Judge Awards Sony With Visitor IDs of PS3 Hacker's Website

[Marsell]

This has "future Anonymous victim" written all over it.

 

[maximusw00t]

Well i still believe Sony overreacted to what he did. Since he is against piracy. Since they are on him for copyright infringement(jail break was disproved to be such over ipods i believe).

Copy right infringement.

Computer fraud.

Breach of contract AKA breaking the EULA.

Tortuous interference-. The act if harming another business interests.

Misappropriation

Trespassing(on their propertah known as the PS3 he bought)
So read the second bit. Do some google searches. And be surprised.

Final conclusions. Its this or stop bitching and deal with it.

 

[KeyMaster45]

Oh crap, I think I watched that video a few months ago when I first heard about this guy.

THEY'RE AT THE WIND- *crash*

*brushes debris off his jacket* Sorry bout the window, I just wanted to give you this plate of cookies. It's part of the Cookies for Nerds Foundation's on going mission to deliver a plate of cookies to every nerd on the planet.

OT: Wow, just wow. Sony really needs to calm the hell down. I wonder what they're going to do if it shows that the majority of downloads came from a country that's not the US?

 

[PurplePlatypus]

Is that even legal?
It can?t be, certainly not internationally.

 

[shadow skill]

Oh crap, I think I watched that video a few months ago when I first heard about this guy.

THEY'RE AT THE WIND- *crash*

*brushes debris off his jacket* Sorry bout the window, I just wanted to give you this plate of cookies. It's part of the Cookies for Nerds Foundation's on going mission to deliver a plate of cookies to every nerd on the planet.

OT: Wow, just wow. Sony really needs to calm the hell down. I wonder what they're going to do if it shows that the majority of downloads came from a country that's not the US?

Cry like bitches as the case moves to New Jersey.

 

[Raesvelg]

Congratulations, sir, that's the dumbest thing I've seen all day on the internet, and that's quite a high (low?) standard!

Congratulations, sir, for managing to make zero contribution to the debate without even attempting to address the relevant point I raised. I'd say you'd set the bar rather low, but given the typical audience on the internet, you're pretty much just par for the course.

Sony has a valid reason to want this information. They can even manage a fair argument as to why they should get it, and evidently managed to present that information in a sufficiently compelling fashion to get a judge to award them with the power to pursue it.

While it's true that money buys a certain amount of justice in the United States legal system, it's not really a rubber stamp for corporate malfeasance.

 

[JDKJ]

And the part where he then posts that information to the internet for all to see has to do with what? It ain't got nothing to do with restoring features to his console.

It has to do with him doing nothing illegal. Jail breaking to restore features such as other OS that SONY removed from the product post-purchase is not illegal and giving that information to others is not illegal. Yeah it supposedly makes it easier to pirate games and hack them on PSN live but until i see some proof of that they can shut up about it.

It has everything to do with the situation because he was not doing anything wrong legally or that most gamers would call wrong if they knew what he was doing. Restoring functions Sony robbed from them is probably a very good thing in the eyes of most and this nonsense that he creates aimbot hacks for COD and shit is just nonsense.

So what are you mad about? Did you enjoy Sony robbing you of features the PS3 came with after you bought it because they could take it off? What if they removed a function YOU wanted. You just sit and take it because no one posted the jailbreak so you could get it back.

He posted it because he jail broke his PS3. Knew others might want to jail break it and saved them some time.

It may be a tad premature to so confidently conclude that Mr. Hotz did nothing illegal. At least until the presiding Court has also arrived at that conclusion. Personally, I suspect that it will conclude that the information Hotz shared had little commercial value other than to enable others to circumvent an access control mechanism for the purpose of infringing copyrighted material, thus making his conduct a violation of the DMCA. But it ain't ever really over until the fat lady breaks out in song, is it?

 

[JDKJ]

I'm sick of Sony, and I don't even use their stuff. Somebody fine the company a ten-digit figure for being arseholes.

Someone really needs to get round to defining international internet information laws. To have the California court hand over records of everyone breaks laws in other countries (e.g data protection act).

We should turn the Internet into a new nation.

Didn't we already do just that?

 

[JDKJ]

Not 100% sure on how he is a threat to shareholders. When he jail-broke the PS3 he was breaking their arbitrary rules but did nothing wrong. Releasing it could have cost the shareholders some cash but unless it can actually make pirating 100% easier he did nothing directly harmful to them aside from lowering the control Sony had on customers.

Lets not forget Sony tried to railroad Geo by sending as many lawyers as they could to rail road him. Still legal but its a dick thing to do and shows they wanted to use the heavy weaponry(larger legal defense) to steam roll him in court because he cannot defend himself. They mounted such a large offensive because they knew he did not have the capital to defend himself. That is why he asked for donations to pay for legal defense so he did not lose by default.

Yes he broke their rules but because Sony removed functions of a product that they had advertised. If i were to make a screw driver that could automatically adjust to proper head and advertised Phillips head as a function then removed it i would be in the wrong.

Please tell me exactly how Sony's control on the PlayStation 3 has damaged your experience using the PlayStation 3 or has been either intrusive, domineering or detrimental to the way you live your life. I will admit their updates are rather frequent and annoying. The OtherOS argument is invalid due to the extremely insignificant number of people who actually used it. Let's also not forget that Sony didn't exactly sneak that update in. They sent a very detailed notification explaining exactly what changes were being made and how you could avoid them ( simply decline the update; I think they even detailed how you could use multiple hard disks, one for OtherOS use and the other for PSN use ).

Hey, here's an arbitrary rule: "you shall not murder."

You want to talk about dick moves? How about GeoHot revealing trade secret security keys publicly. Now that's a dick move. Posting a sex tape of your ex? Hahaha, that's not even close to the same level as GeoHot's utter dickery. GeoHot brought it upon himself.

Poor analogy. Everybody uses the Phillips head. The teeniest, tiniest minority uses OtherOS. And OtherOS wasn't even really advertised. Right now, I just pulled out my original PlayStation 3 box, the Metal Gear Solid 4 bundle, and nowhere on the side can I find any mention of OtherOS. A more proper analogy would be... oh, I don't know, removing the light that used to be in your car's glove box.

I however, did just fully read the EULA that came with Gran Turismo 5 and right in the beginning it said, "if you do not agree with these terms of agreement, you will not receive a refund for the online portion of the game, but you will receive a refund for the physical copy." As in, don't like it? Than play a different game.

In fact, everybody, if you still have your original PlayStation 3 packaging, please carefully look for a mention of OtherOS. If you find it, please post a high definition picture with enough of the box to facilitate recognition and the text that talks about OtherOS. Let's find out if OtherOS really was an advertised feature.

I believe it was in fact an "advertised" feature. I'm sure your aware that, as a legal matter, "advertising" isn't limited to only statements appearing on packaging or in what is commonly thought of as advertising (TV and print ads, etc.). Any public statement made in furtherance of sales of the product (e.g., a press release) is advertising. And, as best as I am aware, Sony did in fact "advertise" the OSOther feature. I'm sure if you Google it a lil' bit, you'll find Sony publicly touting the benefits of the OSOther feature. According to wiki:

"Sony has used the fact that the PlayStation 2 can run Linux in its marketing. They promoted the release of the PS2 Linux Kit, which included a Linux-based operating system, a USB keyboard and mouse, a VGA adapter, a PlayStation 2 Ethernet network adapter, and a 40 GB hard disk drive (HDD)."

 

[JDKJ]

You know parts of the subpoenas may well be illegal as per U.S. law. There is alot more involved here than people realize. If Sony retains the data during this legal process and it gets compromised what then? They don't even need all of this data to prove their argument that the case should be heard in that part of the country. People should read the letter from the EFF lawyer. Why should people who did not agree to sony's TOS have their information exposed when that information is really not required to prove this argument? Why are they asking for records of who downloaded things from his blog beyond the jailbreak file? Your browser downloads an entire page every time you go somewhere. Asking for a record of all the downloads is stupid when you only need to look at jailbreak downloads if at all. Why do they need the text of comments posted to his private video? Remember this is a civil lawsuit not a criminal proceeding. The request for the text of comments may be forbidden under current U.S. law as it is.

If all you claim is true, then I'm sure the recipients of Sony's subpoenas will raise all your points in their motion to quash the subpoenas. If you're correct, then the subpoenas will be quashed. If you're wrong, then the information will have to be produced. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you're wrong.

And if you are going to claim that U.S. law forbids a particular outcome, it helps to actually provide a usable citation to that law. Doing so bears the potential of actually supporting your position. Without citation to the law you claim supports your position, it can appear as if you're merely relying on non-existent law for your own convenience.

And, FYI, there are thousands of civil lawsuits underway every day in the U.S. that involve the potential risk of having sensitive information obtained as part of the discovery process inadvertently -- or advertently -- compromised. The usually employed remedy is to require the receiving party to agree to a non-disclosure stipulation. If the terms of that non-disclosure agreement are subsequently breached, then any party injured by that breach has legal recourse against the breaching party (or, to put it in layman terms, they can sue the shit outta somebody). But the mere fact that the information is sensitive in nature and may be somehow comprised by the party who receives it isn't usually any reason not to have the information produced.

And I'm not clear on why you're drawing a distinction between civil and criminal proceedings. The ability to seek discovery is actually greater in civil cases than it is in criminal cases. There's actually a requirement in criminal proceedings that any potential evidence in the possession of the prosecution and which would tend to exculpate the defendant must be automatically turned over to the defendant. Failing to do so is a violation of due process. (See Brady v. Maryland, establishing the so-called "Brady Rule"). There's also a prohibition against forcing criminal defendants to provide information which would tend to self-incriminate (this is why a criminal defendant can never be forced to attend their own deposition or to testify at trial) (See the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and related court opinions). No such equivalent requirement or prohibition exists in civil proceedings. If civil litigants are in need of information which would tend to prove or disprove relevant facts, they're entirely on their own in obtaining that information. And, therefore, the civil discovery rules tend to liberally grant broad abilities to go off in search of relevant information.

 

[jovack22]

...

Newsflash? You tell me this as if you are giving me some revelation haha.. Did I say anything about the internet's antitrust issues?

Sony is the topic at hand, and their actions are inappropriate.

 

[JDKJ]

...

Newsflash? You tell me this as if you are giving me some revelation haha.. Did I say anything about the internet's antitrust issues?

Sony is the topic at hand, and their actions are inappropriate.

"Inappropriate?" So what? It's commonly considered inappropriate to cut stinky farts on a crowded subway car but it isn't illegal. If Sony thinks that it's an appropriate way to go about obtaining necessary discovery and can find some judge or magistrate willing to agree with them and give them subpoena power to do so, then whether to do so is "appropriate" or not may be part of a philosophical discussion of morals or ethics, but it ain't got a thing to do with their legal right to obtain discovery.

And if you're merely mimicking the opinion of the EFF's attorney, you should be aware that she's carrying a big ol' fail bucket on that point, given that the magistrate read her letter brief and went on to grant Sony the subpoenas anyway.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

According to another article on this story on bbc website is stating that anyone who downloaded the actual files needed to crack the ps3 from hotz's website is what they are looking for, so I assume if just visited the site and didn't download the crack files you should be in the clear.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12663410

 

[JDKJ]

According to another article on this story on bbc website is stating that anyone who downloaded the actual files needed to crack the ps3 from hotz's website is what they are looking for, so I assume if just visited the site and didn't download the crack files you should be in the clear.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12663410

I don't think that's true. The actual subpoena as approved by the magistrate calls for ?documents reproducing all server logs, IP address logs, account information, account access records and application or registration forms, any other identifying information corresponding to persons or computers who have accessed or downloaded files hosted using your service and associated with the www.geohot.com website, including but not limited to the geohot.com/jailbreak.zip file.? So, technically, if all you did was visit the site and access any file (it doesn't matter that it wasn't the PS3 jailbreak file and it doesn't matter that you didn't actually download it), then Sony's probably gonna eventually get every piece of personal information about you that exists on the internet and which they're probably gonna use to sue the crap outta you. But if you make a hat outta tinfoil and wear it on your head at all times, that will protect you from Sony.

Fun and conspiracy jokes aside, it kinda makes sense not to limit the request to actual downloaders. I assume it's possible to open the file and hand-write the information contain therein on paper, therefore not necessarily requiring actual download. But that is just my assumption. I don't know too much about crack files. I try to stay away from all that nonsense. I'd suggest that others do likewise. Or be prepared to wear a tinfoil hat all the time.

 

[nyttyn]

This seems hialriously pointless, since they have absoutly no way to determine who did what on the site, given this is only a list of people who have/had visited said site.

For those not quite as tech-savvy, it's like getting a list of people who have looked at a black market. How do you know how many people have actaully entered and/or bought good from said market?

 

[Something Amyss]

Jailbreaking an iPhone was found not to further piracy, and therefore not violative of the DMCA, under the related and particular set of factual circumstances. That does not necessarily mean that jailbreaking a PS3 under an entirely different set of factual circumstances is also not a violation of the DMCA. An apple plus an orange does not equal two apples. And, because the DMCA makes it illegal to "traffic" or "share" information or any part thereof that would enable circumvention for the purpose of copyright infringement and that Hotz did indeed traffic in or share such information is part of Sony's allegations against him and are allegations necessary to prevail on their case, then proving Hotz' distribution of the information is part of Sony's burden of proof. And allows them to obtain a subpoena with which they can go off in search of that proof.

You're making excuses. If the mere potential for pirracy was a valid argument, you could be jailed for owning a CD/DVD burner. The notion that a jailbreak could further lead to piracy when not part of the design or advertised intent is ridiculous and pointless apologetics in defense of a company hoping to bully the opposition.

 

[shadow skill]

You know parts of the subpoenas may well be illegal as per U.S. law. There is alot more involved here than people realize. If Sony retains the data during this legal process and it gets compromised what then? They don't even need all of this data to prove their argument that the case should be heard in that part of the country. People should read the letter from the EFF lawyer. Why should people who did not agree to sony's TOS have their information exposed when that information is really not required to prove this argument? Why are they asking for records of who downloaded things from his blog beyond the jailbreak file? Your browser downloads an entire page every time you go somewhere. Asking for a record of all the downloads is stupid when you only need to look at jailbreak downloads if at all. Why do they need the text of comments posted to his private video? Remember this is a civil lawsuit not a criminal proceeding. The request for the text of comments may be forbidden under current U.S. law as it is.

If all you claim is true, then I'm sure the recipients of Sony's subpoenas will raise all your points in their motion to quash the subpoenas. If you're correct, then the subpoenas will be quashed. If you're wrong, then the information will have to be produced. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you're wrong.

And if you are going to claim that U.S. law forbids a particular outcome, it helps to actually provide a usable citation to that law. Doing so bears the potential of actually supporting your position. Without citation to the law you claim supports your position, it can appear as if you're merely relying on non-existent law for your own convenience.

And, FYI, there are thousands of civil lawsuits underway every day in the U.S. that involve the potential risk of having sensitive information obtained as part of the discovery process inadvertently -- or advertently -- compromised. The usually employed remedy is to require the receiving party to agree to a non-disclosure stipulation. If the terms of that non-disclosure agreement are subsequently breached, then any party injured by that breach has legal recourse against the breaching party (or, to put it in layman terms, they can sue the shit outta somebody). But the mere fact that the information is sensitive in nature and may be somehow comprised by the party who receives it isn't usually any reason not to have the information produced.

And I'm not clear on why you're drawing a distinction between civil and criminal proceedings. The ability to seek discovery is actually greater in civil cases than it is in criminal cases. There's actually a requirement in criminal proceedings that any potential evidence in the possession of the prosecution and which would tend to exculpate the defendant must be automatically turned over to the defendant. Failing to do so is a violation of due process. (See Brady v. Maryland, establishing the so-called "Brady Rule"). There's also a prohibition against forcing criminal defendants to provide information which would tend to self-incriminate (this is why a criminal defendant can never be forced to attend their own deposition or to testify at trial) (See the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and related court opinions). No such equivalent requirement or prohibition exists in civil proceedings. If civil litigants are in need of information which would tend to prove or disprove relevant facts, they're entirely on their own in obtaining that information. And, therefore, the civil discovery rules tend to liberally grant broad abilities to go off in search of relevant information.

Didn't I say to look at the letter from the EFF lawyer? Take a look at the cases she cited. Also see here:http://www.eff.org/cases/apple-v-does and here:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002702----000-.html

Individuals who had their info exposed could move to quash the subpoenas independently of Holtz and his lawyers.

Jailbreaking an iPhone was found not to further piracy, and therefore not violative of the DMCA, under the related and particular set of factual circumstances. That does not necessarily mean that jailbreaking a PS3 under an entirely different set of factual circumstances is also not a violation of the DMCA. An apple plus an orange does not equal two apples. And, because the DMCA makes it illegal to "traffic" or "share" information or any part thereof that would enable circumvention for the purpose of copyright infringement and that Hotz did indeed traffic in or share such information is part of Sony's allegations against him and are allegations necessary to prevail on their case, then proving Hotz' distribution of the information is part of Sony's burden of proof. And allows them to obtain a subpoena with which they can go off in search of that proof.

You're making excuses. If the mere potential for pirracy was a valid argument, you could be jailed for owning a CD/DVD burner. The notion that a jailbreak could further lead to piracy when not part of the design or advertised intent is ridiculous and pointless apologetics in defense of a company hoping to bully the opposition.

By the logic of some of these companies we should ban the teaching of physics since that knowledge could be used to make bombs. The jailbreak that he created clearly is not only useful for piracy. It is suitable for running custom software on the device that has nothing to do with copyright infringement. I really wish the EFF had not omitted game consoles when they got their exemption for things like cellphones with respect to jailbreaking.

 

[xXDeMoNiCXx]

Clearly a bit of money was handed under the table cause that seems to be pretty private data that's being handed over and for what point? Sony gonna sue everyone who is associated with GeoHot's work in even the slightest way now?