pee in your water bottle or something? Cause seriously give it up, you just look more pathetic everyday. You could spend your time some much better, or at least pick a better enemy. Why not try nambla.org or the kkk, trust me they dont respond to trolling well you'll get much better responses.
Well I'm sure you will find one or two sentences to respond to and leave rest untouched. Don't worry its cool. Thanks for helping me kill the last 20 minutes of my day. Time to punch out.
Dont break your finger hitting F5 all night.
[ 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 ]
Where can't buy happiness, but can buy the judges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh....Outrage!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...PROFIT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
My understanding (which may not be complete or correct) is that reverse engineering of software is legal and circumventing the technological protections in order to reverse engineer the software can be considered fair use under the DMCA.
Is it simply that GeoHot shared his findings with others that has gotten him into trouble?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
This is outrageous, but is the law as far as I know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jurisdiction
The landmark case that set the initial precedent was International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945). This has been interpreted by cases such as Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987). The precise test is still somewhat open to interpretation, but the basic idea is that if you direct your business at a state then you are availing yourself of that state's laws and therefore it is at least consistent with the Constitution for that state (or a federal court located in that state) to exercise jurisdiction.
Again I am not a lawyer, but it seems whether or not he solicited and received donations from California in connection with his work on the PS3 is very relevant to seeing if jurisdiction may be exercised there. Of course, he may still try to have it removed from that court under doctrines such as forum non conviens even if jurisdiction may be properly exercised there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jurisdiction
It appears to me that Mike's only reason for disagreeing with the procedure is because it affects negatively the trial of a suspected pirate. I doubt his concerns are that the Supreme Court's analysis of the jurisdictional due process issues at play is somehow flawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jurisdiction
So we have two separate discussions; does it have a legal impact and should it have a legal impact.
Mike clearly thinks it shouldn't (as he says "should not"). Re-reading the article I don't get a clear sense that Mike is making a legal "does not" argument.
Personally I think it 'should' not matter. I lack the legal background to know if it actually does matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jurisdiction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jurisdiction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jurisdiction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jurisdiction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jurisdiction
The number one reason is because the plaintiff is in the Northern District of California. Is the jurisdictional issue even still an issue, or hasn't the judge already rules on this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jurisdiction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jurisdiction
is this statement true in Geohots' case? By placing a video on youtube one could as easily solicit Boston as the Bay Area. The logic is that the servers are based in Mountain View and therefore acceptable under Bay area jurisdiction, seems to go against how the web itself works. He is "conducting business" in NJ and if not directing his business at any particular state or area, I don't see how your response applies. Although who gave and how much was given still seems to go against your first statement. What if he directed his solicitation at Bay Area, but more people gave from Boston? But more money came from Miami?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jurisdiction
If jurisdiction is being challenged as improper, then the key question is the "minimum contacts" analysis to determine if it is proper. Even if it is proper, the defendant may attempt to show that it is more appropriate through a challenge such as forum non conviens. However, when such a transfer (rather than dismissal for lack of jurisdiction) is requested the court has wide discretion and will often give the benefit of the doubt to the plaintiff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jurisdiction
I agree with Whisk33's point. What gives CA precedent over other states where donations originated from? All I can see is that they want CA because it works in their favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jurisdiction
California has precedent because that is where the plaintiff filed suit. I am in no way a lawyer, but at least initially the plaintiff is "the master of the claim." and may file suit in any place where jurisdiction is proper. That does not meant that that place is the only one where they could have filed.
"All I can see is that they want CA because it works in their favor."
Yes, precisely, that is what "forum shopping" is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jurisdiction
and the place that the plaintiff should have jurisdiction is the state that it incorporated itself in, not in any arbitrary state that it decides to file suit in. Some states offer better tax benefits, other states offer favorable court decisions in your favor (though I think choosing a state based on the latter is an abuse of the system and there needs to be a way of fixing that. Then again, most states tend to favor entities in their own states in opposed to foreign entities).
With your logic, if I live in California and someone else who lives in California pops my tire, I can randomly sue them in Texas (ie: if I see that I can get higher reward damage in Texas) even though neither of us have residence there nor has either of us ever stepped foot in Texas. I can just sue anyone anywhere I want. It defeats the whole purpose of jurisdiction since there is no jurisdiction if the place that the plaintiff filed suit is where the lawsuit occurs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jurisdiction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jurisdiction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jurisdiction
Will these PayPal accounts only be used to benefit Sony or simply be disregarded if they don't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jurisdiction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If your car manufacture were to all the sudden take all the seats out of your car I'm sure you'd be pretty pissed about it, especially if you put new seats in it then got sued because of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You own the seats in a car that you own. You're only a licensee of the PS3 software. Bad analogy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If your car manufacturer reflashed the powertrain control module during a routine oil change so that your air conditioner and power windows no longer worked, I'm sure you would be pretty pissed about it. Especially if you used your laptop to restore the functionality and got sued because of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Removing a feature that was advertised for the specific purpose of promoting the sale of a product then later removing it at whim is just a poor way to conduct business, and if not should damn well be illegal.
But like so many other things highlighted throughout TechDirt with things in regard to intellectual property the litigation surrounding it is flawed and broken.
Consumers should be the one's who hold the majority of rights when it comes to the products they own. Even if the support of "other os" was never featured at the release of the ps3 and someone figured out how to make the hardware perform that functionality they should be well within their rights to do so.
Will you argue I don't own the hardware either?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Some actually do make that argument. They try to pretend that since the MS EULA, TOS, or whatever says that the Xbox is not yours, then you don't own it and they can do all they damn well please to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You own the car seats and the PS3 in exactly the same way.
You don't own the copyrighted design on the car seats - but that doesn't give them the right tor cover the seats in black plastic to stop you copying the design.
Incidentally this license business is a red herring.
The s/w license actually increases your rights (compared to your ownership of a book or music CD containing copyrighted material) - it doesn't take them away - insofar as it may attempt to remove rights it is probably illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The s/w license actually increases your rights (compared to your ownership of a book or music CD containing copyrighted material) - it doesn't take them away - insofar as it may attempt to remove rights it is probably illegal.
When geohot exceeded his license, he violated the Copyright Act. How is that a red herring?
If Sony injured their consumers because they breached warranty or something like that, the remedy is in the courts. You don't get to violate the Copyright Act because somebody purportedly breached warranty.
The argument that geohot's hacking was OK because of the warranty issue is the red herring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly where did he breach the copyright act? So far you have provided no evidence of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its amazing what you can engraved on the back of an iPad...
http://www.gottaloveme.com/images/ipad_engraving.jpg
.
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the United States of Corporations after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]