GeoHot Donates Leftover Legal Funds to EFF

[JDKJ]

That's weird. Where was this case? Alabama? Mississippi? Because in most civilized places, those facts wouldn't make you an accomplice.

Take Pennsylvania's accomplice statute, which says:

"A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if (1) with the intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he solicits such other person to commit it; or aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it; or (2) his conduct is expressly declared by law to establish his complicity."

And then take the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Pennsylvania v Rega where the Court, in interpreting the accomplice statute, states:

"An accomplice is one who actively and purposefully engages in criminal activity and is criminally responsible for the criminal actions of his/her co-conspirators which are committed in furtherance of the criminal endeavor.

Accordingly, two prongs must be satisfied for a person to be labeled an accomplice. First, there must be evidence that the person intended to aid or promote the underlying offense. Second, there must be evidence that the person actively participated in the crime by soliciting, aiding, or agreeing to aid the principal.

Further, a person cannot be an accomplice simply based on evidence that he knew about the crime or was present at the crime scene. There must be some additional evidence that the person intended to aid in the commission of the underlying crime, and then aided or attempted to aid."

I'm inclined to conclude that -- as morally wrong as it may sound -- if you're in Pennsylvania and you observe a crime being committed, feel free to kick back in a La-Z-Boy with some popcorn and a cold beverage and watch the whole crime unfold. Under Pennsylvania law, you can't be accused of being an accomplice. Just an opportunistic, callous, uncaring, voyeuristic asshole. But being all that ain't illegal. But I can't claim to know what less civilized places would do. I try to stay as far away as possible from Alabama and Mississippi and all them kinda places.

In some ways, the woman who watched is something... well, not worse than the men who hurt the woman, but seriously fucked up. They are disturbed in the mind, she is evil. I'm not pro-death penalty, but I wouldn't argue all three being executed or murdered on the street. I guess that makes me a bad person, lol.

Like I said, it makes one an opportunistic, callous, uncaring, voyeuristic asshole -- but that ain't against the law. If it was, I'd been doing twenty-five to life in San Quentin.

 

[SaintWaldo]

And the notion that they could legally prosecute him for a public statement in a country that safeguards free speech is just silly

Free speech, as related to the topic of US Law, tends to mean the 1st amendment protection against congress passing laws preventing freedom of, among other things, speech. Since this is an out of court settlement entered voluntarily, congress had nothing to do with it. Free speech won't cover him breaching this settlement. You obviously don't understand the laws involved here. This might tend to convince one you don't have too firm a grasp on the other issues involved. Just saying.

Ah, do apologize, I wasn't aware the terms of his settlement were known to you and that they entailed him not badmouthing Sony. I do wonder where you get such information though, considering the terms of the settlement are to be kept private

In an actual 1st amendment event, Gamespot leaked them. [http://news.softpedia.com/news/Sony-Geohot-Settlement-Details-Revealed-Include-Restrictions-194789.shtml]

Also, I never said he was enjoined from bad mouthing Sony. I said that his sarcasm towards a binding legal agreement was toying with forces.

Are you owned enough to stop replying, yet?

 

[JDKJ]

And the notion that they could legally prosecute him for a public statement in a country that safeguards free speech is just silly

Free speech, as related to the topic of US Law, tends to mean the 1st amendment protection against congress passing laws preventing freedom of, among other things, speech. Since this is an out of court settlement entered voluntarily, congress had nothing to do with it. Free speech won't cover him breaching this settlement. You obviously don't understand the laws involved here. This might tend to convince one you don't have too firm a grasp on the other issues involved. Just saying.

Ah, do apologize, I wasn't aware the terms of his settlement were known to you and that they entailed him not badmouthing Sony. I do wonder where you get such information though, considering the terms of the settlement are to be kept private

In an actual 1st amendment event, Gamespot leaked them. [http://news.softpedia.com/news/Sony-Geohot-Settlement-Details-Revealed-Include-Restrictions-194789.shtml]

Also, I never said he was enjoined from bad mouthing Sony. I said that his sarcasm towards a binding legal agreement was toying with forces.

Are you owned enough to stop replying, yet?

Don't fall for the okey-doke (but if you did, don't feel bad -- I did, too, for a while). That whole "leaked" thing that has been reported by a number of news outlets, is pure bullshit. The document that they claimed was "leaked" isn't a confidential document. It's a document entitled "Stipulation [blah, blah, blah]." It is freely available from the Court because it wasn't filed under seal. There is another document entitled "Memorandum of Understanding." That document was filed under seal and is therefore confidential. But it has not been leaked.

It took me a while and a visit to the Court's docket before I figured out that the reports of a "leak" were bullshit. Obviously, a non-confidential document can't be leaked. There's nothing to leak.

 

[SaintWaldo]

And the notion that they could legally prosecute him for a public statement in a country that safeguards free speech is just silly

Free speech, as related to the topic of US Law, tends to mean the 1st amendment protection against congress passing laws preventing freedom of, among other things, speech. Since this is an out of court settlement entered voluntarily, congress had nothing to do with it. Free speech won't cover him breaching this settlement. You obviously don't understand the laws involved here. This might tend to convince one you don't have too firm a grasp on the other issues involved. Just saying.

Ah, do apologize, I wasn't aware the terms of his settlement were known to you and that they entailed him not badmouthing Sony. I do wonder where you get such information though, considering the terms of the settlement are to be kept private

In an actual 1st amendment event, Gamespot leaked them. [http://news.softpedia.com/news/Sony-Geohot-Settlement-Details-Revealed-Include-Restrictions-194789.shtml]

Also, I never said he was enjoined from bad mouthing Sony. I said that his sarcasm towards a binding legal agreement was toying with forces.

Are you owned enough to stop replying, yet?

Don't fall for the okey-doke (but if you did, don't feel bad -- I did, too, for a while). That whole "leaked" thing that has been reported by a number of news outlets, is pure bullshit. The document that they claimed was "leaked" isn't a confidential document. It's a document entitled "Stipulation [blah, blah, blah]." It is freely available from the Court because it wasn't filed under seal. There is another document entitled "Memorandum of Understanding." That document was filed under seal and is therefore confidential. But it has not been leaked.

It took me a while and a visit to the Court's docket before I figured out that the reports of a "leak" were bullshit. Obviously, a non-confidential document can't be leaked. There's nothing to leak.

Har har! Thanks for the tip, good sir. Easy to chase sugar.

So, in any event, I was referring to public knowledge at all times, not claiming to know anything that hadn't been either made public, or public already (which it was, I will point out for redundancy's sake, and to be repetitive).

 

[Vrach]

Wrong. There is a term of the Stipulation that prohibits him from "[k]nowingly assisting or inducing others" to do something he himself is prohibited from doing by the terms of the Stipulation. Accordingly, if he in any way encourages others to hack any of Sony's products, he'd be violating the terms of the Stipulation and, I imagine, SCEA will not hesitate to crawl up his ass and lay eggs in his intestines.

Ah, now that I did not know, cheers for the info

And the notion that they could legally prosecute him for a public statement in a country that safeguards free speech is just silly

Free speech, as related to the topic of US Law, tends to mean the 1st amendment protection against congress passing laws preventing freedom of, among other things, speech. Since this is an out of court settlement entered voluntarily, congress had nothing to do with it. Free speech won't cover him breaching this settlement. You obviously don't understand the laws involved here. This might tend to convince one you don't have too firm a grasp on the other issues involved. Just saying.

Ah, do apologize, I wasn't aware the terms of his settlement were known to you and that they entailed him not badmouthing Sony. I do wonder where you get such information though, considering the terms of the settlement are to be kept private

In an actual 1st amendment event, Gamespot leaked them. [http://news.softpedia.com/news/Sony-Geohot-Settlement-Details-Revealed-Include-Restrictions-194789.shtml]

Also, I never said he was enjoined from bad mouthing Sony. I said that his sarcasm towards a binding legal agreement was toying with forces.

Are you owned enough to stop replying, yet?

I see literally 0 connection between the Gamespot event and anything I've said. Maybe I'm just missing something.

And yeah, I was ridiculing the "toying with forces" thing, considering I imagine Sony's pretty fucking happy with the settlement too or they wouldn't have made one. I was also under the impression this wasn't something he could be legally held accountable for, but the poster I quoted above proved me wrong on that one

 

[MrGalactus]

shouldn't he have refunded it? It wasn't his.

 

[JDKJ]

And the notion that they could legally prosecute him for a public statement in a country that safeguards free speech is just silly

Free speech, as related to the topic of US Law, tends to mean the 1st amendment protection against congress passing laws preventing freedom of, among other things, speech. Since this is an out of court settlement entered voluntarily, congress had nothing to do with it. Free speech won't cover him breaching this settlement. You obviously don't understand the laws involved here. This might tend to convince one you don't have too firm a grasp on the other issues involved. Just saying.

Ah, do apologize, I wasn't aware the terms of his settlement were known to you and that they entailed him not badmouthing Sony. I do wonder where you get such information though, considering the terms of the settlement are to be kept private

In an actual 1st amendment event, Gamespot leaked them. [http://news.softpedia.com/news/Sony-Geohot-Settlement-Details-Revealed-Include-Restrictions-194789.shtml]

Also, I never said he was enjoined from bad mouthing Sony. I said that his sarcasm towards a binding legal agreement was toying with forces.

Are you owned enough to stop replying, yet?

Don't fall for the okey-doke (but if you did, don't feel bad -- I did, too, for a while). That whole "leaked" thing that has been reported by a number of news outlets, is pure bullshit. The document that they claimed was "leaked" isn't a confidential document. It's a document entitled "Stipulation [blah, blah, blah]." It is freely available from the Court because it wasn't filed under seal. There is another document entitled "Memorandum of Understanding." That document was filed under seal and is therefore confidential. But it has not been leaked.

It took me a while and a visit to the Court's docket before I figured out that the reports of a "leak" were bullshit. Obviously, a non-confidential document can't be leaked. There's nothing to leak.

Har har! Thanks for the tip, good sir. Easy to chase sugar.

So, in any event, I was referring to public knowledge at all times, not claiming to know anything that hadn't been either made public, or public already (which it was, I will point out for redundancy's sake, and to be repetitive).

Yeah, I chased the sugar, too, wondering who would have "leaked" and why. I actually had a good conspiracy theory all worked out in my head. And then, much to my chagrin, had to trash my theory when I discovered that in fact there wasn't any "leak." But it's all good. I hung on to the tin-foil hat I made and there's always gonna be a use for that in the future. : P

 

[justnotcricket]

Wrong. There is a term of the Stipulation that prohibits him from "[k]nowingly assisting or inducing others" to do something he himself is prohibited from doing by the terms of the Stipulation. Accordingly, if he in any way encourages others to hack any of Sony's products, he'd be violating the terms of the Stipulation and, I imagine, SCEA will not hesitate to crawl up his ass and lay eggs in his intestines.

I'd been following your conversations on this thread for a while, but I have to congratulate (I wonder...is that the word I'm looking for?) you on this one - I laughed so hard Chinese food nearly came out of my nose! =P

 

[JDKJ]

Wrong. There is a term of the Stipulation that prohibits him from "[k]nowingly assisting or inducing others" to do something he himself is prohibited from doing by the terms of the Stipulation. Accordingly, if he in any way encourages others to hack any of Sony's products, he'd be violating the terms of the Stipulation and, I imagine, SCEA will not hesitate to crawl up his ass and lay eggs in his intestines.

I'd been following your conversations on this thread for a while, but I have to congratulate (I wonder...is that the word I'm looking for?) you on this one - I laughed so hard Chinese food nearly came out of my nose! =P

Thank you. I'm glad you appreciated it.

It's not original though, so I can't take the credit. In a former life, I worked as an unskilled construction laborer in the Deep South of America where I picked up a lot of colorful expressions from the guys I worked with on the construction sites. Despite most of them having no better than a tenth grade education, they had a way with words.

 

[mxfox408]

If sony wants to sue me for jailbreaking thier systems then bring it on. My legal team would love to make money in a counter-suit vs sony.

 

[JDKJ]

If sony wants to sue me for jailbreaking thier systems then bring it on. My legal team would love to make money in a counter-suit vs sony.

What would your legal team raise as a claim against Sony in that counter-suit?

 

[Canid117]

Well at least its going to defend someone.

 

[mxfox408]

If sony wants to sue me for jailbreaking thier systems then bring it on. My legal team would love to make money in a counter-suit vs sony.

What would your legal team raise as a claim against Sony in that counter-suit?

I cant discuss a possible defense but if it were to happen lets just say personal property is personal.

 

[CommanderKirov]

I'm pretty sure he stated when he got the money that he would donate any leftover funds to the EFF, so no new news here. Just people knee-jerking at his actions.

Honestly, this case has been twisted, manipulated, and skewed so much on both sides that it's come to the point where I don't think anybody even knows what the original lawsuit was about.

It was about him jailbreaking his PS3 and Sony going "WAIT A MINUTE DERE".

Not that hard to summarise

 

[JDKJ]

If sony wants to sue me for jailbreaking thier systems then bring it on. My legal team would love to make money in a counter-suit vs sony.

What would your legal team raise as a claim against Sony in that counter-suit?

I cant discuss a possible defense but if it were to happen lets just say personal property is personal.

I hope it isn't your "legal team" that's confusing a defense with a counter-claim. The two aren't the the same. The former tries to get you off the other guy's the hook, the latter tries to put the other guy on your hook.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't have a counter-claim against Sony. Not if it's a "my property, I can hack it if I want" counter-claim. That ain't no kinda counter-claim. That's just some bullshit that will get you nothing more than laughed outta court.

 

[mxfox408]

If sony wants to sue me for jailbreaking thier systems then bring it on. My legal team would love to make money in a counter-suit vs sony.

What would your legal team raise as a claim against Sony in that counter-suit?

I cant discuss a possible defense but if it were to happen lets just say personal property is personal.

I hope it isn't your "legal team" that's confusing a defense with a counter-claim. The two aren't the the same. The former tries to get you off the other guy's the hook, the latter tries to put the other guy on your hook.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't have a counter-claim against Sony. Not if it's a "my property, I can hack it if I want" counter-claim. That ain't no kinda counter-claim. That's just some bullshit that will get you nothing more than laughed outta court.

Violation of the digital privacy act to use the defendants own personal information against the defendant with attempting to defame charactor by violating personal rights to personal property.

 

[JDKJ]

If sony wants to sue me for jailbreaking thier systems then bring it on. My legal team would love to make money in a counter-suit vs sony.

What would your legal team raise as a claim against Sony in that counter-suit?

I cant discuss a possible defense but if it were to happen lets just say personal property is personal.

I hope it isn't your "legal team" that's confusing a defense with a counter-claim. The two aren't the the same. The former tries to get you off the other guy's the hook, the latter tries to put the other guy on your hook.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't have a counter-claim against Sony. Not if it's a "my property, I can hack it if I want" counter-claim. That ain't no kinda counter-claim. That's just some bullshit that will get you nothing more than laughed outta court.

Violation of the digital privacy act to use the defendants own personal information against the defendant with attempting to defame charactor by violating personal rights to personal property.

Yep, just as I thought: you ain't got no kinda counter-claim other than the kind that will without a doubt get you laughed outta court.

I hope you ain't payin' your "legal team" good money for that kinda advice. If you are, then consider suing them for malpractice. That's a safer bet than your "counter-claim."

 

[mxfox408]

If sony wants to sue me for jailbreaking thier systems then bring it on. My legal team would love to make money in a counter-suit vs sony.

What would your legal team raise as a claim against Sony in that counter-suit?

I cant discuss a possible defense but if it were to happen lets just say personal property is personal.

I hope it isn't your "legal team" that's confusing a defense with a counter-claim. The two aren't the the same. The former tries to get you off the other guy's the hook, the latter tries to put the other guy on your hook.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't have a counter-claim against Sony. Not if it's a "my property, I can hack it if I want" counter-claim. That ain't no kinda counter-claim. That's just some bullshit that will get you nothing more than laughed outta court.

Violation of the digital privacy act to use the defendants own personal information against the defendant with attempting to defame charactor by violating personal rights to personal property.

Yep, just as I thought: you ain't got no kinda counter-claim other the kind that will without a doubt get you laughed outta court.

I hope you ain't payin' your "legal team" good money for that kinda advice.

Youd be suprised with what violating small and simple laws from corporations attacks can cause thier case to be tossed out, but have effectivly mounted a counter claim in the past with a somewhat simular case, which caused the client to loose thier job so that defame of charactor counter-claim was built around along with finacial distress. Story short im no lawer but I organize cases, and we had won this particular case and our client collected.

 

[JDKJ]

If sony wants to sue me for jailbreaking thier systems then bring it on. My legal team would love to make money in a counter-suit vs sony.

What would your legal team raise as a claim against Sony in that counter-suit?

I cant discuss a possible defense but if it were to happen lets just say personal property is personal.

I hope it isn't your "legal team" that's confusing a defense with a counter-claim. The two aren't the the same. The former tries to get you off the other guy's the hook, the latter tries to put the other guy on your hook.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't have a counter-claim against Sony. Not if it's a "my property, I can hack it if I want" counter-claim. That ain't no kinda counter-claim. That's just some bullshit that will get you nothing more than laughed outta court.

Violation of the digital privacy act to use the defendants own personal information against the defendant with attempting to defame charactor by violating personal rights to personal property.

Yep, just as I thought: you ain't got no kinda counter-claim other the kind that will without a doubt get you laughed outta court.

I hope you ain't payin' your "legal team" good money for that kinda advice.

Youd be suprised with what violating small and simple laws from corporations attacks can cause thier case to be tossed out, but have effectivly mounted a counter claim in the past with a somewhat simular case, which caused the client to loose thier job so that defame of charactor counter-claim was built around along with finacial distress. Story short im no lawer but I organize cases, and we had won this particular case and our client collected.

There's no such thing as an "attempted defamation." I've either defamed you or I haven't. If all I do is attempt to defame you, then I haven't succeeded in causing you an injury to your character. If you haven't suffered an injury to your character, then you've got no claim for defamation. If you don't have an injury, you don't have a lawsuit. That's true not just for defamation -- it's true for all lawsuits.

Shoot me an e-mail. We'll work together on suing your "legal team" for malpractice. I think that'll be a much better claim. : P