Geohot Hints at Plans After Sony Settlement

[subtlefuge]

Oh, so he's Batman now? It's fine, we obviously couldn't understand what he's trying to do.

 

[Sikratua]

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."

More often than not, when a person shows mercy, that kindness is seen as weakness. If you have any doubt, take a look at the posts from people who support Hotz. Sometimes, there is no substitute for a curb stomp. This was one of those times, and Sony missed the opportunity.

 

[JDKJ]

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.

I wasn't equating "facilitating piracy" with "contributory infringement" (which, incidentally, was a claim raised against Hotz by Sony's complaint) nor did I ever say that facilitating piracy was a crime. If I recall correctly, I said, in response to your correct assertion that Hotz doesn't appear to be a pirate that he does appear to have facilitated piracy. If I open my mouth wide, would that help you in stuffing words I never said down my throat?

And clearly -- or, at least, clearly to me -- facilitating "piracy" (which is somewhat synonymous with "infringement") is an integral aspect of "contributory infringement." That's essentially how you get on the hook for contributory infringement: by "facilitating" the infringing conduct of others.

And I don't know if "no substantial use other than infringement" is where the "equivocation" you mistakenly claim I make falls apart, but I do know that "no substantial use other than infringement" is the issue upon which SCEA's claims against Hotz of contributory infringement and violation of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions would have turned. But that's at best an academic discussion given Hotz' settlement and one in which I can't be bothered to engage for lack of its real world importance.

 

[JDKJ]

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."

More often than not, when a person shows mercy, that kindness is seen as weakness. If you have any doubt, take a look at the posts from people who support Hotz. Sometimes, there is no substitute for a curb stomp. This was one of those times, and Sony missed the opportunity.

You gotta point there. I'm mind-boggled by the amount of Hotz supporters who can actually claim that the settlement was a "victory" for Hotz. I'm like, "Huh? Did you read the same settlement stipulation I read?! You couldn't have, or you wouldn't be thinking that it's a victory for Hotz."

But if you're looking for someone willing to voice an opinion without reading the underlying documents, just visit the Escapist forums and look no further.

 

[Emergent]

I wasn't equating "facilitating piracy" with "contributory infringement" (which, incidentally, was a claim raised against Hotz by Sony's complaint) nor did I ever say that facilitating piracy was a crime. If I recall correctly, I said, in response to your correct assertion that Hotz doesn't appear to be a pirate that he does appear to have facilitated piracy. If I open my mouth wide, would that help you in stuffing words I never said down my throat?

And clearly -- or, at least, clearly to me -- facilitating "piracy" (which is somewhat synonymous with "infringement") is an integral aspect of "contributory infringement." That's essentially how you get on the hook for contributory infringement: by "facilitating" the infringing conduct of others.

And I don't know if "no substantial use other than infringement" is where the "equivocation" you mistakenly claim I make falls apart, but I do know that "no substantial use other than infringement" is the issue upon which SCEA's claims against Hotz of contributory infringement and violation of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions would have turned. But that's at best an academic discussion given Hotz' settlement and one in which I can't be bothered to engage for lack of real world importance.

I'm going to take this one in small bites, because you're really jumping the shark here.

I wasn't equating "facilitating piracy" with "contributory infringement" (which, incidentally, was a claim raised against Hotz by Sony's complaint) nor did I ever say that facilitating piracy was a crime.

Okay, so "facilitating piracy" and "contributory infringement" are, in fact, two different things. Good, we agree on one thing, at least.

And clearly -- or, at least, clearly to me -- facilitating "piracy" (which is somewhat synonymous with "infringement") is an integral aspect of "contributory infringement." That's essentially how you get on the hook for contributory infringement: by "facilitating" the infringing conduct of others.

The mistake here, as I see it, is that you are conflating your own personal beliefs about what the law should be with what it actually is. "facilitating piracy" isn't a term with ANY legal meaning, at all. It is neither integral nor even relevant to a charge of contributory infringement, because it is literally a MEANINGLESS STATEMENT in any legal sense.

And I don't know if "no substantial use other than infringement" is where the "equivocation" you mistakenly claim I make falls apart, but I do know that "no substantial use other than infringement" is the issue upon which SCEA's claims against Hotz of contributory infringement and violation of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions would have turned.

Here I just want to point out that you do not have mental powers the rest of us do not. You are not psychic, you do not have in inside line on how "the claims would have turned" or any other sort of self-aggrandizing nonsense. You don't know what Hotz's lawyer was thinking, you don't know what Sony's legal strategy was going to be, nor which way the judge was "leaning" before she heard the evidence of the case (if she was leaning either way at all before being presented evidence she isn't much of a judge).

If I'm wrong, and you do in fact have fantastic mental prowess never before seen on this earth, please feel free to demonstrate them in a less ambiguous way than you have at present. Until then I humbly suggest you stick to facts, especially when trying to present yourself as some kind of authority on legal matters (it would help if you were less directly insulting to guys like dan, too, especially when his arguments kind of destroyed yours).

 

[omega_peaches]

"Wah wah I am a fucking cocksucking douchebag that ruined games for tons of people so now I'm boycotting Sony."
Geohotz is pretty bro.

 

[JDKJ]

I wasn't equating "facilitating piracy" with "contributory infringement" (which, incidentally, was a claim raised against Hotz by Sony's complaint) nor did I ever say that facilitating piracy was a crime. If I recall correctly, I said, in response to your correct assertion that Hotz doesn't appear to be a pirate that he does appear to have facilitated piracy. If I open my mouth wide, would that help you in stuffing words I never said down my throat?

And clearly -- or, at least, clearly to me -- facilitating "piracy" (which is somewhat synonymous with "infringement") is an integral aspect of "contributory infringement." That's essentially how you get on the hook for contributory infringement: by "facilitating" the infringing conduct of others.

And I don't know if "no substantial use other than infringement" is where the "equivocation" you mistakenly claim I make falls apart, but I do know that "no substantial use other than infringement" is the issue upon which SCEA's claims against Hotz of contributory infringement and violation of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions would have turned. But that's at best an academic discussion given Hotz' settlement and one in which I can't be bothered to engage for lack of real world importance.

I'm going to take this one in small bites, because you're really jumping the shark here.

I wasn't equating "facilitating piracy" with "contributory infringement" (which, incidentally, was a claim raised against Hotz by Sony's complaint) nor did I ever say that facilitating piracy was a crime.

Okay, so "facilitating piracy" and "contributory infringement" are, in fact, two different things. Good, we agree on one thing, at least.

And clearly -- or, at least, clearly to me -- facilitating "piracy" (which is somewhat synonymous with "infringement") is an integral aspect of "contributory infringement." That's essentially how you get on the hook for contributory infringement: by "facilitating" the infringing conduct of others.

The mistake here, as I see it, is that you are conflating your own personal beliefs about what the law should be with what it actually is. "facilitating piracy" isn't a term with ANY legal meaning, at all. It is neither integral nor even relevant to a charge of contributory infringement, because it is literally a MEANINGLESS STATEMENT in any legal sense.

And I don't know if "no substantial use other than infringement" is where the "equivocation" you mistakenly claim I make falls apart, but I do know that "no substantial use other than infringement" is the issue upon which SCEA's claims against Hotz of contributory infringement and violation of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions would have turned.

Here I just want to point out that you do not have mental powers the rest of us do not. You are not psychic, you do not have in inside line on how "the claims would have turned" or any other sort of self-aggrandizing nonsense. You don't know what Hotz's lawyer was thinking, you don't know what Sony's legal strategy was going to be, nor which way the judge was "leaning" before she heard the evidence of the case (if she was leaning either way at all before being presented evidence she isn't much of a judge).

If I'm wrong, and you do in fact have fantastic mental prowess never before seen on this earth, please feel free to demonstrate them in a less ambiguous way than you have at present. Until then I humbly suggest you stick to facts, especially when trying to present yourself as some kind of authority on legal matters (it would help if you were less directly insulting to guys like dan, too, especially when his arguments kind of destroyed yours).

You might have failed to firmly grasp the most important part of my post, so let me essentially repeat it: [All that "blah, blah, blah" you just said above is] at best an academic discussion given Hotz' settlement and one in which I can't be bothered to engage [with you] for lack of its real world importance.

Capiche?

 

[slipknot4]

"As of 4/11/11, I am joining the SONY boycott. I will never purchase another SONY product," Hotz wrote yesterday. "I encourage you to do the same. And if you bought something SONY recently, return it."

Yeah... fuck you.

My thoughts exactly, he's just pissed because he got based by Sony...

 

[Jumplion]

I really want to talk to both parties, personally, even though that is supremely unlikely.

Like I said since the very beginning of this case, nobody wins. No matter what the outcome of this lawsuit, we, the consumers, would lose.

I get Sony's position. They're paranoid. They want to protect their product/services for their customers. While they're not altruistic in any sense of the word, but they want to give the best to their consumers and make sure pirates don't take the hard work of the developers. In that respect, I support them.

I get GeoHotz's position. He wants to be able to use his product the way he deems suitable. Whether or not the whole issue is about hardware or software (two distinct things), I have no idea, but he is fighting for consumer rights in some form. In that respect, I support him.

However, GeoHotz had no right to release Sony's security root key. That is Sony's and Sony's alone, and even if he didn't intend for it to be used in piracy, that is irrelevant because it is secured information. That is Sony's property and it is dangerous information in the wrong hands. That is illegal, and I have no sympathy for him in that regard.

However, Sony, and every other electronics company out there, need to stop with their bullshit EULAs/ToS/whatever bullshit contract crap that only serves as a method of controlling the consumer both hardware and software wise. They give you pages upon pages of legal mumbo-jumbo, and nobody reads the damn things that could very well do all sorts of stuff hidden in the text dumps. That is dickish, and I have no sympathy for them in that regard.

*Sigh* This sucks no matter how you look at it. Can't we all just get along? I know it's absolute ridiculous, but I would love to talk with Tretton and/or George personally, just to get exactly what I'm saying across to them.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

My hat is off to you Hotz.

Not because you won or did something great, oh no. Because you deceived me. I can generally tell when people are lying to me, yet I fell for your statements. I thought you wanted to fight for the ?little guy? (Little that I care for him), and I supported you.

So congratulations, you have tricked me once, but I shalln?t allow it to happen again

EDIT: And no, I didn't give any money to him

 

[Emergent]

You might have failed to firmly grasp the most important part of my post, so let me essentially repeat it: [All that "blah, blah, blah" you just said above is] at best an academic discussion given Hotz' settlement and one in which I can't be bothered to engage [with you] for lack of its real world importance.

As a literally irrelevant statement, I didn't so much fail to grasp it as casually disregard it's importance. This is an internet forum. What kind of discussion where you trying to have?

 

[JDKJ]

You might have failed to firmly grasp the most important part of my post, so let me essentially repeat it: [All that "blah, blah, blah" you just said above is] at best an academic discussion given Hotz' settlement and one in which I can't be bothered to engage [with you] for lack of its real world importance.

As a literally irrelevant statement, I didn't so much fail to grasp it as casually disregard it's importance. This is an internet forum. What kind of discussion where you trying to have?

And this point, quite frankly, none with you.

EDIT: And in the interest of full disclosure, my disinclination has less to do with the academic nature of the discussion and more to do with my having grown weary of your elementary school rhetorical ploys such as putting words in my mouth I never even came close to saying and thereby forcing me to spend more time correcting the record than I do engaged in substantive discussion. I don't know about anyone else but, on me, that shit grows old quickly and disinclines me from further discussion.

 

[ProjectTrinity]

I recall someone(s) mentioning that Geo was an excuse(?) to take away Linux? Any actual non-conspiracy reasons on why? Because as it stands, I'm willing to accept the end of the story as such:

-Geo starts garbage
-Sony takes Linux away due to garbage
-Geo and his supporters forget that Geo's the "excuse" that we lost Linux to begin with
-Geo shows signs of pretentiousness
-Sony takes Geo to court
-Pretentiousness blows up via rap video
-Internet amazement blows up 44x by giving him donations to battle the "big meanie company".
-A moment of lols when that trip to South Africa came out / Shame on Sony
-Geo settles, but before his drama dies down, he offers up more words of pretentiousness.
-The epic foreshadowing that practically everyone siding with Sony or even observing on the sidelines finally creep up on Geo's side that he isn't anything special. Just an arrogant kid who seems to either get mocked or hated on every time he opens his mouth - with reason. Oh, and he has your donation money. Where does that go, I wonder?

To conclude: I refuse to ever side with anyone who causes wide-ranged inconveniences that are bound to happen just so he can do whatever he wants because he owns it. I dropped such mentalities a long time ago. And I mean long time ago.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

"As of 4/11/11, I am joining the Sony boycott. I will never purchase another Sony product," Hotz wrote yesterday [http://geohotgotsued.blogspot.com/2011/04/joining-sony-boycott.html]. "I encourage you to do the same. And if you bought something Sony recently, return it."

Riiight, because most of the people supporting him were definitely going to BUY sony products.

 

[Emergent]

And this point, quite frankly, none with you.

Don't start none, won't be none.

EDIT: @JDKJ's edit: if you don't like having your points debated rhetorically, please cease backing your arguments up with logical fallacies and outright fabrications such as claiming to know what the defense, judge, and prosecutors were thinking, frequent appeals to authority, and outright attacking the person of another (seriously, you owe dan an apology).

 

[gphjr14]

So pretty much if you do something you know will be used illegally but that wasn't your your intention, that makes it OK. Too bad the law doesn't feel that way. Just ask Limewire.

Dammit, you're right. We should totally outlaw VCRs, DVRs, CD and DVD burners, and the internet. They can all be used for illegal purposes, so we should hold their creators, developers, producers and distributors liable.

Apple and oranges, nice try though (not really)

As a reasonably intelligent person who was knowledgeable about the technology Geohot couldn't have possibly thought "Gee waaay more people will use these codes to install Linux even though most PS3 owners haven't, nor plan to, and the number of those who will pirate will be minuscule in comparison."

I'm sure you or someone else will retort "Well you can't say for certain what Geohot's thoughts were at the time." and such a statement is true and would work in court.

But seriously there's no way, again in the reasonable logical mind of an adult, that he thought this would be used mostly for installing another OS. Prior to the PS3 being cracked the sole motive for cracking the PS3 was to augment and curtail the security of the PS3 to enable pirating. If you're gonna pirate just be real about it. Don't hide behind BS claims of fighting for a greater cause, and paint Geohot as some hero standing in the shadow of an evil corporation.

 

[ionveau]

I dont see why any PS3 owner would be apposed to this guy, you know unless your so brain washed that only the idea of piracy would make you turn your friends to the police in the name of saving some faceless corporation a few penny's as they plan on sucking as much money from you as if your a sheep.

This is why PC gaming is dying and console gaming is growing

PC games make the most money from moms/old people/little kids/people who dont know better
You how? when i bought my computer i had games installed on it, i was like sweet i play those games then i see that you can only play 5 games a day after that you need to pay money for extra coins for GAMES ALREADY INSTALLED ON MY COMPUTER
Dont get me wrong these games where not online they where casual puzzle games.

This is how PC games make money


On the flip side we have the console games this is how they make money.

They appeal to the teenage market and brain wash them into thinking that you are a "hardcore" gamer if you spend $60 a week on our pallet swap games "e.g call of duty"
They limit the ways new software can be gotten so your FORCED to buy software THEY give you and in all that time the excuse to lock the console for licensed developers is to prevent "piracy"

That's BS can you imagine if Microsoft sold you a PC then said you cant install a software or product unless its approved by Microsoft first?

Im sorry maybe people like the simple click button pay $60 play game approach to consoles but i dont i would rather see console be turned into sand boxes of opportunity And if you dont then dont use it and stop bashing people moving forward

 

[JDKJ]

So pretty much if you do something you know will be used illegally but that wasn't your your intention, that makes it OK. Too bad the law doesn't feel that way. Just ask Limewire.

Dammit, you're right. We should totally outlaw VCRs, DVRs, CD and DVD burners, and the internet. They can all be used for illegal purposes, so we should hold their creators, developers, producers and distributors liable.

Apple and oranges, nice try though (not really)

As a reasonably intelligent person who was knowledgeable about the technology Geohot couldn't have possibly thought "Gee waaay more people will use these codes to install Linux even though most PS3 owners haven't, nor plan to, and the number of those who will pirate will be minuscule in comparison."

I'm sure you or someone else will retort "Well you can't say for certain what Geohot's thoughts were at the time." and such a statement is true and would work in court.

But seriously there's no way, again in the reasonable logical mind of an adult, that he thought this would be used mostly for installing another OS. Prior to the PS3 being cracked the sole motive for cracking the PS3 was to augment and curtail the security of the PS3 to enable pirating. If you're gonna pirate just be real about it. Don't hide behind BS claims of fighting for a greater cause, and paint Geohot as some hero standing in the shadow of an evil corporation.

Careful, now. Some doo-doo-brain is gonna jump outta the woodwork and insist that you can't possible know what was in Hotz' mind. Even though all the evidence would tend to suggest that your claim as to what was in Hotz' mind is in fact precisely what any other reasonable person would conclude was in his mind. But I guess it's easier to ignore the evidence and the clear conclusion it suggests and, instead, accuse you of attempting to be a clairvoyant.

EDIT: And, just as FYI, every day in countless courtrooms across the country, the finders of fact are called upon to do just that: determine what a defendant's state of mind was at a particular time. This is especially true in criminal trials where the so-called "mens rea" (i.e., "the guilty mind") is more often than not an issue of fact to be determined. How do the fact-finders look into the defendant's mind and determine the mens rea? They do so based on the available evidence and the obvious conclusions to be drawn therefrom. I guess that's "clairvoyance," but it happens, as I said, every day in countless courtrooms.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

Am I the only one who was expecting this?

 

[gphjr14]

Careful, now. Some doo-doo-brain is now gonna jump outta the woodwork and insist that you can't possible know what was in Hotz' mind. Even though all the evidence would tend to suggest that your claim as to what was in Hotz' mind is in fact precisely what any other reasonable person would conclude was in his mind.

Well that's one of the luxuries of childhood you can pick and choose when to use logic and reasoning, especially when it suits you.