Geohot Hints at Plans After Sony Settlement

[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.

 

[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.