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

[shadow skill]

All you people, except JDKJ and a very, very tiny number of other posters in this thread, need to stop being so damn melodramatic and take a spade for a spade instead of trying to completely blow everything out of proportion.

I know this type of appeal to emotion, not logic, tactic is among the most common, especially since a lot of automatically root for the underdog, but really, really, really consider all things equally before you post your "expertise."

Or at least get mad at something that warrants getting mad at instead of one organization following the law down to the very letter and punctuation mark in a completely legal and just manner. I don't know if this is stemming from your hysteria clouding your better judgment or the education system failing to properly educate people in how the judicial system works.

Sure there is no need to be hysterical one should however be at least mildly concerned that potentially identifying information about people not party to a civil action may be exposed because someone feels like stacking the deck in their favor. Once that data is exposed you then have to trust this third party to keep the information secured and we all know that the more people that know a given thing the harder it is to keep it a secret.

Sony isn't going to sue or ban everyone who visited his site or downloaded the Jailbreak file because it wouldn't be effective for them to do so. They would have to prove that it was the defendant who downloaded it among other things. They probably couldn't use the information to do that legally anyway. By the same token the government probably wouldn't arrest everyone who checked out books on Arabic, or the Quran. That does not mean that they needed to have the power to get that kind of information without probable cause.

 

[JDKJ]

All you people, except JDKJ and a very, very tiny number of other posters in this thread, need to stop being so damn melodramatic and take a spade for a spade instead of trying to completely blow everything out of proportion.

I know this type of appeal to emotion, not logic, tactic is among the most common, especially since a lot of automatically root for the underdog, but really, really, really consider all things equally before you post your "expertise."

Or at least get mad at something that warrants getting mad at instead of one organization following the law down to the very letter and punctuation mark in a completely legal and just manner. I don't know if this is stemming from your hysteria clouding your better judgment or the education system failing to properly educate people in how the judicial system works.

Sure there is no need to be hysterical one should however be at least mildly concerned that potentially identifying information about people not party to a civil action may be exposed because someone feels like stacking the deck in their favor. Once that data is exposed you then have to trust this third party to keep the information secured and we all know that the more people that know a given thing the harder it is to keep it a secret.

Sony isn't going to sue or ban everyone who visited his site or downloaded the Jailbreak file because it wouldn't be effective for them to do so. They would have to prove that it was the defendant who downloaded it among other things. They probably couldn't use the information to do that legally anyway. By the same token the government probably wouldn't arrest everyone who checked out books on Arabic, or the Quran. That does not mean that they needed to have the power to get that kind of information without probable cause.

Of course they can use the information obtained via the discovery process to intiate other lawsuits. There's no legal prohibition against doing so. But I agree with you that, for reasons more practical than anything else, they probably won't. I suspect that they think they're doing enough to teach everyone a lesson by making Mr. Hotz' life miserable.

 

[shadow skill]

Yes, yes this magistrate did issue the subpoena, but it's not as if these things have not been vacated by other judges. In fact the lower court judge said that following Sony's logic the entire universe would be under her jurisdiction. There is pretty much no doubt that people within this magistrate's jurisdiction accessed his blog or followed him on twitter. That goes without saying. The problem is that the nature of the technology itself makes it such that it is logically impossible to demarcate jurisdiction because access is available to a huge portion of the earth.

It's the kind of stupidity that allows obscenity laws in one state to apply to servers based in another state where the owner would otherwise not be subject to the laws of the other state. Yes judges have actually ruled this way, yes it is nonsensical because now the obscenity laws of different states apply to people and content not located within their borders. Holtz lives in New Jersey presumably much of his content originates geographically from New Jersey. How is it then that he should be the one to make the trip to California? Because the server happens to be located in that state? Really? That is the major justification? Does that then mean that non Americans are subject to California state law since they technically entered California through the internet?

She said that before she ruled that the case could proceed before her. That would also be before she said that by publishing his crack file in the State of California and potentially causing injury to Sony in California, Hotz, in so doing, subjected himself to the jurisdiction of California courts.

If I sit in New York and publish defamatory statements about you on the internet where they can be read by some in Alabama, you bet your house that an Alabama court can properly exercise jurisdiction over my libel suit against you. Alabama is one of the places where you have potentially caused harm to my reputation. A place of injury is always a legitimate place to bring suit.

You are right, but in that instance you would be a direct party to the lawsuit, you wouldn't be someone entirely unrelated to the suit. Requests for discovery of Doe's are granted all the time, they are also denied all the time even when the Doe is the one being targeted. The problem is that they are trying to use the location data to prove that the california court has jurisdiction as opposed to the court in New Jersey because of the server locations which makes no sense because the entire planet could easily claim jurisdiction let alone any of the other forty-nine states. What would be the threshold to even decide that one place had more jurisdiction than another? Because unless there is some way to tell that one place has more jurisdiction than another through the traffic to the site everywhere would have equal jurisdiction. At that point I would suggest picking some neutral area to hear the case.

First off, there aren't any "Does." Doe is used to describe someone who's real name and identity is unknown. The subject's of Sony's subpoenas are known to all. "Doe" is like a placeholder used when you don't know precisely who you're after but want to reserve your rights against that person and proceed to the point where you have figured out who they are.

Secondly, personal jurisdiction over a defendant isn't an "either or" or "most" proposition. It is entirely possible that multiple jurisdictions could have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. That's what allows a sharp plaintiff attorney to "forum shop" for what they think is the most favorable jurisdiction among many possible jurisdictions. And, yes, while your suggestion of a "neutral ground" would promote fairness, a plaintiff is free to bring their suit wherever they choose, as long as it's a jurisdiction that can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

The defendant is George Holtz, he is the target of the lawsuit. The people with identifying information that may be pulled because of these subpoenas are not parties to the lawsuit yet they may still have their information exposed without their consent or the possibility to consent. While multiple jurisdictions may be able to claim a defendant it doesn't make sense to even need to prove that the case should be tried in california unless you had to show some kind of number of people or traffic indicators. Otherwise the judge could just rule in Sony's favor since everybody knows there is at least one person from that jurisdiction that visited the site. There wouldn't be a point to the subpoenas with respect to making a determination of where the case should be heard. The only other logical reason would be to prove that he was distributing the jailbreak. Even then you still do not need personally identifying data for that purpose, the IP address logs would suffice assuming records of individual file downloads are kept.

Yes, that is, I suspect, why, in part, the magistrate granted the subpoena: because distribution is a core issue in the case. But bear in mind that the Google subpoena is but one of many internet sites from which Sony seeks discovery and that probably has more than a little to do with their theory of the case that Hotz was trafficking in circumvention technology. Those internet sites aren't without some relationship to each other and the personal identifying information goes to understanding that relationship. For example, if all Sony gets from Google is IP address logs, how can they then use that information to meaningfully compare those visitors to the visitors to the PayPal site (where it is entirely possible that money was exchanged for the circumvention information)? They can't. They may get lucky and pick up those who visited both sites from the same IP address. But what about the cases where the same visitor used one IP address to visit the Google site and another IP address to visit the PayPal site. Sony would never be able to determine that the same visitor used two different IP addresses if all they have is the IP address. They'll need something more. Sony's entitled to as much information as is needed to reasonably make head and tails of what exactly occurred.

As far as I know the Paypal subpoena was denied. You can donate money to whoever you feel like. I would be even more concerned if they were able to legally do that and then claim that he was making a profit off of the whole thing. They still don't need to know who was downloading what from his sites, they only need to know that the file was downloaded. There still is not a need to be able to discover the personally identifying information of the various IP addresses in this case. Although it would be interesting to know how download logs would work, visiting a webpage downloads the page itself. Depending on your browser settings and exactly how the download link was setup it would be easy to download the jailbreak without realizing it. According to Sony Bluehost only has IP logs but they still seem to be asking for more than they need to prove both of their arguments.

 

[JDKJ]

Yes, yes this magistrate did issue the subpoena, but it's not as if these things have not been vacated by other judges. In fact the lower court judge said that following Sony's logic the entire universe would be under her jurisdiction. There is pretty much no doubt that people within this magistrate's jurisdiction accessed his blog or followed him on twitter. That goes without saying. The problem is that the nature of the technology itself makes it such that it is logically impossible to demarcate jurisdiction because access is available to a huge portion of the earth.

It's the kind of stupidity that allows obscenity laws in one state to apply to servers based in another state where the owner would otherwise not be subject to the laws of the other state. Yes judges have actually ruled this way, yes it is nonsensical because now the obscenity laws of different states apply to people and content not located within their borders. Holtz lives in New Jersey presumably much of his content originates geographically from New Jersey. How is it then that he should be the one to make the trip to California? Because the server happens to be located in that state? Really? That is the major justification? Does that then mean that non Americans are subject to California state law since they technically entered California through the internet?

She said that before she ruled that the case could proceed before her. That would also be before she said that by publishing his crack file in the State of California and potentially causing injury to Sony in California, Hotz, in so doing, subjected himself to the jurisdiction of California courts.

If I sit in New York and publish defamatory statements about you on the internet where they can be read by some in Alabama, you bet your house that an Alabama court can properly exercise jurisdiction over my libel suit against you. Alabama is one of the places where you have potentially caused harm to my reputation. A place of injury is always a legitimate place to bring suit.

You are right, but in that instance you would be a direct party to the lawsuit, you wouldn't be someone entirely unrelated to the suit. Requests for discovery of Doe's are granted all the time, they are also denied all the time even when the Doe is the one being targeted. The problem is that they are trying to use the location data to prove that the california court has jurisdiction as opposed to the court in New Jersey because of the server locations which makes no sense because the entire planet could easily claim jurisdiction let alone any of the other forty-nine states. What would be the threshold to even decide that one place had more jurisdiction than another? Because unless there is some way to tell that one place has more jurisdiction than another through the traffic to the site everywhere would have equal jurisdiction. At that point I would suggest picking some neutral area to hear the case.

First off, there aren't any "Does." Doe is used to describe someone who's real name and identity is unknown. The subject's of Sony's subpoenas are known to all. "Doe" is like a placeholder used when you don't know precisely who you're after but want to reserve your rights against that person and proceed to the point where you have figured out who they are.

Secondly, personal jurisdiction over a defendant isn't an "either or" or "most" proposition. It is entirely possible that multiple jurisdictions could have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. That's what allows a sharp plaintiff attorney to "forum shop" for what they think is the most favorable jurisdiction among many possible jurisdictions. And, yes, while your suggestion of a "neutral ground" would promote fairness, a plaintiff is free to bring their suit wherever they choose, as long as it's a jurisdiction that can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

The defendant is George Holtz, he is the target of the lawsuit. The people with identifying information that may be pulled because of these subpoenas are not parties to the lawsuit yet they may still have their information exposed without their consent or the possibility to consent. While multiple jurisdictions may be able to claim a defendant it doesn't make sense to even need to prove that the case should be tried in california unless you had to show some kind of number of people or traffic indicators. Otherwise the judge could just rule in Sony's favor since everybody knows there is at least one person from that jurisdiction that visited the site. There wouldn't be a point to the subpoenas with respect to making a determination of where the case should be heard. The only other logical reason would be to prove that he was distributing the jailbreak. Even then you still do not need personally identifying data for that purpose, the IP address logs would suffice assuming records of individual file downloads are kept.

Yes, that is, I suspect, why, in part, the magistrate granted the subpoena: because distribution is a core issue in the case. But bear in mind that the Google subpoena is but one of many internet sites from which Sony seeks discovery and that probably has more than a little to do with their theory of the case that Hotz was trafficking in circumvention technology. Those internet sites aren't without some relationship to each other and the personal identifying information goes to understanding that relationship. For example, if all Sony gets from Google is IP address logs, how can they then use that information to meaningfully compare those visitors to the visitors to the PayPal site (where it is entirely possible that money was exchanged for the circumvention information)? They can't. They may get lucky and pick up those who visited both sites from the same IP address. But what about the cases where the same visitor used one IP address to visit the Google site and another IP address to visit the PayPal site. Sony would never be able to determine that the same visitor used two different IP addresses if all they have is the IP address. They'll need something more. Sony's entitled to as much information as is needed to reasonably make head and tails of what exactly occurred.

As far as I know the Paypal subpoena was denied. You can donate money to whoever you feel like. I would be even more concerned if they were able to legally do that and then claim that he was making a profit off of the whole thing. They still don't need to know who was downloading what from his sites, they only need to know that the file was downloaded. There still is not a need to be able to discover the personally identifying information of the various IP addresses in this case. Although it would be interesting to know how download logs would work, visiting a webpage downloads the page itself. Depending on your browser settings and exactly how the download link was setup it would be easy to download the jailbreak without realizing it. According to Sony Bluehost only has IP logs but they still seem to be asking for more than they need to prove both of their arguments.

The subpoena I read included PayPal. I could be wrong, though. But I hope you still get my drift.

C'mon, man. "Donation" is what the medical marijuana dispensaries in California call the "price" they ask for a half-ounce of that really good Bubblegum Kush because they're legally required to operate as a non-profit collective of their member patients and technically aren't supposed to be "selling" a thing. But doesn't a rose by another name still smell like a rose?

Discovery isn't limited to "admissable evidence." It captures any "relevant information." The two are not the same. I'm entitled to discover information -- even though I have no intention to ever introduce it -- if it helps me understand what happened as a factual matter.

 

[shadow skill]

Yes, yes this magistrate did issue the subpoena, but it's not as if these things have not been vacated by other judges. In fact the lower court judge said that following Sony's logic the entire universe would be under her jurisdiction. There is pretty much no doubt that people within this magistrate's jurisdiction accessed his blog or followed him on twitter. That goes without saying. The problem is that the nature of the technology itself makes it such that it is logically impossible to demarcate jurisdiction because access is available to a huge portion of the earth.

It's the kind of stupidity that allows obscenity laws in one state to apply to servers based in another state where the owner would otherwise not be subject to the laws of the other state. Yes judges have actually ruled this way, yes it is nonsensical because now the obscenity laws of different states apply to people and content not located within their borders. Holtz lives in New Jersey presumably much of his content originates geographically from New Jersey. How is it then that he should be the one to make the trip to California? Because the server happens to be located in that state? Really? That is the major justification? Does that then mean that non Americans are subject to California state law since they technically entered California through the internet?

She said that before she ruled that the case could proceed before her. That would also be before she said that by publishing his crack file in the State of California and potentially causing injury to Sony in California, Hotz, in so doing, subjected himself to the jurisdiction of California courts.

If I sit in New York and publish defamatory statements about you on the internet where they can be read by some in Alabama, you bet your house that an Alabama court can properly exercise jurisdiction over my libel suit against you. Alabama is one of the places where you have potentially caused harm to my reputation. A place of injury is always a legitimate place to bring suit.

You are right, but in that instance you would be a direct party to the lawsuit, you wouldn't be someone entirely unrelated to the suit. Requests for discovery of Doe's are granted all the time, they are also denied all the time even when the Doe is the one being targeted. The problem is that they are trying to use the location data to prove that the california court has jurisdiction as opposed to the court in New Jersey because of the server locations which makes no sense because the entire planet could easily claim jurisdiction let alone any of the other forty-nine states. What would be the threshold to even decide that one place had more jurisdiction than another? Because unless there is some way to tell that one place has more jurisdiction than another through the traffic to the site everywhere would have equal jurisdiction. At that point I would suggest picking some neutral area to hear the case.

First off, there aren't any "Does." Doe is used to describe someone who's real name and identity is unknown. The subject's of Sony's subpoenas are known to all. "Doe" is like a placeholder used when you don't know precisely who you're after but want to reserve your rights against that person and proceed to the point where you have figured out who they are.

Secondly, personal jurisdiction over a defendant isn't an "either or" or "most" proposition. It is entirely possible that multiple jurisdictions could have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. That's what allows a sharp plaintiff attorney to "forum shop" for what they think is the most favorable jurisdiction among many possible jurisdictions. And, yes, while your suggestion of a "neutral ground" would promote fairness, a plaintiff is free to bring their suit wherever they choose, as long as it's a jurisdiction that can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

The defendant is George Holtz, he is the target of the lawsuit. The people with identifying information that may be pulled because of these subpoenas are not parties to the lawsuit yet they may still have their information exposed without their consent or the possibility to consent. While multiple jurisdictions may be able to claim a defendant it doesn't make sense to even need to prove that the case should be tried in california unless you had to show some kind of number of people or traffic indicators. Otherwise the judge could just rule in Sony's favor since everybody knows there is at least one person from that jurisdiction that visited the site. There wouldn't be a point to the subpoenas with respect to making a determination of where the case should be heard. The only other logical reason would be to prove that he was distributing the jailbreak. Even then you still do not need personally identifying data for that purpose, the IP address logs would suffice assuming records of individual file downloads are kept.

Yes, that is, I suspect, why, in part, the magistrate granted the subpoena: because distribution is a core issue in the case. But bear in mind that the Google subpoena is but one of many internet sites from which Sony seeks discovery and that probably has more than a little to do with their theory of the case that Hotz was trafficking in circumvention technology. Those internet sites aren't without some relationship to each other and the personal identifying information goes to understanding that relationship. For example, if all Sony gets from Google is IP address logs, how can they then use that information to meaningfully compare those visitors to the visitors to the PayPal site (where it is entirely possible that money was exchanged for the circumvention information)? They can't. They may get lucky and pick up those who visited both sites from the same IP address. But what about the cases where the same visitor used one IP address to visit the Google site and another IP address to visit the PayPal site. Sony would never be able to determine that the same visitor used two different IP addresses if all they have is the IP address. They'll need something more. Sony's entitled to as much information as is needed to reasonably make head and tails of what exactly occurred.

As far as I know the Paypal subpoena was denied. You can donate money to whoever you feel like. I would be even more concerned if they were able to legally do that and then claim that he was making a profit off of the whole thing. They still don't need to know who was downloading what from his sites, they only need to know that the file was downloaded. There still is not a need to be able to discover the personally identifying information of the various IP addresses in this case. Although it would be interesting to know how download logs would work, visiting a webpage downloads the page itself. Depending on your browser settings and exactly how the download link was setup it would be easy to download the jailbreak without realizing it. According to Sony Bluehost only has IP logs but they still seem to be asking for more than they need to prove both of their arguments.

The subpoena I read included PayPal. I could be wrong, though. But I hope you still get my drift.

C'mon, man. "Donation" is what the medical marijuana dispensaries in California call the "price" they ask for a half-ounce of that really good Bubblegum Kush because they're legally required to operate as a non-profit collective of their member patients and technically aren't supposed to be "selling" a thing. But doesn't a rose by another name still smell like a rose?

Doesn't matter, you can still donate to him if you feel like it. I doubt they would ever be able to prove that the transfer of money was a sale for recieving the jailbreak code. If I write a program and people like the program and donate money to me because of it, that does not make my program a commercial product.

The subpoenas granted here do not include paypal since Sony's lawyers knew they would never be able to prove that he was selling the hack. Now they could very well hope that someone mentions donating because of the release of his code and claim that this constitutes him making a profit but I doubt that would hold up. People express gratitude for all kinds of things through donations every day.

The information has to be relevant to the stated reason for the request does it not? The personal information of these non parties simply is not relevant to the claims that they are trying to prove. Allowing them to go on a fishing expedition and build up a bunch of data unrelated to the claims they are trying to prove is dangerous. It would be like claiming I need to see the financial statements of your mother because you sent her a letter detailing various defamatory remarks which you later published elsewhere. Instead of simply locating her address to prove that you sent her the letter.

 

[JDKJ]

Yes, yes this magistrate did issue the subpoena, but it's not as if these things have not been vacated by other judges. In fact the lower court judge said that following Sony's logic the entire universe would be under her jurisdiction. There is pretty much no doubt that people within this magistrate's jurisdiction accessed his blog or followed him on twitter. That goes without saying. The problem is that the nature of the technology itself makes it such that it is logically impossible to demarcate jurisdiction because access is available to a huge portion of the earth.

It's the kind of stupidity that allows obscenity laws in one state to apply to servers based in another state where the owner would otherwise not be subject to the laws of the other state. Yes judges have actually ruled this way, yes it is nonsensical because now the obscenity laws of different states apply to people and content not located within their borders. Holtz lives in New Jersey presumably much of his content originates geographically from New Jersey. How is it then that he should be the one to make the trip to California? Because the server happens to be located in that state? Really? That is the major justification? Does that then mean that non Americans are subject to California state law since they technically entered California through the internet?

She said that before she ruled that the case could proceed before her. That would also be before she said that by publishing his crack file in the State of California and potentially causing injury to Sony in California, Hotz, in so doing, subjected himself to the jurisdiction of California courts.

If I sit in New York and publish defamatory statements about you on the internet where they can be read by some in Alabama, you bet your house that an Alabama court can properly exercise jurisdiction over my libel suit against you. Alabama is one of the places where you have potentially caused harm to my reputation. A place of injury is always a legitimate place to bring suit.

You are right, but in that instance you would be a direct party to the lawsuit, you wouldn't be someone entirely unrelated to the suit. Requests for discovery of Doe's are granted all the time, they are also denied all the time even when the Doe is the one being targeted. The problem is that they are trying to use the location data to prove that the california court has jurisdiction as opposed to the court in New Jersey because of the server locations which makes no sense because the entire planet could easily claim jurisdiction let alone any of the other forty-nine states. What would be the threshold to even decide that one place had more jurisdiction than another? Because unless there is some way to tell that one place has more jurisdiction than another through the traffic to the site everywhere would have equal jurisdiction. At that point I would suggest picking some neutral area to hear the case.

First off, there aren't any "Does." Doe is used to describe someone who's real name and identity is unknown. The subject's of Sony's subpoenas are known to all. "Doe" is like a placeholder used when you don't know precisely who you're after but want to reserve your rights against that person and proceed to the point where you have figured out who they are.

Secondly, personal jurisdiction over a defendant isn't an "either or" or "most" proposition. It is entirely possible that multiple jurisdictions could have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. That's what allows a sharp plaintiff attorney to "forum shop" for what they think is the most favorable jurisdiction among many possible jurisdictions. And, yes, while your suggestion of a "neutral ground" would promote fairness, a plaintiff is free to bring their suit wherever they choose, as long as it's a jurisdiction that can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

The defendant is George Holtz, he is the target of the lawsuit. The people with identifying information that may be pulled because of these subpoenas are not parties to the lawsuit yet they may still have their information exposed without their consent or the possibility to consent. While multiple jurisdictions may be able to claim a defendant it doesn't make sense to even need to prove that the case should be tried in california unless you had to show some kind of number of people or traffic indicators. Otherwise the judge could just rule in Sony's favor since everybody knows there is at least one person from that jurisdiction that visited the site. There wouldn't be a point to the subpoenas with respect to making a determination of where the case should be heard. The only other logical reason would be to prove that he was distributing the jailbreak. Even then you still do not need personally identifying data for that purpose, the IP address logs would suffice assuming records of individual file downloads are kept.

Yes, that is, I suspect, why, in part, the magistrate granted the subpoena: because distribution is a core issue in the case. But bear in mind that the Google subpoena is but one of many internet sites from which Sony seeks discovery and that probably has more than a little to do with their theory of the case that Hotz was trafficking in circumvention technology. Those internet sites aren't without some relationship to each other and the personal identifying information goes to understanding that relationship. For example, if all Sony gets from Google is IP address logs, how can they then use that information to meaningfully compare those visitors to the visitors to the PayPal site (where it is entirely possible that money was exchanged for the circumvention information)? They can't. They may get lucky and pick up those who visited both sites from the same IP address. But what about the cases where the same visitor used one IP address to visit the Google site and another IP address to visit the PayPal site. Sony would never be able to determine that the same visitor used two different IP addresses if all they have is the IP address. They'll need something more. Sony's entitled to as much information as is needed to reasonably make head and tails of what exactly occurred.

As far as I know the Paypal subpoena was denied. You can donate money to whoever you feel like. I would be even more concerned if they were able to legally do that and then claim that he was making a profit off of the whole thing. They still don't need to know who was downloading what from his sites, they only need to know that the file was downloaded. There still is not a need to be able to discover the personally identifying information of the various IP addresses in this case. Although it would be interesting to know how download logs would work, visiting a webpage downloads the page itself. Depending on your browser settings and exactly how the download link was setup it would be easy to download the jailbreak without realizing it. According to Sony Bluehost only has IP logs but they still seem to be asking for more than they need to prove both of their arguments.

The subpoena I read included PayPal. I could be wrong, though. But I hope you still get my drift.

C'mon, man. "Donation" is what the medical marijuana dispensaries in California call the "price" they ask for a half-ounce of that really good Bubblegum Kush because they're legally required to operate as a non-profit collective of their member patients and technically aren't supposed to be "selling" a thing. But doesn't a rose by another name still smell like a rose?

Doesn't matter, you can still donate to him if you feel like it. I doubt they would ever be able to prove that the transfer of money was a sale for recieving the jailbreak code. If I write a program and people like the program and donate money to me because of it, that does not make my program a commercial product.

The subpoenas granted here do not include paypal since Sony's lawyers knew they would never be able to prove that he was selling the hack. Now they could very well hope that someone mentions donating because of the release of his code and claim that this constitutes him making a profit but I doubt that would hold up. People express gratitude for all kinds of things through donations every day.

The information has to be relevant to the stated reason for the request does it not? The personal information of these non parties simply is not relevant to the claims that they are trying to prove. Allowing them to go on a fishing expedition and build up a bunch of data unrelated to the claims they are trying to prove is dangerous. It would be like claiming I need to see the financial statements of your mother because you sent her a letter detailing various defamatory remarks which you later published elsewhere. Instead of simply locating her address to prove that you sent her the letter.

No, that's not the legal definition of "relevant" information. Information is relevant if its presence tends to make a issue of fact in the lawsuit more likely or less likely to indeed be a fact than if the information wasn't present. The information has to be relevant to the lawsuit. Usually, the stated reason for needing it is that it is relevant.

And I'm not gonna go down that "donation" path with you. If you think that because you obtain a product from someone and then "donate" some money to them as a token of your gratitude, that what's occurring isn't a "sale," I'm going to have to take a pass on that one and leave it all for you to have.

And, after double-checking, it appears that you are right -- at least partially so. The PayPal subpoena wasn't denied but, after meeting and conferring, plaintiff and defendant mutually agreed to not subpoena PayPal. Which makes sense. Sony doesn't have to prove that Hotz was selling the crack. If he was giving it away for free, he's still liable, assuming all required elements of a DMCA violation being present (the DMCA doesn't require selling of the circumvention technology, giving it away for free can still leave you dangling on its hook).

 

[shadow skill]

Yes, yes this magistrate did issue the subpoena, but it's not as if these things have not been vacated by other judges. In fact the lower court judge said that following Sony's logic the entire universe would be under her jurisdiction. There is pretty much no doubt that people within this magistrate's jurisdiction accessed his blog or followed him on twitter. That goes without saying. The problem is that the nature of the technology itself makes it such that it is logically impossible to demarcate jurisdiction because access is available to a huge portion of the earth.

It's the kind of stupidity that allows obscenity laws in one state to apply to servers based in another state where the owner would otherwise not be subject to the laws of the other state. Yes judges have actually ruled this way, yes it is nonsensical because now the obscenity laws of different states apply to people and content not located within their borders. Holtz lives in New Jersey presumably much of his content originates geographically from New Jersey. How is it then that he should be the one to make the trip to California? Because the server happens to be located in that state? Really? That is the major justification? Does that then mean that non Americans are subject to California state law since they technically entered California through the internet?

She said that before she ruled that the case could proceed before her. That would also be before she said that by publishing his crack file in the State of California and potentially causing injury to Sony in California, Hotz, in so doing, subjected himself to the jurisdiction of California courts.

If I sit in New York and publish defamatory statements about you on the internet where they can be read by some in Alabama, you bet your house that an Alabama court can properly exercise jurisdiction over my libel suit against you. Alabama is one of the places where you have potentially caused harm to my reputation. A place of injury is always a legitimate place to bring suit.

You are right, but in that instance you would be a direct party to the lawsuit, you wouldn't be someone entirely unrelated to the suit. Requests for discovery of Doe's are granted all the time, they are also denied all the time even when the Doe is the one being targeted. The problem is that they are trying to use the location data to prove that the california court has jurisdiction as opposed to the court in New Jersey because of the server locations which makes no sense because the entire planet could easily claim jurisdiction let alone any of the other forty-nine states. What would be the threshold to even decide that one place had more jurisdiction than another? Because unless there is some way to tell that one place has more jurisdiction than another through the traffic to the site everywhere would have equal jurisdiction. At that point I would suggest picking some neutral area to hear the case.

First off, there aren't any "Does." Doe is used to describe someone who's real name and identity is unknown. The subject's of Sony's subpoenas are known to all. "Doe" is like a placeholder used when you don't know precisely who you're after but want to reserve your rights against that person and proceed to the point where you have figured out who they are.

Secondly, personal jurisdiction over a defendant isn't an "either or" or "most" proposition. It is entirely possible that multiple jurisdictions could have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. That's what allows a sharp plaintiff attorney to "forum shop" for what they think is the most favorable jurisdiction among many possible jurisdictions. And, yes, while your suggestion of a "neutral ground" would promote fairness, a plaintiff is free to bring their suit wherever they choose, as long as it's a jurisdiction that can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

The defendant is George Holtz, he is the target of the lawsuit. The people with identifying information that may be pulled because of these subpoenas are not parties to the lawsuit yet they may still have their information exposed without their consent or the possibility to consent. While multiple jurisdictions may be able to claim a defendant it doesn't make sense to even need to prove that the case should be tried in california unless you had to show some kind of number of people or traffic indicators. Otherwise the judge could just rule in Sony's favor since everybody knows there is at least one person from that jurisdiction that visited the site. There wouldn't be a point to the subpoenas with respect to making a determination of where the case should be heard. The only other logical reason would be to prove that he was distributing the jailbreak. Even then you still do not need personally identifying data for that purpose, the IP address logs would suffice assuming records of individual file downloads are kept.

Yes, that is, I suspect, why, in part, the magistrate granted the subpoena: because distribution is a core issue in the case. But bear in mind that the Google subpoena is but one of many internet sites from which Sony seeks discovery and that probably has more than a little to do with their theory of the case that Hotz was trafficking in circumvention technology. Those internet sites aren't without some relationship to each other and the personal identifying information goes to understanding that relationship. For example, if all Sony gets from Google is IP address logs, how can they then use that information to meaningfully compare those visitors to the visitors to the PayPal site (where it is entirely possible that money was exchanged for the circumvention information)? They can't. They may get lucky and pick up those who visited both sites from the same IP address. But what about the cases where the same visitor used one IP address to visit the Google site and another IP address to visit the PayPal site. Sony would never be able to determine that the same visitor used two different IP addresses if all they have is the IP address. They'll need something more. Sony's entitled to as much information as is needed to reasonably make head and tails of what exactly occurred.

As far as I know the Paypal subpoena was denied. You can donate money to whoever you feel like. I would be even more concerned if they were able to legally do that and then claim that he was making a profit off of the whole thing. They still don't need to know who was downloading what from his sites, they only need to know that the file was downloaded. There still is not a need to be able to discover the personally identifying information of the various IP addresses in this case. Although it would be interesting to know how download logs would work, visiting a webpage downloads the page itself. Depending on your browser settings and exactly how the download link was setup it would be easy to download the jailbreak without realizing it. According to Sony Bluehost only has IP logs but they still seem to be asking for more than they need to prove both of their arguments.

The subpoena I read included PayPal. I could be wrong, though. But I hope you still get my drift.

C'mon, man. "Donation" is what the medical marijuana dispensaries in California call the "price" they ask for a half-ounce of that really good Bubblegum Kush because they're legally required to operate as a non-profit collective of their member patients and technically aren't supposed to be "selling" a thing. But doesn't a rose by another name still smell like a rose?

Doesn't matter, you can still donate to him if you feel like it. I doubt they would ever be able to prove that the transfer of money was a sale for recieving the jailbreak code. If I write a program and people like the program and donate money to me because of it, that does not make my program a commercial product.

The subpoenas granted here do not include paypal since Sony's lawyers knew they would never be able to prove that he was selling the hack. Now they could very well hope that someone mentions donating because of the release of his code and claim that this constitutes him making a profit but I doubt that would hold up. People express gratitude for all kinds of things through donations every day.

The information has to be relevant to the stated reason for the request does it not? The personal information of these non parties simply is not relevant to the claims that they are trying to prove. Allowing them to go on a fishing expedition and build up a bunch of data unrelated to the claims they are trying to prove is dangerous. It would be like claiming I need to see the financial statements of your mother because you sent her a letter detailing various defamatory remarks which you later published elsewhere. Instead of simply locating her address to prove that you sent her the letter.

No, that's not the legal definition of "relevant" information. Information is relevant if its presence tends to make a issue of fact in the lawsuit more likely or less likely to indeed be a fact than if the information wasn't present. The information has to be relevant to the lawsuit. Usually, the stated reason for needing it is that it is relevant.

And I'm not gonna go down that "donation" path with you. If you think that because you obtain a product from someone and then "donate" some money to them as a token of your gratitude, that what's occurring isn't a "sale," I'm going to have to take a pass on that one and leave it all for you to have.

And, after double-checking, it appears that you are right -- at least partially so. The PayPal subpoena wasn't denied but, after meeting and conferring, plaintiff and defendant mutually agreed to not subpoena PayPal.

Really a donation and a sale are equivalent now? Cause that ain't what it says here:http://law.yourdictionary.com/sale

 

[JDKJ]

Yes, yes this magistrate did issue the subpoena, but it's not as if these things have not been vacated by other judges. In fact the lower court judge said that following Sony's logic the entire universe would be under her jurisdiction. There is pretty much no doubt that people within this magistrate's jurisdiction accessed his blog or followed him on twitter. That goes without saying. The problem is that the nature of the technology itself makes it such that it is logically impossible to demarcate jurisdiction because access is available to a huge portion of the earth.

It's the kind of stupidity that allows obscenity laws in one state to apply to servers based in another state where the owner would otherwise not be subject to the laws of the other state. Yes judges have actually ruled this way, yes it is nonsensical because now the obscenity laws of different states apply to people and content not located within their borders. Holtz lives in New Jersey presumably much of his content originates geographically from New Jersey. How is it then that he should be the one to make the trip to California? Because the server happens to be located in that state? Really? That is the major justification? Does that then mean that non Americans are subject to California state law since they technically entered California through the internet?

She said that before she ruled that the case could proceed before her. That would also be before she said that by publishing his crack file in the State of California and potentially causing injury to Sony in California, Hotz, in so doing, subjected himself to the jurisdiction of California courts.

If I sit in New York and publish defamatory statements about you on the internet where they can be read by some in Alabama, you bet your house that an Alabama court can properly exercise jurisdiction over my libel suit against you. Alabama is one of the places where you have potentially caused harm to my reputation. A place of injury is always a legitimate place to bring suit.

You are right, but in that instance you would be a direct party to the lawsuit, you wouldn't be someone entirely unrelated to the suit. Requests for discovery of Doe's are granted all the time, they are also denied all the time even when the Doe is the one being targeted. The problem is that they are trying to use the location data to prove that the california court has jurisdiction as opposed to the court in New Jersey because of the server locations which makes no sense because the entire planet could easily claim jurisdiction let alone any of the other forty-nine states. What would be the threshold to even decide that one place had more jurisdiction than another? Because unless there is some way to tell that one place has more jurisdiction than another through the traffic to the site everywhere would have equal jurisdiction. At that point I would suggest picking some neutral area to hear the case.

First off, there aren't any "Does." Doe is used to describe someone who's real name and identity is unknown. The subject's of Sony's subpoenas are known to all. "Doe" is like a placeholder used when you don't know precisely who you're after but want to reserve your rights against that person and proceed to the point where you have figured out who they are.

Secondly, personal jurisdiction over a defendant isn't an "either or" or "most" proposition. It is entirely possible that multiple jurisdictions could have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. That's what allows a sharp plaintiff attorney to "forum shop" for what they think is the most favorable jurisdiction among many possible jurisdictions. And, yes, while your suggestion of a "neutral ground" would promote fairness, a plaintiff is free to bring their suit wherever they choose, as long as it's a jurisdiction that can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

The defendant is George Holtz, he is the target of the lawsuit. The people with identifying information that may be pulled because of these subpoenas are not parties to the lawsuit yet they may still have their information exposed without their consent or the possibility to consent. While multiple jurisdictions may be able to claim a defendant it doesn't make sense to even need to prove that the case should be tried in california unless you had to show some kind of number of people or traffic indicators. Otherwise the judge could just rule in Sony's favor since everybody knows there is at least one person from that jurisdiction that visited the site. There wouldn't be a point to the subpoenas with respect to making a determination of where the case should be heard. The only other logical reason would be to prove that he was distributing the jailbreak. Even then you still do not need personally identifying data for that purpose, the IP address logs would suffice assuming records of individual file downloads are kept.

Yes, that is, I suspect, why, in part, the magistrate granted the subpoena: because distribution is a core issue in the case. But bear in mind that the Google subpoena is but one of many internet sites from which Sony seeks discovery and that probably has more than a little to do with their theory of the case that Hotz was trafficking in circumvention technology. Those internet sites aren't without some relationship to each other and the personal identifying information goes to understanding that relationship. For example, if all Sony gets from Google is IP address logs, how can they then use that information to meaningfully compare those visitors to the visitors to the PayPal site (where it is entirely possible that money was exchanged for the circumvention information)? They can't. They may get lucky and pick up those who visited both sites from the same IP address. But what about the cases where the same visitor used one IP address to visit the Google site and another IP address to visit the PayPal site. Sony would never be able to determine that the same visitor used two different IP addresses if all they have is the IP address. They'll need something more. Sony's entitled to as much information as is needed to reasonably make head and tails of what exactly occurred.

As far as I know the Paypal subpoena was denied. You can donate money to whoever you feel like. I would be even more concerned if they were able to legally do that and then claim that he was making a profit off of the whole thing. They still don't need to know who was downloading what from his sites, they only need to know that the file was downloaded. There still is not a need to be able to discover the personally identifying information of the various IP addresses in this case. Although it would be interesting to know how download logs would work, visiting a webpage downloads the page itself. Depending on your browser settings and exactly how the download link was setup it would be easy to download the jailbreak without realizing it. According to Sony Bluehost only has IP logs but they still seem to be asking for more than they need to prove both of their arguments.

The subpoena I read included PayPal. I could be wrong, though. But I hope you still get my drift.

C'mon, man. "Donation" is what the medical marijuana dispensaries in California call the "price" they ask for a half-ounce of that really good Bubblegum Kush because they're legally required to operate as a non-profit collective of their member patients and technically aren't supposed to be "selling" a thing. But doesn't a rose by another name still smell like a rose?

Doesn't matter, you can still donate to him if you feel like it. I doubt they would ever be able to prove that the transfer of money was a sale for recieving the jailbreak code. If I write a program and people like the program and donate money to me because of it, that does not make my program a commercial product.

The subpoenas granted here do not include paypal since Sony's lawyers knew they would never be able to prove that he was selling the hack. Now they could very well hope that someone mentions donating because of the release of his code and claim that this constitutes him making a profit but I doubt that would hold up. People express gratitude for all kinds of things through donations every day.

The information has to be relevant to the stated reason for the request does it not? The personal information of these non parties simply is not relevant to the claims that they are trying to prove. Allowing them to go on a fishing expedition and build up a bunch of data unrelated to the claims they are trying to prove is dangerous. It would be like claiming I need to see the financial statements of your mother because you sent her a letter detailing various defamatory remarks which you later published elsewhere. Instead of simply locating her address to prove that you sent her the letter.

No, that's not the legal definition of "relevant" information. Information is relevant if its presence tends to make a issue of fact in the lawsuit more likely or less likely to indeed be a fact than if the information wasn't present. The information has to be relevant to the lawsuit. Usually, the stated reason for needing it is that it is relevant.

And I'm not gonna go down that "donation" path with you. If you think that because you obtain a product from someone and then "donate" some money to them as a token of your gratitude, that what's occurring isn't a "sale," I'm going to have to take a pass on that one and leave it all for you to have.

And, after double-checking, it appears that you are right -- at least partially so. The PayPal subpoena wasn't denied but, after meeting and conferring, plaintiff and defendant mutually agreed to not subpoena PayPal.

Really a donation and a sale are equivalent now? Cause that ain't what it says here:http://law.yourdictionary.com/sale

I stand by my previously stated position that I will not allow you to lead me down that "donation" path. Sorry, but that's a road you're gonna hafta trod all by your lonesome.

 

[Illyasviel]

Sure there is no need to be hysterical one should however be at least mildly concerned that potentially identifying information about people not party to a civil action may be exposed because someone feels like stacking the deck in their favor. Once that data is exposed you then have to trust this third party to keep the information secured and we all know that the more people that know a given thing the harder it is to keep it a secret.

I am by no means an Internet activist, but I do try to closely follow the emerging Internet legal landscape and am a proponent of net neutrality. I'm no expert on law either, though I'm assuming JDKJ is. Like you, when I was new to the "scene" ( honestly, I hate to describe something as important as the Internet legal landscape with a word so closely associated with hipster triviality, but I can't think of a better word ), I was outraged at every new thing I learned.

Since then, I've graduated with a degree in computer science, learned a lot about the Internet and learned about the general dickery that goes around daily. Most of all, I've matured. I no longer rail against every perceived injustice and I no longer automatically side with the people just for the sake of siding with the people. Like it or not, business is people, people need business and business has just as much right to be protected by the law as do people. Plus, people are just plain dicks. By extension, so is business. Moderation in all things.

And I give you a 99% guarantee, this is nothing to be worried about, at all. Unlike the RIAA, Sony is likely issuing these subpeonas just to gather statistics, not to actually target individuals. They are not lashing out against the people, they are simply gathering ammunition for their coming legal battles against a douchebag brat who deserves to be put down.

 

[JDKJ]

Sure there is no need to be hysterical one should however be at least mildly concerned that potentially identifying information about people not party to a civil action may be exposed because someone feels like stacking the deck in their favor. Once that data is exposed you then have to trust this third party to keep the information secured and we all know that the more people that know a given thing the harder it is to keep it a secret.

I am by no means an Internet activist, but I do try to closely follow the emerging Internet legal landscape and am a proponent of net neutrality. I'm no expert on law either, though I'm assuming JDKJ is. Like you, when I was new to the "scene" ( honestly, I hate to describe something as important as the Internet legal landscape with a word so closely associated with hipster triviality, but I can't think of a better word ), I was outraged at every new thing I learned.

Since then, I've graduated with a degree in computer science, learned a lot about the Internet and learned about the general dickery that goes around daily. Most of all, I've matured. I no longer rail against every perceived injustice and I no longer automatically side with the people just for the sake of siding with the people. Like it or not, business is people, people need business and business has just as much right to be protected by the law as do people. Plus, people are just plain dicks. Moderation in all things.

And I give you a 99% guarantee, this is nothing to be worried about, at all. Unlike the RIAA, Sony is likely issuing these subpeonas just to gather statistics, not to actually target individuals. They are not lashing out against the people, they are simply gathering ammunition for their coming legal battles against a douchebag brat who deserves to be put down.

To say that I am an expert on law understates the case. I have F. Lee Bailey blood and Johnny Cochran DNA. Just kidding.

 

[Illyasviel]

To say that I am an expert on law understates the case. I have F. Lee Bailey blood and Johnny Cochran DNA. Just kidding.

Honestly, I'm surprised the gaming industry has put up with our dickery for so long as well as they have. Compared to the RIAA / MPAA / PornographyAA, the gaming industry have proven themselves to be complete gentleman. Last year, nearly 100,000 downloaders were presented papers to appear in court, and while it is true that a majority of these charges were made by the pornography industry, that still comes out to around 270 new cases clogging up the courts being created every single day. In comparison, I can't even recall five separate times the gaming industry has targeted "the people" in a court of law, and hell, with the exception of one of those cases, they were pretty goddamn valid calls.

Not to say the gaming industry hasn't pulled its own dick moves of course. Nintendo suing people for posting pictures from their latest Pokemon game prior to release and Eidos getting that one dude fired for his scathing review of Kane & Lynch come to mind ( I'm purposely ignoring Bobby Kotick on this one, I don't want to write an essay ).

If the gaming industry had the same execs as the music industry, I couldn't bring myself to support them as I do. Gamers really need to consider how good we have it, relatively speaking of course. The last thing I want to see is the gaming industry turning into something as evil as the RIAA. Or Apple.

 

[JDKJ]

To say that I am an expert on law understates the case. I have F. Lee Bailey blood and Johnny Cochran DNA. Just kidding.

Honestly, I'm surprised the gaming industry has put up with our dickery for so long as well as they have. Compared to the RIAA / MPAA / PornographyAA, the gaming industry have proven themselves to be complete gentleman. Last year, nearly 100,000 downloaders were presented papers to appear in court, and while it is true that a majority of these charges were made by the pornography industry, that still comes out to around 270 new cases clogging up the courts being created every single day. In comparison, I can't even recall five separate times the gaming industry has targeted "the people" in a court of law, and hell, with the exception of one of those cases, they were pretty goddamn valid calls.

Gamers really need to consider how good we have it, relatively speaking of course. The last thing I want to see is the gaming industry turning into something as evil as the RIAA.

And the irony is that most gamers seemingly don't appreciate the distinct possibility that if Sony doesn't do exactly what it's doing (i.e., aggressively prosecute the George Hotzes of the world and protect themselves against the proliferation of profit-robbing pirated games), then that could spell the doom of gaming. Just like illegal file sharing fucked the recorded music industry -- leaving us all with little choice in music to consume other than SoldierBoyTell'Em and Wacka Flocka Flame.

 

[Illyasviel]

And the irony is that most gamers seemingly don't appreciate the distinct possibility that if Sony doesn't do exactly what it's doing (i.e., aggressively prosecute the George Hotzes of the world and protect themselves against the proliferation of profit-robbing pirated games), then that could spell the doom of gaming. Just like illegal file sharing fucked the recorded music industry -- leaving us all with little choice in music to consume other than SoldierBoyTell'Em and Wacka Flocka Flame.

Exactly. Every hit publishers take to their bottom line is a hit to their willingness to move away from the completely safe, formulaic Halos and WoW clones of the gaming world. Even now, EA is trying to figure out what to do with Mirror's Edge 2, and that's a crying shame.

And before everybody starts falsely accusing the gaming industry of being lazy or unimaginative, I want you guys to look up the definition of what it means to be a publicly traded company, and for once, try putting yourself in the shoes of an exec.

Furthermore, unlike the music industry, triple A games don't require a handful of dudes gathered in some guy's basement or something, it requires tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars. Gaming is no longer a grass roots industry.

Luckily for me, I'm rediscovering classical music.

 

[JDKJ]

And the irony is that most gamers seemingly don't appreciate the distinct possibility that if Sony doesn't do exactly what it's doing (i.e., aggressively prosecute the George Hotzes of the world and protect themselves against the proliferation of profit-robbing pirated games), then that could spell the doom of gaming. Just like illegal file sharing fucked the recorded music industry -- leaving us all with little choice in music to consume other than SoldierBoyTell'Em and Wacka Flocka Flame.

Exactly. Every hit publishers take to their bottom line is a hit to their willingness to move away from the completely safe, formulaic Halos and WoW clones of the gaming world. Even now, EA is trying to figure out what to do with Mirror's Edge 2, and that's a crying shame.

And before everybody starts falsely accusing the gaming industry of being lazy or unimaginative, I want you guys to look up the definition of what it means to be a publicly traded company, and for once, try putting yourself in the shoes of an exec.

Furthermore, unlike the music industry, triple A games don't require a handful of dudes gathered in some guy's basement or something, it requires tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars. Gaming is no longer a grass roots industry.

Luckily for me, I'm rediscovering classical music.

As if Sony's some evil Gargamel-like sorcerer with no better objective than to continuously plot the capture and consumption of the Smurfs. Sony's a publicly-held corporation accountable, first and foremost, to its shareholders. If I held stock in Sony and they didn't sue Hotz, then I'd sue Sony for failing to satisfy their obligations to me as a shareholder.

 

[shadow skill]

Sure there is no need to be hysterical one should however be at least mildly concerned that potentially identifying information about people not party to a civil action may be exposed because someone feels like stacking the deck in their favor. Once that data is exposed you then have to trust this third party to keep the information secured and we all know that the more people that know a given thing the harder it is to keep it a secret.

I am by no means an Internet activist, but I do try to closely follow the emerging Internet legal landscape and am a proponent of net neutrality. I'm no expert on law either, though I'm assuming JDKJ is. Like you, when I was new to the "scene" ( honestly, I hate to describe something as important as the Internet legal landscape with a word so closely associated with hipster triviality, but I can't think of a better word ), I was outraged at every new thing I learned.

Since then, I've graduated with a degree in computer science, learned a lot about the Internet and learned about the general dickery that goes around daily. Most of all, I've matured. I no longer rail against every perceived injustice and I no longer automatically side with the people just for the sake of siding with the people. Like it or not, business is people, people need business and business has just as much right to be protected by the law as do people. Plus, people are just plain dicks. By extension, so is business. Moderation in all things.

And I give you a 99% guarantee, this is nothing to be worried about, at all. Unlike the RIAA, Sony is likely issuing these subpeonas just to gather statistics, not to actually target individuals. They are not lashing out against the people, they are simply gathering ammunition for their coming legal battles against a douchebag brat who deserves to be put down.

Deserves to be put down for what exactly? Figuring out an exploit and telling people about it? Jailbreaking has yet to cause the demise of any of the major consoles that I can think of in the last ten years. People wanting to run custom software really is not nor should it be a crime. That people may do things that are against the law with such knowledge should not make the dissemination of that knowledge illegal otherwise one would have to seriously consider banning programming books because the knowledge contained in them could be used to do all sorts of nefarious things. All Sony is doing right now is throwing a temper tantrum and trying to spend Hotz into submission. if I want to run nonstandard software on a piece of hardware I bought I should be able to do so without the original manufacturer crying that the tools to do this exist. By the same token they can deny me access to their network if I chose to modify my console.

It shouldn't be a gray issue if I want to create a tool that can clone PS3 filesystems so I can easily transfer files to new hard drives. I should be able to create said tool and distribute it, without Sony crying foul. I should not be hearing stories about an association of American authors putting pressure on Amazon to remove text-to-speech from some kindle offerings because they feel entitled to a specific business model. (With the recent exception for things like circumventing DRM for Ebooks this is not a problem.)

I also shouldn't have features removed from a product because of some fake security concerns over an non remote executable exploit. Nor do I expect to be told that said feature didn't matter at that time. A private entity shouldn't be able to go on a fishing expedition in order to prove that a court has jurisdiction when everyone on earth knows that there absolutely were people in that part of the world that accessed that site. Nor should they in the process be given the means by which to file mass lawsuits in order to troll people under the guise of discovery against a single individual who is already known to them. (Though I suspect that part of their aim might be to try and figure out who failoverflow is.)

All of this while I am told to trust that they will not do bad things with the data or cause it to be compromised.

 

[Illyasviel]

All of this while I am told to trust that they will not do bad things with the data or cause it to be compromised.

Oh FFS, quit your melodrama.

Look up the definition of what it means to be a publicly traded company, and for once, try putting yourself in the shoes of an exec.

As if Sony's some evil Gargamel-like sorcerer with no better objective than to continuously plot the capture and consumption of the Smurfs. Sony's a publicly-held corporation accountable, first and foremost, to its shareholders. If I held stock in Sony and they didn't sue Hotz, then I'd sue Sony for failing to satisfy their obligations to me as a shareholder.

Get it? Even if Sony's exec board was made up of nothing but angels, Sony still HAS NO GODDAMN CHOICE BUT to sue GeoHot. If I held Sony stock and Sony sat on their asses about this GeoHot business, I would be livid. What's the best way for Sony to legally pursue GeoHot? Exactly as they are doing. You know what Sony could've done? They could've killed GeoHot ( the defacto go to solution for all problems prior to the 1900s ). They could've hired hackers to look into your computers without your consent ( MediaDefenders, RIAA ). But they haven't. Instead, they've followed the legal playbook step by step, letter by letter.

Maybe you're the type of person that would've been happier if GeoHot mysteriously disappeared. If you couldn't prove Sony did it, you'd have nobody to cry about and wouldn't be going on and on about these perceived injustices.

That is reality. It sucks. Sorry.

 

[JDKJ]

Sure there is no need to be hysterical one should however be at least mildly concerned that potentially identifying information about people not party to a civil action may be exposed because someone feels like stacking the deck in their favor. Once that data is exposed you then have to trust this third party to keep the information secured and we all know that the more people that know a given thing the harder it is to keep it a secret.

I am by no means an Internet activist, but I do try to closely follow the emerging Internet legal landscape and am a proponent of net neutrality. I'm no expert on law either, though I'm assuming JDKJ is. Like you, when I was new to the "scene" ( honestly, I hate to describe something as important as the Internet legal landscape with a word so closely associated with hipster triviality, but I can't think of a better word ), I was outraged at every new thing I learned.

Since then, I've graduated with a degree in computer science, learned a lot about the Internet and learned about the general dickery that goes around daily. Most of all, I've matured. I no longer rail against every perceived injustice and I no longer automatically side with the people just for the sake of siding with the people. Like it or not, business is people, people need business and business has just as much right to be protected by the law as do people. Plus, people are just plain dicks. By extension, so is business. Moderation in all things.

And I give you a 99% guarantee, this is nothing to be worried about, at all. Unlike the RIAA, Sony is likely issuing these subpeonas just to gather statistics, not to actually target individuals. They are not lashing out against the people, they are simply gathering ammunition for their coming legal battles against a douchebag brat who deserves to be put down.

Deserves to be put down for what exactly? Figuring out an exploit and telling people about it? Jailbreaking has yet to cause the demise of any of the major consoles that I can think of in the last ten years. People wanting to run custom software really is not nor should it be a crime. That people may do things that are against the law with such knowledge should not make the dissemination of that knowledge illegal otherwise one would have to seriously consider banning programming books because the knowledge contained in them could be used to do all sorts of nefarious things. All Sony is doing right now is throwing a temper tantrum and trying to spend Hotz into submission. if I want to run nonstandard software on a piece of hardware I bought I should be able to do so without the original manufacturer crying that the tools to do this exist. By the same token they can deny me access to their network if I chose to modify my console.

It shouldn't be a gray issue if I want to create a tool that can clone PS3 filesystems so I can easily transfer files to new hard drives. I should be able to create said tool and distribute it, without Sony crying foul. I should not be hearing stories about an association of American authors putting pressure on Amazon to remove text-to-speech from some kindle offerings because they feel entitled to a specific business model. (With the recent exception for things like circumventing DRM for Ebooks this is not a problem.)

I also shouldn't have features removed from a product because of some fake security concerns over an non remote executable exploit. Nor do I expect to be told that said feature didn't matter at that time. A private entity shouldn't be able to go on a fishing expedition in order to prove that a court has jurisdiction when everyone on earth knows that there absolutely were people in that part of the world that accessed that site. Nor should they in the process be given the means by which to file mass lawsuits in order to troll people under the guise of discovery against a single individual who is already known to them. (Though I suspect that part of their aim might be to try and figure out who failoverflow is.)

All of this while I am told to trust that they will not do bad things with the data or cause it to be compromised.

You should be able to create said tool and distribute it without Sony crying foul only to the extent that the ostensive purpose of that tool is not to allow for bypassing access control mechanism so infringement can occur. And I emphasize "ostensive." Just because you say it isn't intended for the purpose of bypassing access control mechanisms so infringement can occur don't mean a thing. It's whether or not an objective analysis would determine that is intended for the purpose of bypassing access control mechanisms so infringement can occur. If that objective analysis forces the conclusion that it is, then you shouldn't be allowed to create any such tool and Sony has every right to call foul if you do.

The DMCA doesn't prohibit legitimate circumvention. There are a number of exceptions to the general prohibition against circumvention. If your circumvention falls into one of the exempted classes, then fine. If it doesn't, then not so fine.

 

[shadow skill]

All of this while I am told to trust that they will not do bad things with the data or cause it to be compromised.

Oh FFS, quit your melodrama.

Look up the definition of what it means to be a publicly traded company, and for once, try putting yourself in the shoes of an exec.

As if Sony's some evil Gargamel-like sorcerer with no better objective than to continuously plot the capture and consumption of the Smurfs. Sony's a publicly-held corporation accountable, first and foremost, to its shareholders. If I held stock in Sony and they didn't sue Hotz, then I'd sue Sony for failing to satisfy their obligations to me as a shareholder.

Get it? Even if Sony's exec board was made up of nothing but angels, Sony still HAS NO GODDAMN CHOICE BUT to sue GeoHot. If I held Sony stock and Sony sat on their asses about this GeoHot business, I would be livid. What's the best way for Sony to legally pursue GeoHot? Exactly as they are doing. You know what Sony could've done? They could've killed GeoHot ( the defacto go to solution for all problems prior to the 1900s ). They could've hired hackers to look into your computers without your consent ( MediaDefenders, RIAA ). But they haven't. Instead, they've followed the legal playbook step by step, letter by letter.

Maybe you're the type of person that would've been happier if GeoHot mysteriously disappeared. If you couldn't prove Sony did it, you'd have nobody to cry about and wouldn't be going on and on about these perceived injustices.

That is reality. It sucks. Sorry.

How about you stop screaming melodrama every five seconds and conjuring up stories about how they could have just assassinated him therefore an unjustified fishing expedition is magically warranted. Do you know that the American association of authors I mentioned earlier threatened to sue amazon with the claim that the text-to-speech functionality constituted a performance and therefore entitled them to proceeds. You know that there are people with low or no vision that could have made use of that functionality without having to wait for an express legal exception to be made if the association had decided not to be assholes about the whole thing. But according to you that isn't a part of the reality that we live in no. It also isn't true that anyone who can understand the appropriate physics and chemistry can build explosives out of common materials according to you. Therefore the argument that people can't post information about security exploits is valid. Except of course it isn't since claiming that this kind of information is illegal to publish even though it doesn't cause physical harm to anyone is equivalent to claiming that books on physics and chemistry should be banned because through them you can learn how to create explosives.

Exploit news and details are published all the time, you know what that does? It helps people fix the problem or create something interesting and non destructive, see all the interesting applications run on various consoles or other devices that have been jailbroken. The ability to abuse knowledge doesn't make it wrong to share that knowledge. But wait according to you Sony has no choice but to sue Hotz and theoretically the entire goddamn internet since even if they win the lawsuit won't stop piracy or jailbreaking from going on. If I was a shareholder I would be pissed that they didn't just open up the RSX and allow GPU acceleration under Linux since the presence of Linux on the device had effectively solved the problem of hacking since it took away a good chunk of the motivation to even bother cracking the device. I would be pissed that they are doing their best to look like dicks which actually has a negative impact on sales somewhere down the line.

The lesson from the PSP was that you can never beat the crackers, you cannot sue them into submission since the world does not have the same laws everywhere. Yet we have them spending money to make an example out of someone while the computing world laughs at the futility of the whole endeavor.

 

[Illyasviel]

How about you stop screaming melodrama every five seconds and conjuring up stories about how they could have just assassinated him therefore an unjustified fishing expedition is magically warranted. Do you know that the American association of authors I mentioned earlier threeatned to sue amazon with the claim that the text-to-speech functionality constituted a performance and therefore entitled them to proceeds. You know that there are people with low or no vision that could have made use of that functionality without having to wait for an express legal exception to be made if the association had decided not to be assholes about the whole thing. But according to you that isn't a part of the reality that we live in no. It also isn't true that anyone who can understand the appropriate physics and chemistry can build explosives out of common materials and yet no one in the modern era talks about banning books containing such knowledge.

How about you propose a compromise or alternative solution for Sony to avoid piracy while still being a publicly traded corporation? What, should Sony just let GeoHot run free? Should businesses give up all their rights so that people, who let me remind you, are generally ignorant dicks, be happy going about their illegal business all day?

If it really pisses you off, why don't you just exclusively stick to non-Playstation products? Or even non-Sony products? Vote with your dollar?

Don't give me some stupid "offer better features to make your services indispensable" bullshit. That doesn't work. The pornography industry has been doing it for years and are still losing profit every single year.

The Nintendo Wii was the first console to go open. Tell me about some interesting, useful applications that have appeared on that console. Please. I'll take that time to look up some piracy rates.

Let's see: House of the Dead: Overkill.
http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/25935/the-house-of-the-dead-overkill/ Estimated sales: 760k.
http://wii.nintendolife.com/news/2009/12/and_the_most_pirated_wii_games_of_2009_are Estimated copies pirated: 860k.

Oh right, let's ban books. We can as much do that as ban kitchen knives, a potential tool for murder.