Geohot Hints at Plans After Sony Settlement

[Macrobstar]

This guy is awesome! Why do you guys dislike him so much?

Sony has got some big fucking issues when it comes to DRM and the likes, so it is only good when someone calls them out on their crap; especially if they also hack their products.

Since when did PS3 have DRM?

Since initial launch. Although that's not what SCEA calls it, they call it "TPN." But six o' one, half dozen o' the other. Same thing: software code that thwarts, at least in theory, the ability to play pirated materials with a PS3. That would be the thing that SCEA claimed the Hotz hack circumvented.

Well I can see why they would have that, you do know people shouldn't be playing pirated software

 

[Macrobstar]

i never liked this guy. he's smart enough to jail break the ps3 but not smart enough to relise pirates will use it to pirate games?

so what if other people use it to pirate games?

It is his legally bought hardware, and he ought to do what he damn well please with it.
Which in his case is installing Linux on it.

Which was an advertised feature that Sony later removed.

Thank the gods I live in a country where my personal property is mine to do with as I see fit.

What you don't see sony in the right for trying protect there business from piracy? Also if you bought a PS3 just to run linux then you're a bit of an idiot

Sure they have the right to protect their buisness from piracy.

But that right does not in any way override the right I have to do as I see fit with my legally bought hardware.

And at no point does it give you the right to pirate games from game developers either, which is what most of these hackers are doing

 

[The_Fezz]

Oh no! Is that a PS3 controller on my lap?

I'd best burn it before they sue me!

But honestly it's his own fault; if he'd just shown a few friends or just kept it to himself he wouldn't have had to make a dreadful rap video!

Or end up getting sued, but mainly the first one.

I'm going back to playing the wii, that way I won't feel as though he's judging me.

 

[JDKJ]

OMB, I so totally CARE!!! [/sarcasm]

Seriously, this guy's fifteen minutes have been up since he booked it to South America. He needs to disappear now before he gets slammed by the law again.

Or maybe not. It'd probably be more entertaining if he didn't.

A commenter by the name of WoW wasn't satisfied with the settlement and used a football analogy to describe Sony and Hotz. "When I pay to watch my favorite team play soccer, I give the club the money and I expect the team to go out there and do their best. What I hate to see is them rolling over and giving up before the final whistle."

"That's one way to look at it," George responded. "Another way is that they are saving their strength for games where the refs aren't biased and that actually have much more importance to the rest of the season."

So... By refs, I'm guessing he means judges? A jury?

Cause, I can think of a very good reason why they'd be "biased".

Here's what I'm surmising: Judges have a way of sending subtle signals to the litigants appearing before them of the way they're leaning on a particular case or on a particular issue of a case. I suspect that the Judge in Hotz' case was signaling her intent to rule in favor of SCEA on Hotz' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and may have even been signaling her opinion that SCEA's case against Hotz wasn't looking good for Hotz. It's not unheard of that judges advise litigants that a settlement would probably be in their best interest. I think that's what happened in the Hotz case: the Judge put the writing on the wall for Hotz to read. So he smartly hurried up and settled before SCEA grabbed him by his ankles, held him upside down, and shook every last dime from his pockets. But that's just my speculation.

 

[Verkula]

Cool, then maybe you wont F up the next console for us, who actually use the damn thing to play games.

 

[Emergent]

No, there doesn't appear to be any evidence of that. But there does appear to be a truckload of evidence that he facilitated piracy.

What is "facilitating piracy" anyway? When does it begin, where does it stop, how EXACTLY do you differentiate between the "intended" purposes of one piece of hardware or software and other, possible, purposes it may be put to. Extra points for remembering that, in this case, the manufacturer reserves the rights to change said "intended purposes" after the sale, and without notice or recompense to the consumer.

From the point of view that there is anything inherently criminal to "facilitating piracy", Viacomm, Charter, AOL, and Comcast are all culpable, too, by providing services ("facilitating") that can be used to "pirate" software.

Hell, from that point of view, the manufacturers of HARD DRIVES are "facilitating piracy." For that matter, so is Gamestop, Walmart, Best Buy, and Steam (to name a few), because if you couldn't BUY the game in the first place, no one could STEAL it.

And since we're so fond of pushing things to frankly absurd logical extremes, Sony employees facilitated piracy when they tweeted the root code, and the utility companies that allow pirates to power their illicit devices are to blame, too, and maybe even housing contractors, for providing personal venues in which one may, under the right circumstances, commit unlicensed software distribution (similar to how GeoHot's hack might help one to pirate- under the right circumstances and after having gone through much personal effort and expense. Okay, so exactly like that.).

We might as well throw people who make screwdrivers into the mix, too, because it would be pretty fucking difficult to "facilitate piracy" through modifying consoles if you couldn't remove the case in the first place. And hammers. Because while a screwdriver would facilitate piracy better, a good sturdy hammer would work in a pinch. Maybe we should throw in rocks, too, because if you didn't have a hammer, you could probably use a rock, if you were careful. Who do we sue about the rocks, again?

Anyway, we should probably see them all in chains (including those Sony employees responsible for their fake twitter account), because NO ONE should be allowed to do anything that might aid unlicensed software distribution. After all, it is the sovereign duty of the United States of America's judiciary to spend tax dollars protecting Sony of Japan from anyone who might wish to facilitate behaviors that, while not strictly illegal, are detrimental to that company's bottom line.

Yeah, in retrospect, I guess I see your argument. Consider me converted to your point of view.

 

[Shinotama]

So much more could have come from this, Sony really need a kick in the ass to realize that they will never become 'Umbrella'..

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Kind of weak. He hacks the PS3, but after he loses he just boycotts them? Disappointingly small and of course will not do shit to persuade Sony to do anything else.

Come on, Hotz...

 

[InsomniJack]

A commenter by the name of WoW wasn't satisfied with the settlement and used a football analogy to describe Sony and Hotz. "When I pay to watch my favorite team play soccer, I give the club the money and I expect the team to go out there and do their best. What I hate to see is them rolling over and giving up before the final whistle."

"That's one way to look at it," George responded. "Another way is that they are saving their strength for games where the refs aren't biased and that actually have much more importance to the rest of the season."

So... By refs, I'm guessing he means judges? A jury?

Cause, I can think of a very good reason why they'd be "biased".

Here's what I'm surmising: Judges have a way of sending subtle signals to the litigants appearing before them of the way they're leaning on a particular case or on a particular issue of a case. I suspect that the Judge in Hotz' case was signaling her intent to rule in favor of SCEA on Hotz' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and may have even been signaling her opinion that SCEA's case against Hotz wasn't looking good for Hotz. It's not unheard of that judges advise litigants that a settlement would probably be in their best interest. I think that's what happened in the Hotz case: the Judge put the writing on the wall for Hotz to read. So he smartly hurried up and settled before SCEA grabbed him by his ankles, held him upside down, and shook every last dime from his pockets. But that's just my speculation.

That makes sense, yeah, but why would he call them biased, then? I could see that if the judge was being paid under the table by Sony to rule in their favor, maybe even if the judge doesn't like hackers. But since what that guy did was technically illegal, wouldn't a guilty verdict be the most unbiased thing, since it follows the statute of 'if you did something illegal and we have evidence of it, you're gonna be found guilty by a court of law?" Cause that's pretty much been how the court system's operated for many years, and I've never heard a defendant say "they were biased against me".

 

[AlexWinter]

I wonder if Anonymous fuck this guy over. If he's got his details on the internet I think it's only a matter of time before some hacker that donated money to him dishes out some vigilante justice.

 

[Rivers Wells]

Kid did wrong, kid was punished, kid complains and sets himself up as a martyr. I'm sorry, but any deeper morality issues aside, he did something he wasn't supposed to do, which he knew he shouldn't (I don't care what he says), and was sued.

He's not a martyr, he's an over zealous, self entitled brat and I don't feel bad for him. For that matter, I definitely don't look for him to "fight (my) fight". What fight? The fight to do something remarkably stupid like jailbreak a major console and post that you did it online?

And even if you agree with him about the rights he has to his console, which I completely appreciate the argument over and think its worth discussing further, why fight it by asking money from people who probably just want you to make it easier to pirate games and steal from a failing industry they claim to support and then backing down when you can finally fight for what you apparently really believe no matter how flawed it is?

 

[Twilight_guy]

I'm afraid I don't understand the logic of fighting the good fight by not fighting and instead waiting. You're going to have to explain how doing nothing equals doing something, becuse I'm confused here mr. hacker man.

I know that this guy might just be trying to save face since he looks really bad right now but why can't he just return the money, say that he can't talk about it anymore, which he can't, and then just let himself fade into obscurity. He's had his 5 minutes and its time for something else to happen now.

 

[JDKJ]

A commenter by the name of WoW wasn't satisfied with the settlement and used a football analogy to describe Sony and Hotz. "When I pay to watch my favorite team play soccer, I give the club the money and I expect the team to go out there and do their best. What I hate to see is them rolling over and giving up before the final whistle."

"That's one way to look at it," George responded. "Another way is that they are saving their strength for games where the refs aren't biased and that actually have much more importance to the rest of the season."

So... By refs, I'm guessing he means judges? A jury?

Cause, I can think of a very good reason why they'd be "biased".

Here's what I'm surmising: Judges have a way of sending subtle signals to the litigants appearing before them of the way they're leaning on a particular case or on a particular issue of a case. I suspect that the Judge in Hotz' case was signaling her intent to rule in favor of SCEA on Hotz' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and may have even been signaling her opinion that SCEA's case against Hotz wasn't looking good for Hotz. It's not unheard of that judges advise litigants that a settlement would probably be in their best interest. I think that's what happened in the Hotz case: the Judge put the writing on the wall for Hotz to read. So he smartly hurried up and settled before SCEA grabbed him by his ankles, held him upside down, and shook every last dime from his pockets. But that's just my speculation.

That makes sense, yeah, but why would he call them biased, then? I could see that if the judge was being paid under the table by Sony to rule in their favor, maybe even if the judge doesn't like hackers. But since what that guy did was technically illegal, wouldn't a guilty verdict be the most unbiased thing, since it follows the statute of 'if you did something illegal and we have evidence of it, you're gonna be found guilty by a court of law?" Cause that's pretty much been how the court system's operated for many years, and I've never heard a defendant say "they were biased against me".

Because in the screwed up mind of George Hotz, anyone who doesn't see things the same way he see them must be "biased."

It's not an uncommon phenomenon. Think OJ's trial. Think OJ's acquittal by jury. Think Nancy Grace accusing all the black people on OJ's jury of being "biased." Unfortunately, for some people that's a lot easier to do than to even consider the possibility that maybe OJ didn't kill them two white people.

 

[JDKJ]

No, there doesn't appear to be any evidence of that. But there does appear to be a truckload of evidence that he facilitated piracy.

What is "facilitating piracy" anyway? When does it begin, where does it stop, how EXACTLY do you differentiate between the "intended" purposes of one piece of hardware or software and other, possible, purposes it may be put to. Extra points for remembering that, in this case, the manufacturer reserves the rights to change said "intended purposes" after the sale, and without notice or recompense to the consumer.

From the point of view that there is anything inherently criminal to "facilitating piracy", Viacomm, Charter, AOL, and Comcast are all culpable, too, by providing services ("facilitating") that can be used to "pirate" software.

Hell, from that point of view, the manufacturers of HARD DRIVES are "facilitating piracy." For that matter, so is Gamestop, Walmart, Best Buy, and Steam (to name a few), because if you couldn't BUY the game in the first place, no one could STEAL it.

And since we're so fond of pushing things to frankly absurd logical extremes, Sony employees facilitated piracy when they tweeted the root code, and the utility companies that allow pirates to power their illicit devices are to blame, too, and maybe even housing contractors, for providing personal venues in which one may, under the right circumstances, commit unlicensed software distribution (similar to how GeoHot's hack might help one to pirate- under the right circumstances and after having gone through much personal effort and expense. Okay, so exactly like that.).

We might as well throw people who make screwdrivers into the mix, too, because it would be pretty fucking difficult to "facilitate piracy" through modifying consoles if you couldn't remove the case in the first place. And hammers. Because while a screwdriver would facilitate piracy better, a good sturdy hammer would work in a pinch. Maybe we should throw in rocks, too, because if you didn't have a hammer, you could probably use a rock, if you were careful. Who do we sue about the rocks, again?

Anyway, we should probably see them all in chains (including those Sony employees responsible for their fake twitter account), because NO ONE should be allowed to do anything that might aid unlicensed software distribution. After all, it is the sovereign duty of the United States of America's judiciary to spend tax dollars protecting Sony of Japan from anyone who might wish to facilitate behaviors that, while not strictly illegal, are detrimental to that company's bottom line.

Yeah, in retrospect, I guess I see your argument. Consider me converted to your point of view.

Contributory infringement results when somebody knows of the direct infringement of another and substantially participates in that infringement, such as inducing, causing, or materially contributing to the infringing conduct. That substantial participation could take the form of providing a device or service that facilitates the infringement if that device or service has no substantial use other than infringement. See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. 545 U.S. 913, 936-37 (2005) (holding that an entity that distributes software that permits computer users to share copyrighted works through peer-to-peer networks "with the objective of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement," may also be held contributorily liable for the direct infringement of third parties).

 

[Sikratua]

Sony can still bully others, whereas a ruling in GeoHot's favour would have likely set precedent for us to actually have some level of consumer protection from such suits.

So nothing's changed, except a bunch of people who donated money won't see it used for its express purpose and people are less likely to rally behind someone else. How is this a win for anyone but Sony and their litigious attitude?

Nintendo v. Tengen

There already IS a precident in this. And, that precident is on Sony's side. It is a violation of law to reverse engineer a root code from proprietary software, in order to circumvent that root code. Seriously, it's been on the books for 20 years.

Frankly, I'm more than slightly upset at Sony for allowing Hotz to walk away with no harm done to anything but his reputation. They had every opportunity to make an example of out him, since the law is 100% on Sony's side. The iPhone doesn't matter, since the case I'm referencing is directly on point. I would have loved to have seen his mouth get shut, and someone actually take a stand, for once, for the people who provide the goods and service, rather than for those who simply wish to ***** and moan about the fact that people get money for providing things that people want.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Boycott Sony products?

Fuck you, I'm not giving up my PS3, 5.1 surround sound system, and TV just because you are advocating it. Sounds to me, Mr. Hotz, that you are just pissed because you didn't get your way like you did with Apple.

You are not fighting "the good fight" on my behalf, maybe for other people, but not for me. I can't stand this guy, I never supported this guy and in light of these comments, I never will in the future.

Stop being a whinny little ***** and move on.

 

[Chameliondude]

Im not sure why all the hate towards him, I would probably freak out too if a multinational company was trying to sue me. expecially as he has a small legal team against a multi million pound case from sony

for the record, he did nothing illegal, only what might piss a few people off after they broke their own agreement anyway.

 

[JDKJ]

Sony can still bully others, whereas a ruling in GeoHot's favour would have likely set precedent for us to actually have some level of consumer protection from such suits.

So nothing's changed, except a bunch of people who donated money won't see it used for its express purpose and people are less likely to rally behind someone else. How is this a win for anyone but Sony and their litigious attitude?

Nintendo v. Tengen

There already IS a precident in this. And, that precident is on Sony's side. It is a violation of law to reverse engineer a root code from proprietary software, in order to circumvent that root code. Seriously, it's been on the books for 20 years.

Frankly, I'm more than slightly upset at Sony for allowing Hotz to walk away with no harm done to anything but his reputation. They had every opportunity to make an example of out him, since the law is 100% on Sony's side. The iPhone doesn't matter, since the case I'm referencing is directly on point. I would have loved to have seen his mouth get shut, and someone actually take a stand, for once, for the people who provide the goods and service, rather than for those who simply wish to ***** and moan about the fact that people get money for providing things that people want.

I think from Sony's perspective that they've made their point. I certainly would think twice before I did what Hotz did for fear of ending up in his shoes. Once you've reached a certain point on the "deterrence" curve, anything beyond that point may be "diminishing returns."

And I wish to the Heavens above that all the idiots who make the feeble-minded comparison to Hotz' iPhone jaibreak would actually go and read the Register's opinion in that case. It was decided on facts that are completely distinguishable from the facts of Hotz' PS3 jailbreak.

If you're ever looking for someone making an apples to oranges comparison, just visit the Escapist forums and look no further.

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

No, there doesn't appear to be any evidence of that. But there does appear to be a truckload of evidence that he facilitated piracy.

What is "facilitating piracy" anyway? When does it begin, where does it stop, how EXACTLY do you differentiate between the "intended" purposes of one piece of hardware or software and other, possible, purposes it may be put to. Extra points for remembering that, in this case, the manufacturer reserves the rights to change said "intended purposes" after the sale, and without notice or recompense to the consumer.

From the point of view that there is anything inherently criminal to "facilitating piracy", Viacomm, Charter, AOL, and Comcast are all culpable, too, by providing services ("facilitating") that can be used to "pirate" software.

Hell, from that point of view, the manufacturers of HARD DRIVES are "facilitating piracy." For that matter, so is Gamestop, Walmart, Best Buy, and Steam (to name a few), because if you couldn't BUY the game in the first place, no one could STEAL it.

And since we're so fond of pushing things to frankly absurd logical extremes, Sony employees facilitated piracy when they tweeted the root code, and the utility companies that allow pirates to power their illicit devices are to blame, too, and maybe even housing contractors, for providing personal venues in which one may, under the right circumstances, commit unlicensed software distribution (similar to how GeoHot's hack might help one to pirate- under the right circumstances and after having gone through much personal effort and expense. Okay, so exactly like that.).

We might as well throw people who make screwdrivers into the mix, too, because it would be pretty fucking difficult to "facilitate piracy" through modifying consoles if you couldn't remove the case in the first place. And hammers. Because while a screwdriver would facilitate piracy better, a good sturdy hammer would work in a pinch. Maybe we should throw in rocks, too, because if you didn't have a hammer, you could probably use a rock, if you were careful. Who do we sue about the rocks, again?

Anyway, we should probably see them all in chains (including those Sony employees responsible for their fake twitter account), because NO ONE should be allowed to do anything that might aid unlicensed software distribution. After all, it is the sovereign duty of the United States of America's judiciary to spend tax dollars protecting Sony of Japan from anyone who might wish to facilitate behaviors that, while not strictly illegal, are detrimental to that company's bottom line.

Yeah, in retrospect, I guess I see your argument. Consider me converted to your point of view.

Contributory infringement results when somebody knows of the direct infringement of another and substantially participates in that infringement, such as inducing, causing, or materially contributing to the infringing conduct. That substantial participation could take the form of providing a device or service that facilitates the infringement if that device or service has no substantial use other than infringement. See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. 545 U.S. 913, 936-37 (2005) (holding that an entity that distributes software that permits computer users to share copyrighted works through peer-to-peer networks "with the objective of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement," may also be held contributorily liable for the direct infringement of third parties).

honest reason why do people buy blank dvd's or 1tb external hard drives? I will give you a moment to think on this....done? Just because something is there doesn't mean people are going to use it for those means, it's the person that chooses to break the law and pirate and well guess what there isn't a thing we can do about it, I don't see a reasonable reason to pirate ps3 games and here are my top 3 why
1. they are over 20-50 gigs on most games
2. Your Ip will catch on the use of bandwidth
3. If you have a cap then your screwed out the a**
I did hack my ps3 at a point to see where it was going but ehh I didn't care for it. The Wii has done it better and so has the psp, i don't see a real practical reason to, not unless there is some miracle coder that could do a ps2 emulator on slim line models then whatever. Join the boycott on Sony?? No thanks I know how much I am getting fuc*ed over by them but there isn't a damn thing I can do about it.

 

[Emergent]

Contributory infringement results when somebody knows of the direct infringement of another and substantially participates in that infringement, such as inducing, causing, or materially contributing to the infringing conduct. That substantial participation could take the form of providing a device or service that facilitates the infringement if that device or service has no substantial use other than infringement. See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. 545 U.S. 913, 936-37 (2005) (holding that an entity that distributes software that permits computer users to share copyrighted works through peer-to-peer networks "with the objective of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement," may also be held contributorily liable for the direct infringement of third parties).

Since you didn't really come out and say it, I'm going to have to assume you're equating "contributory infringement" with "facilitating piracy." It's the "no substantial use other than infringement" bit where your equivocation falls apart in reference to the Hotz vs. Sony case. Feel free to go back to Google and try again, though.

I'll be waiting.

I'm also waiting for any sort of reference to a legal definition of the crime of "facilitating piracy." I'll give you a hint: There isn't one.