Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]

[Baresark]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

No. My point is that the possibility of a bogus-ass lawsuit being brought against me by a retailer -- a point you raised -- matters not a whit to me. I've got little to no costs associated with defending myself -- and quite ably so, I think -- against a retailer operating under the thoroughly mistaken assumption that they can force payment from me for a product for which I have neither use nor enjoyment because I gave that shit back to them.

And if chose to throw any their product once I returned it to them, that's on them. They had the option nto sell it as an unboxed item. I may be willing to cover the difference between the price of a boxed item sale versus an unboxed item sale, but that's the best they get outta me.

My point, is that it would not be a "bogus-ass lawsuit" brought against you. It would be a very real lawsuit against you. And while the money may be immaterial to you, that is completely besides the point, now isn't it. You started the debate about the retailer by saying you would throw it back in their face. Which you are well within your rights to do as the owner. But they are not therefore obligated to purchase said product back from you because you don't like it. Especially since you purchases said product from a place that you knew you couldn't return it to after you had opened it.

PS. I do love these hypothetical debates, because both of what we are saying means nothing in real world terms, haha.

 

[JDKJ]

This is really the most ridiculous argument Ive ever hear. The "I bought it legally so I can do what I want with it" argument is extremely shallow thinking. I buy a knife legally, does that mean I'm allowed to stab people in my own home cuz I bought that too so its mine and had my own set of rules completely separate from the rest of world right?

Seriously, your the one tampering with legally protected hardware, use the shit as its meant to be used or pay the consequences. I hope these hackers get the full force of the law, people like Geohot or whatever the hell his name is are the kind of arrogant bastards that think they can get away with anything and are the ones that help ruin things for everyone.

What do these people think will come of this if they win? Hackers will run rampant and gaming companies will end up going out of business because they cant compete with the hackers who would then have no legal restrictions such as sony has and the hackers dont have to worry as much about making money or employing thousands of people

Get your head out of your ass and think about the bigger picture hackers! Its not an issue of you doing it to your own system and then not playing online Im ok with that that doesnt harm anyone, its when you harm a companies profits that it becomes illegal, thats stealing and company ruining behavior. the world doesnt revolve around you or your defense mechanisms which in this case seem to be classic justification and regression.

Rant over

Because hacking a console is clearly equivalent to murdering someone with a knife, and not, say, making a nice sheath for it. Right.

More so than making a sheath for it considering both are illegal

But it's not illegal, simply in violation of a contract that is itself of questionable legality; what Geohot did was find out how to modify the software. Making a sheath for a knife has a lot more in common with that than stabbing someone with a knife does. Stabbing would be an accurate comparison if, say, someone found a way to violate the anti-nuclear weapons clause in the iTunes EULA. If you don't know what I'm talking about, there's actually a clause in the iTunes EULA that says you can't use the software to make nuclear weapons. How one would do that, I have no idea, but it is in the document.

The point is that there IS a contract for it which if you violate a contract thats illegal. You sign the contract when you purchase their system and go online, he "violated" the contract and that means he should deal with the consequences.

Im not saying he should be "punished" per say just that he should compensate Sony for their losses occurred which in this case seem to be reputation/legal fees/whatever else that I'm sure they kept track of. To "punish" Geohot would be to make him pay more than that of which he is responsible for.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/breach-of-contract/ in case you were wondering about a breach of contract law

You'd be right, if the contract was actually signed at purchase. The legal gray area here is that you don't sign it at purchase; the contract of sale here is "I give you money, you give me the product, it's mine." The EULA is an illegal attempt to add stipulations to a contract that has already been agreed upon, which is why they never hold up outside the US, and even in the US, where the law is pretty much written by big business, they often get thrown out. There is such a thing as an invalid or unconscionable contract, and such a contract cannot legally be enforced.

EULAs, like many of forms of contracts, don't require signatures. Ninety-nine percent of them are either require "clicking through" or they imply consent to their terms by use of the software. Both forms of consent (i.e., clicking through and implied consent) are generally legal forms of acceptance. And, while not an entirely well-settled area of law, EULAs don't often get thrown out in court as you claim they do. They're more likely -- or, at least, just as likely -- to be upheld than they aren't.

But most EULAs are buried on a slip of paper that you can't read until after you've already made the purchase; surely it has to be made clear at the time of purchase that the EULA is a part of the contract of sale? Because otherwise, they're changing the contract after its already been agreed upon, which isn't kosher. I know that EULAs get held up as often as they get thrown out in the US, but that's just the thing; the case law is highly inconsistent on the matter, and it hasn't been decided yet whether or not it's definitely legal. Further, most of the cases involve corporate software, in which the EULA really is a part of the contract of sale, and has to be agreed to upon purchase, rather than installation -- games bought through Steam, XBLA, or the PSN are other examples of software in which the EULA is part of the contract of sale. Boxed games and consoles, however, are not.

No. Technically and legally what Sony does is to present the EULA after sale (obviously it's in the box) and then say, in effect, if you want to use this product, then here are the terms to which you must agree. The salient aspect of that is the "if you want to use this product" part. If you don't want to agree to the terms presented, then you don't get to use the product. You then need to take it back to the retailer and seek refund or store credit. But if you do go ahead and use or access the software in the PS3. then you have contractually bound yourself to the terms of Sony's EULA. The choice is yours to make.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

I can understand that you are mad about that, and it's a shame that it is like that. But is it a problem that this hacker who tampred with the software and put it out on the internet is being sued?

I'm not really mad about it at all. I'm just making a point. The problem is that he didn't change the software, and he didn't enable piracy, he simply made it so you could install additional software onto the system, which at the time wasn't against the EULA. Then, after the fact, they basically hold the right of force against you if you want to keep using the thing you payed them hundreds of dollars for. I don't have a problem with people who pirate software getting sued by Sony and other parties involved. Additionally, I don't have a problem with people who engage in crimes of any sort getting sued. But, as the courts are concerned, no one did anything illegal yet.

He did reverse engineer and modify the software and he did do so in contravention of the EULA terms in force at the time (which expressly prohibit any and all reverse engineering and modifications). And his modification allows for bypassing the hypervisor (that's precisely what his root key does) which in turn allows for bypassing the access control mechanism which in turn allows for the playing of pirated games. And then he posted his root key and other related information to the internet, enabling others to do the same.

Were the root keys not leaked by someone within Sony? He didn't magically figure them out. That information was made public before he got his hands on them. And, he did not reverse engineer their software at all. He only allowed the inclusion of installed packages based off the root keys that were made public knowledge beforehand.

Also, I misspoke before, you are quite correct in that a lease and a license are different things. My apologies on that.

I'm pretty sure the law only protects software insofar as the hackers cannot copy it wholesale, but any third-party software that emulates the function of the first-party software is not in violation of those rights.

The legal precedent was set in 1992 in the case of Sega Enterprises Ltd vs Accolade, Inc. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade], which states that reverse-engineering software falls under Fair Use. I don't know if that precedent has changed in the past nineteen years, so I could be wrong, anyway.

Also, I am not sure how on base this is, but if he is correct, the EULA went against established law by prohibiting this. No contract can make illegal things legal, and vice versa.

Unfortunately, he really did reverse engineer the master code. Apparently, there was some flaw in the system that was found out by another group of hackers, who didn't publish the code, but gave out enough information on the methodology that Geohot was able to come in and figure it out for himself. Unlike the original group, however, he actually published the results, which is why Sony is in such a tizzy over this.


As for the Sega V. Accolade case, his reading is basically accurate, but it was a pretty specific set of circumstances; Accolade figured out how to get around the copy protection that was supposed to prevent unlicensed games from being played on the system, but the way they did it prompted the system to actually say that the game was licensed by Sega.
Sega's complaint hinged on that, and they even showed that it was possible to get around the system without making it show the "licensed by..." screen, but the judge called BS on that argument, stating that the only thing Sega had proven was that someone who had prior knowledge of the way their system worked could do the same thing in a different way. If I remember correctly, the court found that Accolade making unlicensed games was no different from a company making unlicensed games for a computer; in other words, a perfectly legitimate use of the hardware.

Edit: Two caveats here: one, I am not a lawyer, and I only know about the case because it's historically significant. Two, the DMCA was passed after this case was decided, and it has some very specific anti-reverse engineering laws built in. Frankly, I don't understand how the courts justified ruling that jail breaking the iPhone was legal, because under the DMCA, it isn't. I'm not saying it wasn't a good thing for consumers that they ruled that way, especially because it matches up with pre-DMCA consumer protections, but it doesn't mesh with my understanding of the current laws.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

This is really the most ridiculous argument Ive ever hear. The "I bought it legally so I can do what I want with it" argument is extremely shallow thinking. I buy a knife legally, does that mean I'm allowed to stab people in my own home cuz I bought that too so its mine and had my own set of rules completely separate from the rest of world right?

Seriously, your the one tampering with legally protected hardware, use the shit as its meant to be used or pay the consequences. I hope these hackers get the full force of the law, people like Geohot or whatever the hell his name is are the kind of arrogant bastards that think they can get away with anything and are the ones that help ruin things for everyone.

What do these people think will come of this if they win? Hackers will run rampant and gaming companies will end up going out of business because they cant compete with the hackers who would then have no legal restrictions such as sony has and the hackers dont have to worry as much about making money or employing thousands of people

Get your head out of your ass and think about the bigger picture hackers! Its not an issue of you doing it to your own system and then not playing online Im ok with that that doesnt harm anyone, its when you harm a companies profits that it becomes illegal, thats stealing and company ruining behavior. the world doesnt revolve around you or your defense mechanisms which in this case seem to be classic justification and regression.

Rant over

Because hacking a console is clearly equivalent to murdering someone with a knife, and not, say, making a nice sheath for it. Right.

More so than making a sheath for it considering both are illegal

But it's not illegal, simply in violation of a contract that is itself of questionable legality; what Geohot did was find out how to modify the software. Making a sheath for a knife has a lot more in common with that than stabbing someone with a knife does. Stabbing would be an accurate comparison if, say, someone found a way to violate the anti-nuclear weapons clause in the iTunes EULA. If you don't know what I'm talking about, there's actually a clause in the iTunes EULA that says you can't use the software to make nuclear weapons. How one would do that, I have no idea, but it is in the document.

The point is that there IS a contract for it which if you violate a contract thats illegal. You sign the contract when you purchase their system and go online, he "violated" the contract and that means he should deal with the consequences.

Im not saying he should be "punished" per say just that he should compensate Sony for their losses occurred which in this case seem to be reputation/legal fees/whatever else that I'm sure they kept track of. To "punish" Geohot would be to make him pay more than that of which he is responsible for.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/breach-of-contract/ in case you were wondering about a breach of contract law

You'd be right, if the contract was actually signed at purchase. The legal gray area here is that you don't sign it at purchase; the contract of sale here is "I give you money, you give me the product, it's mine." The EULA is an illegal attempt to add stipulations to a contract that has already been agreed upon, which is why they never hold up outside the US, and even in the US, where the law is pretty much written by big business, they often get thrown out. There is such a thing as an invalid or unconscionable contract, and such a contract cannot legally be enforced.

EULAs, like many of forms of contracts, don't require signatures. Ninety-nine percent of them are either require "clicking through" or they imply consent to their terms by use of the software. Both forms of consent (i.e., clicking through and implied consent) are generally legal forms of acceptance. And, while not an entirely well-settled area of law, EULAs don't often get thrown out in court as you claim they do. They're more likely -- or, at least, just as likely -- to be upheld than they aren't.

But most EULAs are buried on a slip of paper that you can't read until after you've already made the purchase; surely it has to be made clear at the time of purchase that the EULA is a part of the contract of sale? Because otherwise, they're changing the contract after its already been agreed upon, which isn't kosher. I know that EULAs get held up as often as they get thrown out in the US, but that's just the thing; the case law is highly inconsistent on the matter, and it hasn't been decided yet whether or not it's definitely legal. Further, most of the cases involve corporate software, in which the EULA really is a part of the contract of sale, and has to be agreed to upon purchase, rather than installation -- games bought through Steam, XBLA, or the PSN are other examples of software in which the EULA is part of the contract of sale. Boxed games and consoles, however, are not.

No. Technically and legally what Sony does is to present the EULA after sale (obviously it's in the box) and then say, in effect, if you want to use this product, then here are the terms to which you must agree. The salient aspect of that is the "if you want to use this product" part. If you don't want to agree to the terms presented, then you don't get to use the product. You then need to take it back to the retailer and seek refund or store credit. But if you do go ahead and use or access the software in the PS3. then you have contractually bound yourself to the terms of Sony's EULA. The choice is yours to make.

How on earth is that legal, though? As you've pointed out already, there's no way to actually return the product after you've paid for it, and further, the product is already yours, as you have already paid for it. How can it possibly be legal for them to add stipulations to the contract of sale after its already been completed?

 

[Baresark]

See, the problem is, Sony had the ability to "negotiate" in the first place, by just dealing with GeoHot. I bet if GH was the only target, Anon wouldn't have even tried anything. However, Anon abused the US Legal system to subpoena the private records of who donated to GeoHot's Legal Counsel, in an effort to find out everyone who dared oppose them. Sony's actions remind me of Witch hunts in the Dark Ages, or a oppressive dictator, ruthlessly looking for his opposers to eliminate them on sight.

Who among the donaters has been targeted? Anyone? I haven't seen any of it.

Sony has an interest in knowing who is contributing money to this, and they have a right to know. Why? Because everyone has a right to know who's suing them. And in a civil case, both sides have a right to know who's on the other side. Sony is most likely investigating the possibility that a competitor is secretly funding this case to cause problems for Sony. And if they find that's not the case there is absolutely nothing else they can do with that information. At this point, any assignment of malicious intent is just assumption, which isn't fair to use on either side.

Actually, just because people have contributed via charity to the case, doesn't make them involved in the case. It's immaterial who is funding GeoHotz case. It could be a rich uncle, it could be Microsoft, it doesn't matter because he is well within his rights to defend himself by any legal means necessary. Sony would have to bring suit against the people who payed for the legal defense, which they are not allowed to do just because they contributed money. I would imagine we would have to wait for a decision on whether what he did was illegal or not, at very least.

 

[Verlander]

I could easily sum up the news article as such:

Bored, self righteous idiots, rush to stick their noses in where it's not wanted, by acting without thinking, to appease their egos.

Seriously, Anonymous, fuck off. If you were anything more than attention seeking brats, you would actually do something. As it is, you don't, because attention seeking idiots is all you are

 

[Quaidis]

Anon should be do better things than this drivel. Like solving world hunger or curbing global warming. Saving the Javan Rhino. Something constructive. Let Sony sue one douchebag fairly in court. If they're going to be angry, then they should ddos and become vulnerable to another Gov't dog-hunt after the case.

 

[Dastardly]

A) The Romans weren't bothered when Augustus ceased power and created the imperial line. But it probably wasn't in their best interest given what followed afterward, (e.g. Nero, Caligula, etc.)

If they weren't bothered, than it wasn't an issue. The idea that what came later makes it wrong builds on the assumption that, without the imperial line, everything would have been a-okay. But we're also setting up a case in which one dictator, under the guise of benevolence, can rightfully swoop in and overthrow the dictator that is seen (by the "benevolent" dictator) as bad without the permission of those being ruled.

B) You think that you can talk to Sony? You're nuts. The people who are vocal are such a minority that they'll never get anything done.

Then it sounds like the vote has already been cast. If what you're saying is true, the majority doesn't care. And since no one's rights are being abridged, there's no human rights interest in this to justify going against the complacent majority. If most people are happy with the service they're getting from Sony, then the majority doesn't want that service interrupted because a handful of people are unhappy that they can't modify the device in this highly-specialized and comparatively-uncommon way.

But yes, I believe you can talk to Sony. And you're right--they communicate through money. If you don't like how Sony handles their products, do not buy their products. The loss of revenue will send a clear message, one way or the other. If it's a big loss, they'll take notice. If it's a small loss, it means Sony isn't the place for your business anyway.

But I can tell you that there won't be any dialogue with Sony.

Only true if you choose not to engage in financial dialogue. But regardless, what mandate to they have to engage in dialogue anyway? Only the mandate to deliver profits to their shareholders. If they're not listening to you, and you can't make enough financial impact as a group to make them listen, take your business elsewhere. That is how you engage in a dialogue with these companies.

Whether or not you like Anonymous, I will tell you that whatever they do will probably be more effective than anything you could hope to accomplish through a dialogue.

It has nothing to do with whether or not it will be effective. The question centers around whether they have the right to interfere with any of the services enjoyed by a few million perfectly happy customers, just because a small minority wants things their own way.

 

[emeraldrafael]

So wait. Anonymous wants to go out and target Sony for protecting its business, but they wont touch the WBC until they are repeatedly poked and prodded to.

So thats where we're going to draw the line. Well, now I'm back against Anon.

 

[Illyasviel]

I agree entirely. Sony's approach (as with others) isn't far removed from gun control. If a person murders with a firearm do we not tend to find going after gun makers to be misguided? Just because a person hacks their system doesn't mean they're looking to pirate everything in sight. If it were allowed (and this is the problem) I'd hack my own PS3 so I could run Linux on it and have a sort of basic htpc with web browsing. Even though I paid for the hardware, I do not own a thing according to Sony. This is probably the only industry tat does that, and people accept it because they have no choice. Absolute power does that.

Are you saying that it is misguided for Sony to pursue Geohot because Geohot is a "gun maker?" Because there is a nuance you are missing here.

Though people generally go for the gun maker, the gun maker usually isn't actually at fault because between the murderer and the gun maker is an additional entity. This middleman is the guy who actually sells the gun, or the point of sale. The point of sale has the responsibility to run background checks and generally ensure the guy he's selling a gun isn't a violent convict who will immediately turn around and murder two elementary school kids and a single mother. Get my drift? If I owned a gun shop, and I sold a gun to a dude who is a an escaped convict wanted for four murders the guy tells me he's going to use the gun to kill somebody, and lo and behold, that same gun ends up as the primary weapon in a murder, would I share responsibility? What do you think? Let me tell you what I think. If say just a tenth of the people who bought guns ended up using their guns to kill another person, gun laws would be way different. Now if the gun maker were the point of sale, than it would be correct to go after the gun maker.

In this case, Geohot is the point of sale ( as he is the only "gun maker" in town and doesn't operate through third parties ) and the vast majority of the time, any bypassing of the hypervisor is going to be used to illegally use software.

If you're saying the person running the hack is the "gun maker," well... that just doesn't make any sense.

How on earth is that legal, though? As you've pointed out already, there's no way to actually return the product after you've paid for it, and further, the product is already yours, as you have already paid for it. How can it possibly be legal for them to add stipulations to the contract of sale after its already been completed?

Strangely enough, I recently read the Gran Turismo EULA, and right on the top, it said if I do not agree to the EULA, I had the right to contact Sony for a refund. I'm not certain how this actually happens and if you'd have any success, but it is definitely there. Go read it yourself.

 

[Bogdan Carmaciu]

Well, apparently They started working on it. Out of curiosity, I tried to access the Sony global website and it's not loading (April 4th, at 7:30 Eastern European Time), but regional European sites are still up. Intriguing...

 

[Mettking]

*Clicks stopwatch*

Wow, I was expecting Anonymous to act sooner then this. Either way, I don't own a PS3, so what do I care. Both sides have valid points buried under a mountain of crap.

 

[Ca3zar416]

As long as they don't touch my PS3 or anything that affects it, I don't really care what they do.

Technically they have. The firmware updates took away features that the PS3 once supported. It used to be possible to run Linux on the PS3 but that has been changed with their updates. Most people didn't use it but there are people who bought the PS3 over a different game system for that reason.

 

[Priest of Lies]

Well it cant be that bad seeing as we dont have a man dressed as Guy Fawkes killing Sony representatives.

 

[loremazd]

I really dont see why anyone cares about Anonymous attacks. I mean, serious, DDoS attacks have lasted like, a week, -maybe- with them. Anon has serious ADD.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

But then you're just being ignorant of your own bias. You posit that what *YOU* believe is right or wrong is the only thing that matters. That's exactly the same position that Anonymous takes.

There were *MANY* other things that Anonymous could have done to the WBC, just like there are *MANY* other things that Anonymous could do to Sony. Why is it OK for Anonymous to hack the WBC websites, but not OK for them to hack Sony's websites?

Oh, make no mistake, I am perfectly aware of my own bias. The whole point of my posts (if you'd read it a tad more carefully) is that I say "I have the right to have this opinion, this thought, blah blah blah" but of course someone else has the right to think something else. Anon is wrong in this instance. According to me. My thought, my opinion, and I don't believe that anyone else should think the same as me. This is what I think. That's it. It's all I'm stating. it's all I've stated from the beginning. I feel this is wrong. I am not saying "YOU ARE WRONG, OBJECTIVELY, BECAUSE I SAY YOU ARE WRONG, SUBJECTIVELY". Not the point I was making.

I know there ARE many things that they could have and can do, but Anon lieks to hack, so anything they do will involve hacking. THat's it

 

[BRex21]

There are dozens of consoles out there that don't connect to online services.

Few with top of the line hardware that advertised themselves as Linux mod boxes though.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

I really dont see why anyone cares about Anonymous attacks. I mean, serious, DDoS attacks have lasted like, a week, -maybe- with them. Anon has serious ADD.

Are they even after Gene Simmons anymore? Didn't they tell WBC that they were engaging in war now? Where did that end up going? I've heard no news actually..

 

[JDKJ]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

No. My point is that the possibility of a bogus-ass lawsuit being brought against me by a retailer -- a point you raised -- matters not a whit to me. I've got little to no costs associated with defending myself -- and quite ably so, I think -- against a retailer operating under the thoroughly mistaken assumption that they can force payment from me for a product for which I have neither use nor enjoyment because I gave that shit back to them.

And if chose to throw any their product once I returned it to them, that's on them. They had the option nto sell it as an unboxed item. I may be willing to cover the difference between the price of a boxed item sale versus an unboxed item sale, but that's the best they get outta me.

My point, is that it would not be a "bogus-ass lawsuit" brought against you. It would be a very real lawsuit against you. And while the money may be immaterial to you, that is completely besides the point, now isn't it. You started the debate about the retailer by saying you would throw it back in their face. Which you are well within your rights to do as the owner. But they are not therefore obligated to purchase said product back from you because you don't like it. Especially since you purchases said product from a place that you knew you couldn't return it to after you had opened it.

PS. I do love these hypothetical debates, because both of what we are saying means nothing in real world terms, haha.

I'm not attempting to resell a thing to the retailer. And, technically, I'm not the owner because my bank that issued me my credit card has yet to honor the debt I owe to Best Buy. I'm returning a product to them because I'm disinclined to agree to the terms of a EULA that requires my agreement as a precondition of use. If they refuse to give me either a refund or store credit, then I'm giving them back their product and refusing to pay for it by having my card issuer refuse payment on the debt. And I'm not saying that the money represented by the purchase price is immaterial to me. I'm saying that I'm more than willing to have Best Buy sue me (which, as a practical matter, they won't -- not over a $300 PS3) because my bound-to-be successful defense of that suit against me won't cost me anything because, as an attorney who specializes in litigation, I'm more than capable of defending myself pro se and therefore won't have to expend attorney fees on that defense.