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

[shadow skill]

What does Hotz's work have to do with piracy? Is that it's sole purpose? Can it be used for other legitimate things? Are you seriously going to compare videogames to porn? Porn is an industry where people don't want anyone to see them buying it because of cultural stigma, games are not anywhere near that level. Sony did not have anywhere near the level of cracking going on until they removed Linux support from the PS3. Hotz was not even the first to do a hypervisor exploit he just found a particularly serious exploit.

Getting the Wii to playback DVDs is one example of an interesting application that was possible because of an exploit.

"Not the sole purpose" doesn't get you off the hook. The legal standards are "primary purpose" and "little commercial value other than." Inherent to both standards is the recognition that there could well be other purposes. But that there could be other purposes don't necessarily get you off the hook.

And, unless I'm sorely mistaken, Hotz' crack can be employed so as to bypass the PS3's ACM and allow the cracker to play pirated games. Is that not the case?

I would imagine that the ability to run custom firmware on the system could facilitate piracy. That doesn't tell us that such ability means that that is the exploit's primary purpose. It's primary purpose seems to be bypassing the hypervisor to allow custom software to be run on the system. That by itself has nothing to do with circumventing the copy protection on Bluray discs or PSN games.

But if all one needs is the ability to potentially run pirated games then OEMs would have reason to forbid people from installing their own operating systems on their computers. Or they could forbid version control software since it is possible to use version control software to circumvent serial keys.

I never said a thing about all that's needed is the ability to potentially run pirated games. That's not the two legal standards of the DMCA I quoted. I said "primary purpose" and "little commercial value other than."

I have no hard empirical evidence, but my own observation and knowledge suggests to me that the number of folks out there that would be interested in running their own custom software on a PS3 is very small. I know several owners of a PS3 and not one of them run custom software on it or have any interest whatsoever in doing so. What evidence suggests to you that its primary purpose seems to be bypassing the hypervisor to allow custom software to be run on the system? And if you have no hard empirical evidence in support of that proposition, then perhaps you can now see why something as seemingly ridiculous as comments posted to a YouTube video concerning the crack could be informative of that issue and why Sony's interest in obtaining that sort of information isn't at all far-fetched.

For example, let's assume that Hotz uploads his video and and receives 100 comments thereto. Let's further assume that one of those comments says "Woo-hoo! Thanks, George. Now I can run custom software on my PS3!" and that the other 99 say "Woo-hoo! Thanks, George. Now I can play pirated games and DVDs on my PS3!" That information is not only relevant to the factual issues of "primary purpose" and "little commercial value other than" but also tends to establish that the "primary purpose" of the crack is to play pirated games and Blu-rays on a PS3 and/or that the crack has "little commercial value other than" to allow playing of pirated games and Blu-rays.

Except such comments don't really prove the primary purpose of the material that Hotz released. It only speaks to the intent of those posters to that video. I could do a web search and find all kinds of articles and comments that talk about the desire to restore Linux, and/or run custom firmware. Hotz's code by itself does not crack games it only executes a buffer overflow that bypasses the hypervisor. Now how that might facilitate piracy is up for debate, but the code he released doesn't have anything to do with the piracy of games.

As for the people who may have downloaded the jailbreak there is an exception for cryptographic research, as long as there is no evidence that people who downloaded the file distributed it and the rest of their actions fall under the exception Sony won't have much of a case. Unless they somehow trump up a copyright violation.

That would most certainly tend to establish either that the primary purpose of the crack is to allow piracy and/or it's commercial purpose is little beyond allowing piracy. If I'm sitting in the jury box and Sony presents evidence to me that 99% of those who received the crack used it for the purpose of playing pirated games and Blu-rays and only 1% of those who did used it for a purpose not involving pirated games or Blu-rays, then I'm gonna give Sony a check mark under the column headed "Has Sony Presented Evidence that the Circumvention at Issue in this Case is for the Primary Purpose of Allowing Piracy and/or Has Little Commercial Purpose other than Allowing Piracy?" Some other juror may disagree with me and not give them a check mark, but at least they'll have my check mark. Get enough check marks from the other jurors and -- you're smart enough to figure out what happens next.

Bear in mind that Hotz' subjective intent -- whatever that may have been -- has nothing to do with anything. It's all about what the objective evidence indicates.

But the DMCA has provisions dealing with the fact that certain devices have substantial uses that have nothing to do with infringement. The comments on the video still wouldn't matter.

 

[nipsen]

Did you really post a "LOL" to Hotz' YouTube video? Not to needlessly alarm you -- you're probably correct in asserting that Sony is unlikely to pursue you for that

That's not the point. The point is that they were able to subpoena the information from Hotz web-provider. And therefore will be able to legally obtain the names and addresses of anyone they think will be worth pursuing (i.e., by requesting names from the providers based on those addresses).

Even if it doesn't actually result in a court-case, the fact that a company was able to legally subpoena that data so easily - is unbelievable.

What's unbelievable about it? It happens everyday in countless civil lawsuits in the United States. If I had sued Bernie Madoff on the allegation that he had cheated me and countless other investors out of billions of dollars in an elaborate Ponzi scheme, you don't think I'd be able to get a subpoena allowing me to obtain from Mr. Madoff detailed information on each and every one of those other investors? I most certainly would. That information is both relevant to my suit and highly probative of my allegations.

..so.. how is the identities of random visitors connected to criminal behaviour?

If Hotz was the mastermind behind a Ponzi scheme, or something undeniably criminal - this would be the equivalent of collecting the addresses of everyone the people behind the scheme ever visited, or planned on visiting. And then not simply using the number of addresses to prove the intent behind the scheme - but turning this data over to a third party because they ask for it. This doesn't happen "very often" even in the US.

For example. If you were investigating fraud involving illegal trade of, say, potentially copyright-infringing spin-offs from a dealer in a Saudi mall - this would be the same as turning over the visitor logs for the hotel in the same location, along with the credit card information of people shopping nearby - because the investigator thinks it might be relevant. That's something even an official investigator can't do without connecting the trade to actual evidence involving the visitors or specific shops. Even if the shop itself had credit card records - you would need to prove that the records were relevant to your case in order to actually get hold of them.

But Sony, a third party, gets a sweeping pile of data and traffic logs, in order to prove... that enough of the visitors are from California? In order to find a significant amount of visitors are within the court's jurisdiction? It's just comical. ...I mean, apart from being completely insane.

 

[nipsen]

Did you really post a "LOL" to Hotz' YouTube video? Not to needlessly alarm you -- you're probably correct in asserting that Sony is unlikely to pursue you for that

That's not the point. The point is that they were able to subpoena the information from Hotz web-provider. And therefore will be able to legally obtain the names and addresses of anyone they think will be worth pursuing (i.e., by requesting names from the providers based on those addresses).

Even if it doesn't actually result in a court-case, the fact that a company was able to legally subpoena that data so easily - is unbelievable.

What's unbelievable about it? It happens everyday in countless civil lawsuits in the United States. If I had sued Bernie Madoff on the allegation that he had cheated me and countless other investors out of billions of dollars in an elaborate Ponzi scheme, you don't think I'd be able to get a subpoena allowing me to obtain from Mr. Madoff detailed information on each and every one of those other investors? I most certainly would. That information is both relevant to my suit and highly probative of my allegations.

..so.. how is the identities of random visitors connected to criminal behaviour?

If Hotz was the mastermind behind a Ponzi scheme, or something undeniably criminal - this would be the equivalent of collecting the addresses of everyone the people behind the scheme ever visited, or planned on visiting. And then not simply using the number of addresses to prove the intent behind the scheme - but turning this data over to a third party because they ask for it. This doesn't happen "very often" even in the US.

For example. If you were investigating fraud involving illegal trade of, say, potentially copyright-infringing spin-offs from a dealer in a Saudi mall - this would be the same as turning over the visitor logs for the hotel in the same location, along with the credit card information of people shopping nearby - because the investigator thinks it might be relevant. That's something even an official investigator can't do without connecting the trade to actual evidence involving the visitors or specific shops. Even if the shop itself had credit card records - you would need to prove that the records were relevant to your case in order to actually get hold of them.

But Sony, a third party, gets a sweeping pile of data and traffic logs, in order to prove... that enough of the visitors are from California? In order to find a significant amount of visitors are within the court's jurisdiction? It's just comical. ...I mean, apart from being completely insane.

 

[JDKJ]

Did you really post a "LOL" to Hotz' YouTube video? Not to needlessly alarm you -- you're probably correct in asserting that Sony is unlikely to pursue you for that

That's not the point. The point is that they were able to subpoena the information from Hotz web-provider. And therefore will be able to legally obtain the names and addresses of anyone they think will be worth pursuing (i.e., by requesting names from the providers based on those addresses).

Even if it doesn't actually result in a court-case, the fact that a company was able to legally subpoena that data so easily - is unbelievable.

What's unbelievable about it? It happens everyday in countless civil lawsuits in the United States. If I had sued Bernie Madoff on the allegation that he had cheated me and countless other investors out of billions of dollars in an elaborate Ponzi scheme, you don't think I'd be able to get a subpoena allowing me to obtain from Mr. Madoff detailed information on each and every one of those other investors? I most certainly would. That information is both relevant to my suit and highly probative of my allegations.

..so.. how is the identities of random visitors connected to criminal behaviour?

If Hotz was the mastermind behind a Ponzi scheme, or something undeniably criminal - this would be the equivalent of collecting the addresses of everyone the people behind the scheme ever visited, or planned on visiting. And then not simply using the number of addresses to prove the intent behind the scheme - but turning this data over to a third party because they ask for it. This doesn't happen "very often" even in the US.

For example. If you were investigating fraud involving illegal trade of, say, potentially copyright-infringing spin-offs from a dealer in a Saudi mall - this would be the same as turning over the visitor logs for the hotel in the same location, along with the credit card information of people shopping nearby - because the investigator thinks it might be relevant. That's something even an official investigator can't do without connecting the trade to actual evidence involving the visitors or specific shops. Even if the shop itself had credit card records - you would need to prove that the records were relevant to your case in order to actually get hold of them.

But Sony, a third party, gets a sweeping pile of data and traffic logs, in order to prove... that enough of the visitors are from California? In order to find a significant amount of visitors are within the court's jurisdiction? It's just comical. ...I mean, apart from being completely insane.

Call it whatever you want. But that shocked and surprised look your wearing is entirely misplaced. As my man Snoop once said, "Because this types o' shit happens every day." And I can tell you that as a fact based on my own personal experiences wading through an ocean of documents containing third-party personal identifying information produced as part of the discovery process in a number of civil matters in which I've been involved. Happens all the time. Trust me.

And it doesn't go to the jurdisdiction issue only. There's also an issue concerning distribution of the circumvention technology (a required element of a successful circumvention claim under the DMCA) to which it squarely relates.

 

[JDKJ]

What does Hotz's work have to do with piracy? Is that it's sole purpose? Can it be used for other legitimate things? Are you seriously going to compare videogames to porn? Porn is an industry where people don't want anyone to see them buying it because of cultural stigma, games are not anywhere near that level. Sony did not have anywhere near the level of cracking going on until they removed Linux support from the PS3. Hotz was not even the first to do a hypervisor exploit he just found a particularly serious exploit.

Getting the Wii to playback DVDs is one example of an interesting application that was possible because of an exploit.

"Not the sole purpose" doesn't get you off the hook. The legal standards are "primary purpose" and "little commercial value other than." Inherent to both standards is the recognition that there could well be other purposes. But that there could be other purposes don't necessarily get you off the hook.

And, unless I'm sorely mistaken, Hotz' crack can be employed so as to bypass the PS3's ACM and allow the cracker to play pirated games. Is that not the case?

I would imagine that the ability to run custom firmware on the system could facilitate piracy. That doesn't tell us that such ability means that that is the exploit's primary purpose. It's primary purpose seems to be bypassing the hypervisor to allow custom software to be run on the system. That by itself has nothing to do with circumventing the copy protection on Bluray discs or PSN games.

But if all one needs is the ability to potentially run pirated games then OEMs would have reason to forbid people from installing their own operating systems on their computers. Or they could forbid version control software since it is possible to use version control software to circumvent serial keys.

I never said a thing about all that's needed is the ability to potentially run pirated games. That's not the two legal standards of the DMCA I quoted. I said "primary purpose" and "little commercial value other than."

I have no hard empirical evidence, but my own observation and knowledge suggests to me that the number of folks out there that would be interested in running their own custom software on a PS3 is very small. I know several owners of a PS3 and not one of them run custom software on it or have any interest whatsoever in doing so. What evidence suggests to you that its primary purpose seems to be bypassing the hypervisor to allow custom software to be run on the system? And if you have no hard empirical evidence in support of that proposition, then perhaps you can now see why something as seemingly ridiculous as comments posted to a YouTube video concerning the crack could be informative of that issue and why Sony's interest in obtaining that sort of information isn't at all far-fetched.

For example, let's assume that Hotz uploads his video and and receives 100 comments thereto. Let's further assume that one of those comments says "Woo-hoo! Thanks, George. Now I can run custom software on my PS3!" and that the other 99 say "Woo-hoo! Thanks, George. Now I can play pirated games and DVDs on my PS3!" That information is not only relevant to the factual issues of "primary purpose" and "little commercial value other than" but also tends to establish that the "primary purpose" of the crack is to play pirated games and Blu-rays on a PS3 and/or that the crack has "little commercial value other than" to allow playing of pirated games and Blu-rays.

Except such comments don't really prove the primary purpose of the material that Hotz released. It only speaks to the intent of those posters to that video. I could do a web search and find all kinds of articles and comments that talk about the desire to restore Linux, and/or run custom firmware. Hotz's code by itself does not crack games it only executes a buffer overflow that bypasses the hypervisor. Now how that might facilitate piracy is up for debate, but the code he released doesn't have anything to do with the piracy of games.

As for the people who may have downloaded the jailbreak there is an exception for cryptographic research, as long as there is no evidence that people who downloaded the file distributed it and the rest of their actions fall under the exception Sony won't have much of a case. Unless they somehow trump up a copyright violation.

That would most certainly tend to establish either that the primary purpose of the crack is to allow piracy and/or it's commercial purpose is little beyond allowing piracy. If I'm sitting in the jury box and Sony presents evidence to me that 99% of those who received the crack used it for the purpose of playing pirated games and Blu-rays and only 1% of those who did used it for a purpose not involving pirated games or Blu-rays, then I'm gonna give Sony a check mark under the column headed "Has Sony Presented Evidence that the Circumvention at Issue in this Case is for the Primary Purpose of Allowing Piracy and/or Has Little Commercial Purpose other than Allowing Piracy?" Some other juror may disagree with me and not give them a check mark, but at least they'll have my check mark. Get enough check marks from the other jurors and -- you're smart enough to figure out what happens next.

Bear in mind that Hotz' subjective intent -- whatever that may have been -- has nothing to do with anything. It's all about what the objective evidence indicates.

But the DMCA has provisions dealing with the fact that certain devices have substantial uses that have nothing to do with infringement. The comments on the video still wouldn't matter.

You lost me on that one. I've no idea what you're trying say to me.

 

[nipsen]

And it doesn't go to the jurdisdiction issue only. There's also an issue concerning distribution of the circumvention technology (a required element of a successful circumvention claim under the DMCA) to which it squarely relates.

...so how does this relate to a broadly sweeping subpoena? See, subpoena requests are frequently denied in courts around the world because they are not tailored narrowly enough. This was also the case with the first attempt Sony made, where they actually asked about any information possibly related to their case - as an investigative matter, to help them build a case against possible people who may have been involved. This was thrown out. The new variant - apparently the same request, but for a different purpose, was not.

So no, this does not happen every day. What happens every day are subpoenas that are narrowly tailored, and that makes specific requests related to given people and identities. While something that simply draws in several parties, sources, and possible leads -- that's practically unheard of. Even the DOJ guards itself from pushing those too hard, and have had trouble with requests like these even when hunting abominable snowmen in the Afghan mountains. There's a small controversy over that issue as well, if you have been following the news..

 

[Illyasviel]

Even if it doesn't actually result in a court-case, the fact that a company was able to legally subpoena that data so easily - is unbelievable.

Welcome to the United States of America judicial system.

Hotz's code by itself does not crack games it only executes a buffer overflow that bypasses the hypervisor. Now how that might facilitate piracy is up for debate, but the code he released doesn't have anything to do with the piracy of games.

It doesn't matter what Hotz says because he could be lying. Put it up for review by an objective third party. If it turns out that the vast majority of the time the thing is going to be used to circumvent security mechanisms to allow illegitimate usage, than that would make the primary purpose of his tools for piracy, than Hotz can take all this schlep and shove it.

Make a proper analogy.

"Its like my car company coming and slashing my tires because I have a stolen engine and installed a stolen TV in back. I didn't pay for it."

Then, yeah, I guess its kinda weird that your car company would come after you. Normally, the people that would be coming after you are the people you stole the engine and TV from.

So I guess you're saying Sony shouldn't be doing this, Ubisoft, Activision and EA should be doing this. Fair enough.

Uh no, he bought the PS3. Just like I bought the car.
Once it's mine, I should be able to do what i want with it.

Ignoring the elephant in the living room that is piracy. The proper analogy is you are using stolen equipment, regardless of where your car came from. Likewise, just because you use illegitimately acquired materials in a legitimately acquired box, it doesn't make your illegitimately acquired materials anymore legitimate.

All your saying is Sony shouldn't be suing me, the people publishing and making the games should be. Unless, of course, you mean once I am in possession of something, it is automatically, legally mine.

Right, so because I've browsed his site and watched some of his videos, they now have my private information?
Just what the fuck?
No, seriously.
What. The. flying. FUCK?
This is retarded and outright illegal.
I hope they get sued into the ground.

Your private information is... ALREADY EVERYWHERE. If you use the Internet a lot, every single day, enough information can be gleaned from your browsing habits to write a small book. The very fact that Sony is asking to see a couple of pages of that book tells you that Sony hasn't been gathering your personal information all day. If you want to be upset at somebody for having your personal information, here's a list of more valid targets:

Master Card
Discover
American Express
Visa
Google
Microsoft
Yahoo!
Facebook
Amazon

And if that wasn't enough, a gigabyte of storage costs a quarter. Why would they ever delete anything? Look at this:
http://www.amazon.com/Hitachi-Deskstar-3-5-Inch-CoolSpin-0F12117/dp/tech-data/B004E9SGO0/ref=de_a_smtd?t=slickdeals&tag=slickdeals

How much storage do you think it takes to log every single digital transaction you ever make. Two gigabytes? Your entire life stored for all eternity, a thousand times over, for less than a hundred bucks.

 

[theultimateend]

The number of hits these websites may have gotten has no legitimate relation to their case.

This is just Sony trying to build up some straw men.

 

[JDKJ]

And it doesn't go to the jurdisdiction issue only. There's also an issue concerning distribution of the circumvention technology (a required element of a successful circumvention claim under the DMCA) to which it squarely relates.

...so how does this relate to a broadly sweeping subpoena? See, subpoena requests are frequently denied in courts around the world because they are not tailored narrowly enough. This was also the case with the first attempt Sony made, where they actually asked about any information possibly related to their case - as an investigative matter, to help them build a case against possible people who may have been involved. This was thrown out. The new variant - apparently the same request, but for a different purpose, was not.

So no, this does not happen every day. What happens every day are subpoenas that are narrowly tailored, and that makes specific requests related to given people and identities. While something that simply draws in several parties, sources, and possible leads -- that's practically unheard of. Even the DOJ guards itself from pushing those too hard, and have had trouble with requests like these even when hunting abominable snowmen in the Afghan mountains. There's a small controversy over that issue as well, if you have been following the news..

Fine. Don't trust me. But keep your shocked and surprised look handy. I fear this isn't the last time you'll have need of it.

 

[shadow skill]

And it doesn't go to the jurdisdiction issue only. There's also an issue concerning distribution of the circumvention technology (a required element of a successful circumvention claim under the DMCA) to which it squarely relates.

...so how does this relate to a broadly sweeping subpoena? See, subpoena requests are frequently denied in courts around the world because they are not tailored narrowly enough. This was also the case with the first attempt Sony made, where they actually asked about any information possibly related to their case - as an investigative matter, to help them build a case against possible people who may have been involved. This was thrown out. The new variant - apparently the same request, but for a different purpose, was not.

So no, this does not happen every day. What happens every day are subpoenas that are narrowly tailored, and that makes specific requests related to given people and identities. While something that simply draws in several parties, sources, and possible leads -- that's practically unheard of. Even the DOJ guards itself from pushing those too hard, and have had trouble with requests like these even when hunting abominable snowmen in the Afghan mountains. There's a small controversy over that issue as well, if you have been following the news..

Fine. Don't trust me. But keep your shocked and surprised look handy. I fear this isn't the last time you'll have need of it.

Still doesn't change the fact that you don't need identifying information of non parties to prove distribution. Nor do you need that to prove that people were physically located in a given area at the time of access.

The law regarding whether there is a problem with a piece of software does not depend on comments that say "LOL now I pirate." or "Now I build awesome webserver for cheap." All that has to be done is demonstrate value etc. What people say about the item isn't relevant to the application of the rules of the DMCA.

 

[shadow skill]

I wonder if they will do something crazy and sue all the American visitors in some other litigation? My rational mind says they aren't that stupid, but I have been proven wrong about such things in the past. Interestingly courts in California have issued some rulings recently that disalowed some mass filings. If they keep up that trend then Sony may end up having to file for each person individually if they are indeed crazy enough to go that route.

 

[JDKJ]

And it doesn't go to the jurdisdiction issue only. There's also an issue concerning distribution of the circumvention technology (a required element of a successful circumvention claim under the DMCA) to which it squarely relates.

...so how does this relate to a broadly sweeping subpoena? See, subpoena requests are frequently denied in courts around the world because they are not tailored narrowly enough. This was also the case with the first attempt Sony made, where they actually asked about any information possibly related to their case - as an investigative matter, to help them build a case against possible people who may have been involved. This was thrown out. The new variant - apparently the same request, but for a different purpose, was not.

So no, this does not happen every day. What happens every day are subpoenas that are narrowly tailored, and that makes specific requests related to given people and identities. While something that simply draws in several parties, sources, and possible leads -- that's practically unheard of. Even the DOJ guards itself from pushing those too hard, and have had trouble with requests like these even when hunting abominable snowmen in the Afghan mountains. There's a small controversy over that issue as well, if you have been following the news..

Fine. Don't trust me. But keep your shocked and surprised look handy. I fear this isn't the last time you'll have need of it.

Still doesn't change the fact that you don't need identifying information of non parties to prove distribution. Nor do you need that to prove that people were physically located in a given area at the time of access.

The law regarding whether there is a problem with a piece of software does not depend on comments that say "LOL now I pirate." or "Now I build awesome webserver for cheap." All that has to be done is demonstrate value etc. What people say about the item isn't relevant to the application of the rules of the DMCA.

Fine. Then Google and the rest of the websites will move to quash and Justice will prevail.

But here's a lil' legal tidbit that may interest you:

If the case had been in a federal court, then Sony's attorneys wouldn't have even needed a court's approval beforehand in order to serve a subpoena. Federally-barred attorneys are "officers of the court" with automatically granted subpoena powers.

 

[nipsen]

If the case had been in a federal court, then Sony's attorneys wouldn't have even needed a court's approval beforehand in order to serve a subpoena. Federally-barred attorneys are "officers of the court" with automatically granted subpoena powers.

..so how is life in Libya nowadays, then? The fresh dates tasting well..?

 

[shadow skill]

And it doesn't go to the jurdisdiction issue only. There's also an issue concerning distribution of the circumvention technology (a required element of a successful circumvention claim under the DMCA) to which it squarely relates.

...so how does this relate to a broadly sweeping subpoena? See, subpoena requests are frequently denied in courts around the world because they are not tailored narrowly enough. This was also the case with the first attempt Sony made, where they actually asked about any information possibly related to their case - as an investigative matter, to help them build a case against possible people who may have been involved. This was thrown out. The new variant - apparently the same request, but for a different purpose, was not.

So no, this does not happen every day. What happens every day are subpoenas that are narrowly tailored, and that makes specific requests related to given people and identities. While something that simply draws in several parties, sources, and possible leads -- that's practically unheard of. Even the DOJ guards itself from pushing those too hard, and have had trouble with requests like these even when hunting abominable snowmen in the Afghan mountains. There's a small controversy over that issue as well, if you have been following the news..

Fine. Don't trust me. But keep your shocked and surprised look handy. I fear this isn't the last time you'll have need of it.

Still doesn't change the fact that you don't need identifying information of non parties to prove distribution. Nor do you need that to prove that people were physically located in a given area at the time of access.

The law regarding whether there is a problem with a piece of software does not depend on comments that say "LOL now I pirate." or "Now I build awesome webserver for cheap." All that has to be done is demonstrate value etc. What people say about the item isn't relevant to the application of the rules of the DMCA.

Fine. Then Google and the rest of the websites will move to quash and Justice will prevail.

But here's a lil' legal tidbit that may interest you:

If the case had been in a federal court, then Sony's attorneys wouldn't have even needed a court's approval beforehand in order to serve a subpoena. Federally-barred attorneys are "officers of the court" with automatically granted subpoena powers.

They won't necessarily do anything. Although if the subpoenas were later found to be improper they could be held liable for releasing the information. Sony is trying to game them by saying that Hotz agreed to the subpoenas. Hotz's agreement says nothing about the agreement of non parties.

 

[JDKJ]

And it doesn't go to the jurdisdiction issue only. There's also an issue concerning distribution of the circumvention technology (a required element of a successful circumvention claim under the DMCA) to which it squarely relates.

...so how does this relate to a broadly sweeping subpoena? See, subpoena requests are frequently denied in courts around the world because they are not tailored narrowly enough. This was also the case with the first attempt Sony made, where they actually asked about any information possibly related to their case - as an investigative matter, to help them build a case against possible people who may have been involved. This was thrown out. The new variant - apparently the same request, but for a different purpose, was not.

So no, this does not happen every day. What happens every day are subpoenas that are narrowly tailored, and that makes specific requests related to given people and identities. While something that simply draws in several parties, sources, and possible leads -- that's practically unheard of. Even the DOJ guards itself from pushing those too hard, and have had trouble with requests like these even when hunting abominable snowmen in the Afghan mountains. There's a small controversy over that issue as well, if you have been following the news..

Fine. Don't trust me. But keep your shocked and surprised look handy. I fear this isn't the last time you'll have need of it.

Still doesn't change the fact that you don't need identifying information of non parties to prove distribution. Nor do you need that to prove that people were physically located in a given area at the time of access.

The law regarding whether there is a problem with a piece of software does not depend on comments that say "LOL now I pirate." or "Now I build awesome webserver for cheap." All that has to be done is demonstrate value etc. What people say about the item isn't relevant to the application of the rules of the DMCA.

Fine. Then Google and the rest of the websites will move to quash and Justice will prevail.

But here's a lil' legal tidbit that may interest you:

If the case had been in a federal court, then Sony's attorneys wouldn't have even needed a court's approval beforehand in order to serve a subpoena. Federally-barred attorneys are "officers of the court" with automatically granted subpoena powers.

They won't necessarily do anything. Although if the subpoenas were later found to be improper they could be held liable for releasing the information. Sony is trying to game them by saying that Hotz agreed to the subpoenas. Hotz's agreement says nothing about the agreement of non parties.

You have no idea how the meet and confer and subpoena process or the discovery and evidentiary processes work, do you? The many erroneous and fallacious statements you make suggest to me that you don't.

Are you aware that Google, as a matter of its own stated policy, will inform the user that they have received a subpoena requesting disclosure of the user's information and only if the user fails to raise objection will Google, provided it has no objections of its own, produce the information? No, I suspect that you're not aware of that fact.

 

[JonnWood]

What's unbelievable about it? It happens everyday in countless civil lawsuits in the United States. If I had sued Bernie Madoff on the allegation that he had cheated me and countless other investors out of billions of dollars in an elaborate Ponzi scheme, you don't think I'd be able to get a subpoena allowing me to obtain from Mr. Madoff detailed information on each and every one of those other investors? I most certainly would. That information is both relevant to my suit and highly probative of my allegations.

But...but...big company bad!

 

[shadow skill]

And it doesn't go to the jurdisdiction issue only. There's also an issue concerning distribution of the circumvention technology (a required element of a successful circumvention claim under the DMCA) to which it squarely relates.

...so how does this relate to a broadly sweeping subpoena? See, subpoena requests are frequently denied in courts around the world because they are not tailored narrowly enough. This was also the case with the first attempt Sony made, where they actually asked about any information possibly related to their case - as an investigative matter, to help them build a case against possible people who may have been involved. This was thrown out. The new variant - apparently the same request, but for a different purpose, was not.

So no, this does not happen every day. What happens every day are subpoenas that are narrowly tailored, and that makes specific requests related to given people and identities. While something that simply draws in several parties, sources, and possible leads -- that's practically unheard of. Even the DOJ guards itself from pushing those too hard, and have had trouble with requests like these even when hunting abominable snowmen in the Afghan mountains. There's a small controversy over that issue as well, if you have been following the news..

Fine. Don't trust me. But keep your shocked and surprised look handy. I fear this isn't the last time you'll have need of it.

Still doesn't change the fact that you don't need identifying information of non parties to prove distribution. Nor do you need that to prove that people were physically located in a given area at the time of access.

The law regarding whether there is a problem with a piece of software does not depend on comments that say "LOL now I pirate." or "Now I build awesome webserver for cheap." All that has to be done is demonstrate value etc. What people say about the item isn't relevant to the application of the rules of the DMCA.

Fine. Then Google and the rest of the websites will move to quash and Justice will prevail.

But here's a lil' legal tidbit that may interest you:

If the case had been in a federal court, then Sony's attorneys wouldn't have even needed a court's approval beforehand in order to serve a subpoena. Federally-barred attorneys are "officers of the court" with automatically granted subpoena powers.

They won't necessarily do anything. Although if the subpoenas were later found to be improper they could be held liable for releasing the information. Sony is trying to game them by saying that Hotz agreed to the subpoenas. Hotz's agreement says nothing about the agreement of non parties.

You have no idea how the meet and confer and subpoena process or the discovery and evidentiary processes work, do you? The many erroneous and fallacious statements you make suggest to me that you don't.

Are you aware that Google, as a matter of its own stated policy, will inform the user that they have received a subpoena requesting disclosure of the user's information and only if the user fails to raise objection will Google, provided it has no objections of its own, produce the information? No, I suspect that you're not aware of that fact.

That has nothing to do with the legality of the subpoena itself. I know full well that if they notify the party involved and the subpoena is legal they are in the clear. However they may have a problem if the subpoena was for say email content and it was a civil as opposed to criminal subpoena and they complied. It has to be the right kind of subpoena and it has to be properly issued. Otherwise anybody could genuinely trick an ISP into divulging correspondence and the ISP would turn around and claim no liability when the customer tried to sue them to hell for rubber stamping things.

Now the ISP may certainly refuse to comply with an improper subpoena, but Sony is playing the psychological game of having Hotz agree to these subpoenas to hopefully dull the senses of relevant parties into not questioning the validity of the subpoenas regardless of any agreement reached by the two main parties.

 

[Awexsome]

It would be kinda funny if they started suing people off that list that didn't even have a PS3 who just visited the website to see what all the fuss was about.

Actually scratch that. Then I might be out a lot of money.

 

[shadow skill]

It would be kinda funny if they started suing people off that list that didn't even have a PS3 who just visited the website to see what all the fuss was about.

Actually scratch that. Then I might be out a lot of money.

They would probably try to go after people who downloaded the jailbreak file if they could first get a court to agree that the jailbreak file is a circumvention device since all circumvention devices are illegal as is creating them (save for research etc, etc.) The strange thing is that the DMCA does not seem to say that possessing these kinds of tools is illegal. It is also legal to circumvent protections under various circumstances like enabling better interoperability between software programs. All while the tools are illegal. It makes no sense. It's as if they wrote the thing so that judges would have no choice but to enforce it unevenly and create situations where millions of people are at a minimum civilly liable for things that should not necessarily be a problem. The law coupled with other legal practices creates an environment where piracy is not stopped and small industries have sprung up around mass lawsuits and other predatory practices.

Hell in principle the Escapist itself may be liable because they linked to Hotz's site as other sites like N3g etc. did.