Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]

[Dastardly]

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.

Legal policies regarding "conflict of interest" would disagree with you on that point. Policies in other areas (like campaign finance) would disagree, too. The fact that bribery is illegal is a sign that it does matter who contributes money, and to whom, and why. If someone is contributing money to a specific cause, they're at least indirectly involved.

Now, this is only a problem if it's found that one of Sony's competitors is making a "bad faith" contribution in order to tie up Sony's resources. That would be an example of that company abusing the legal system for financial gain, more so than even what many claim Sony is doing.

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.

Which Sony may very well do if they find out that a competitor directly contributed to this fund. And while it's not a guarantee that such a company did so for malicious reasons, it would raise more than enough suspicion to justify a suit. But if Sony doesn't subpeona these records now, they may not be able to later when it would matter.

What Sony's legal team is doing is just being thorough. If the person you're taking to court suddenly shows up with a gajillion dollars and a crack legal team, you investigate them. And on the other side, if you suspect the people suing you have some shady legal dealings, you investigate them right back. If a defense lawyer in a criminal case didn't investigate the character and credibility of every prosecution witness, they'd find themselves disbarred for throwing away cases. Lawyers in civil cases aren't as strictly limited, but that doesn't mean they should be any less thorough.

Besides, all they did was request a subpeona. The court said yes, when they could have said no. What's the harm in them having asked, if they felt the information could in some way be useful to the case? When lawyers object during a trial, many of them are overruled, but does that mean the lawyer shouldn't have tried? Why should any legal team on any side of any suit not fight to get every last piece of information they can get in order to do the job for which they were hired?

 

[Baresark]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

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.

Hmm, I stand corrected about his reverse engineering.

Also, it would seem to me that the legal precedent set in 1992 could still stand. His particular set of coding allowed people to install unlicensed software onto the system, and it didn't even try to pass as licensed. That basically coincides with most arguments of today, that no one locks out the features on a PC with software, why is it different with Sony.

 

[Weaver]

Can tinkering enable software piracy?
Sure.

But allowing someone use of a car also "enables" them to run people over.
It shouldn't be illegal to do something that allows for the possibility of illegal activity. Just having an internet connection should thus be illegal as it gives us the potential to pirate things.

 

[Kroxile]

I hope that one of them screws up and gets caught, and in turn, rats out more of them.

When you mess with the PS3s software, you're not "tinkering with something you own", you're tinkering with something you're leasing. Huge difference.

If I walk into gamestop, walmart, or whatever and shell out the cash for a PS3 system it and everything it contains is now mine and mine to do what I want with. You cannot tell me I'm "leasing" something that I just paid for in full and can't access it as much as I want in whatever manner that I want.

That said: I don't even care about piracy on consoles; its just the point that I made above that gets me riled up concerning this topic.

That paperwork in the PS3 box, the one that contains the EULA and ToS, yeah, those say that you don't own the software and you can't use them how you wish. And you agree to that when you use the system. By using the PS3, you agree that you don't own the rights to the software.

It's really that simple.

I didn't sign anything, nor was I asked to read anything before purchasing the console. There is a reason why EULAs don't hold up in court. Putting something like that in the box with the instruction manuals is like selling your soul unknowingly to the devil because you couldn't read the fine print that was in another language inserted between the lines of your contract.

It just doesn't hold up in court. It is really that simple.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

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.

Hmm, I stand corrected about his reverse engineering.

Also, it would seem to me that the legal precedent set in 1992 could still stand. His particular set of coding allowed people to install unlicensed software onto the system, and it didn't even try to pass as licensed. That basically coincides with most arguments of today, that no one locks out the features on a PC with software, why is it different with Sony.

I mentioned why in the edit, but you seem to have been typing this for a while; the difference is that the DMCA was passed in the time between Sega V. Accolade and the current mess with Geohot and Sony. The DMCA did away with quite a few consumer protections, one of which is the ability to get around copy protection in order to make a personal copy or jail break a device. The weird thing here is that it hasn't been applied as written, as the case which allows people to jail break their iPhone demonstrated. US Copyright law is a huge mess these days.

 

[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.

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?

Because the EULA doesn't take effect when money and product are exchanged. The EULA takes effect when you use the product, the use of the product being what implies consent to the EULA and makes it a binding contract between you and Sony. Technically, if you don't ever use the PS3, then you haven't entered into any agreement with Sony.

And are you telling me that if I purchase a product from a major retailer, I can't take it back and receive either a refund or store credit? They can pull that on the other guy if they think they can get away with it but they ain't pulling that nonsense on me.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

Normally, I blindly support Anonymous. And it's not that I disagree with them, one should be able to do whatever they wish with something they own. Yes, it leads to piracy, but the hackers themselves did not pirate nor give out ways to pirate. It's no different than sueing Samuel Adams because someone misused the constitution. Yeah, it sucks, but it's not Adam's fault.

However, hacking more sites isn't exactly going to win over the hearts of people over at SCEA. If they do more than a few DoS attacks, then maybe you'll piss them off. Chances are though that's only going to make Sony more determined.

Still, if it's the only way Anonymous can get involved, then I say let them

Btw, anyone else hate how this press release was written? It doesn't scream the omnipotence I'm used to from Anonymous.

 

[Baresark]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

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.

You signed your credit card slip though, which is your agreement to pay for said item in accordance with their return policies. What you decided to do with said physical item after that is all on you.

I'm not saying they would ever pursue such a frivolous case, but if they did it would probably be in terms of defending their return policy. Which you are still violating in our hypothetical case. And you can't plead ignorance because it's on everything.

 

[Macrobstar]

Don't know why geohot couldn't have just modded his own system, no one would've known and it wouldn't have pissed off sony, by releasing it to the public you're releasing it to people who want to steal off of sony, as a guy who has no interest in piracy or modding I am completely taking sonys side, I see no reason to side with hackers as I have no intention to hack, I'm sure its possible to mod computers to run homebrew if thats what they want to do, and the majority of people who hack won't want to run homebrew they'll want to pirate

 

[Echo136]

Well, the Playstation website is down. Heres hoping they dont be dicks and distribute user accounts.

 

[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?

Because the EULA doesn't take effect when money and product are exchanged. The EULA takes effect when you use the product, the use of the product being what implies consent to the EULA and makes it a binding contract between you and Sony. Technically, if you don't ever use the PS3, then you haven't entered into any agreement with Sony.

And are you telling me that if I purchase a product from a major retailer, I can't take it back and receive either a refund or store credit? They can pull that on the other guy if they think they can get away with it but they ain't pulling that nonsense on me.

Good luck doing that, then. I have a question for you as a lawyer, though: isn't there some sort of ethical conflict with you giving out legal opinions in the manner you're doing it? You don't often see lawyers being this talkative in a situation this unofficial.

Edit: Also, what is your legal specialization? Do you have a particular specialization in contract law, or is it something else? No offense, but I wouldn't want to ask a public defender to draw up a prenup.

 

[Weaver]

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?

Because the EULA doesn't take effect when money and product are exchanged. The EULA takes effect when you use the product, the use of the product being what implies consent to the EULA and makes it a binding contract between you and Sony. Technically, if you don't ever use the PS3, then you haven't entered into any agreement with Sony.

And are you telling me that if I purchase a product from a major retailer, I can't take it back and receive either a refund or store credit? They can pull that on the other guy if they think they can get away with it but they ain't pulling that nonsense on me.

The fact that the "EULA takes effect when the product is used" is the reason they don't hold up well in court. The EULA is like a contractual negotiation between the company and the customer. However, the contract is only agreeable after you purchase the product.

If you bought a car and then when you start it for the first time it says you need to agree not to take it on highways and you'll never go over 120km/h or else you can't use the car at all... you're going to agree anyways because you've already purchased the product. It's seen as forcing people to agree with things in order to use basic features they already paied for and you gave no warning before hand you would need to agree to these things.

 

[ArmorArmadillo]

This is what irritates me about anon, for all their good press and righteous vengeance on the man, what have they achieved? Ever? Put out a public claim of disliking something, maybe launch a few Denial of Service attacks, move on to the next target and repeat the process. So far, all they've done is given internet people something to be smug about.

As for GeoHotz, screw him. He publicly makes a show of defying his licensing agreement and then acts victimized when Sony does exactly what that licensing agreement says that they'd do.

Gamers need to get over this idea that they have some inviolable right to tinker with software or hardware because they bought it. They didn't. They may have bought a console but they don't own the specs or the source code or the software, they just licensed it. Now there are definitely problems with that and I'm not entirely convinced software companies aren't getting the long end of the stick, but if you don't like it your option is to NOT BUY A PS3. You can live without one. This isn't health care or affordable housing, this is a luxury gaming system.

And as much as its easy to point at Sony as Goliath and the little hacker as David, frankly this has nothing to do with size. Remember the Humble Indie Bundle? Five games for a penny with no DRM? How 25% of the copies were still pirated? PIRATES ARE NOT HEROES! They're little selfish materialists who work completely for themselves.

 

[JDKJ]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

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.

Hmm, I stand corrected about his reverse engineering.

Also, it would seem to me that the legal precedent set in 1992 could still stand. His particular set of coding allowed people to install unlicensed software onto the system, and it didn't even try to pass as licensed. That basically coincides with most arguments of today, that no one locks out the features on a PC with software, why is it different with Sony.

You must enjoy standing in that bucket of correction. Take a look at the EULA that comes with Windows7:

8. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the features included in the software edition you licensed. The manufacturer or installer and Microsoft reserve all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not
· work around any technical limitations in the software;
· reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;
· use components of the software to run applications not running on the software;
· make more copies of the software than specified in this agreement or allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation;
· publish the software for others to copy;
· rent, lease or lend the software; or
· use the software for commercial software hosting services.

 

[mjc0961]

On the one hand, it's hard to disagree with the idea that people should be able to tinker with something that they own, but on the other hand, it's impossible to ignore the fact that that tinkering can often enable software piracy.

And if anyone does use the tinkering to enable software piracy, that's who Sony should be suing. Not anyone they can get their hands on who tinkered.

I don't know what anonymous hopes to accomplish here though. Sony will just likely sue the entire internet over it considering their inability to go after the right people.

 

[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.

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?

Because the EULA doesn't take effect when money and product are exchanged. The EULA takes effect when you use the product, the use of the product being what implies consent to the EULA and makes it a binding contract between you and Sony. Technically, if you don't ever use the PS3, then you haven't entered into any agreement with Sony.

And are you telling me that if I purchase a product from a major retailer, I can't take it back and receive either a refund or store credit? They can pull that on the other guy if they think they can get away with it but they ain't pulling that nonsense on me.

The fact that the "EULA takes effect when the product is used" is the reason they don't hold up well in court. The EULA is like a contractual negotiation between the company and the customer. However, the contract is only agreeable after you purchase the product.

If you bought a car and then when you start it for the first time it says you need to agree not to take it on highways and you'll never go over 120km/h or else you can't use the car at all... you're going to agree anyways because you've already purchased the product. It's seen as forcing people to agree with things in order to use basic features they already paied for and you gave no warning before hand you would need to agree to these things.

Actually, it isn't at all "negotiated." It's offered on a "take it or leave it basis" (what is in the law called "a contract of adhesion"). You either take it or you leave it. But you do always have the right to leave it.

 

[Baresark]

snip

Legal policies regarding "conflict of interest" would disagree with you on that point. Policies in other areas (like campaign finance) would disagree, too. The fact that bribery is illegal is a sign that it does matter who contributes money, and to whom, and why. If someone is contributing money to a specific cause, they're at least indirectly involved.

Now, this is only a problem if it's found that one of Sony's competitors is making a "bad faith" contribution in order to tie up Sony's resources. That would be an example of that company abusing the legal system for financial gain, more so than even what many claim Sony is doing.

I'm clearly no legal expert, but corporations are allowed to donate money to a legal defense they agree with, yes? Even if it's a competitor. I could see it as a "bad faith" contribution if they were somehow secretly involved said elicit activity.

Also, a bribe is a money paid to alter the decision of a certain party in your favor. Contributing to a legal defense would not constitute a bribe.

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.

Which Sony may very well do if they find out that a competitor directly contributed to this fund. And while it's not a guarantee that such a company did so for malicious reasons, it would raise more than enough suspicion to justify a suit. But if Sony doesn't subpeona these records now, they may not be able to later when it would matter.

What Sony's legal team is doing is just being thorough. If the person you're taking to court suddenly shows up with a gajillion dollars and a crack legal team, you investigate them. And on the other side, if you suspect the people suing you have some shady legal dealings, you investigate them right back. If a defense lawyer in a criminal case didn't investigate the character and credibility of every prosecution witness, they'd find themselves disbarred for throwing away cases. Lawyers in civil cases aren't as strictly limited, but that doesn't mean they should be any less thorough.

Besides, all they did was request a subpeona. The court said yes, when they could have said no. What's the harm in them having asked, if they felt the information could in some way be useful to the case? When lawyers object during a trial, many of them are overruled, but does that mean the lawyer shouldn't have tried? Why should any legal team on any side of any suit not fight to get every last piece of information they can get in order to do the job for which they were hired?

I agree, no harm in asking. I know people are concerned about an individual basis though, more so than Microsoft is concerned about being implicated. They are afraid that if the courts find in favor of Sony, they are going to turn around and sue the contributors.

 

[Macrobstar]

Can tinkering enable software piracy?
Sure.

But allowing someone use of a car also "enables" them to run people over.
It shouldn't be illegal to do something that allows for the possibility of illegal activity. Just having an internet connection should thus be illegal as it gives us the potential to pirate things.

Thats not quite right because the goverment doesn't have to take away cars because they have a deterrant, most people won'r run someone over because they will go to prison, if sony allows modding (Cars, perfectly legal) they basically can't enforce a law against piracy (Hit n Run, not legal) so to protect other users and there business (pedestrians) they must ban modding to [revent the wosrt from happening

 

[Illyasviel]

Can tinkering enable software piracy?
Sure.

But allowing someone use of a car also "enables" them to run people over.
It shouldn't be illegal to do something that allows for the possibility of illegal activity. Just having an internet connection should thus be illegal as it gives us the potential to pirate things.

If 50% of all cars sold ended up being used to intentionally run people over, I'm pretty sure you would be singing a different tune. Partly, I'm certain, because chances are either your mother or father would be at this point killed by a speeding vehicle. Not singling you out because if that were the case, chances are one of my parents would be dead for the same reason too. Hell, even if only 10% of all cars sold ended up being used to intentionally run people over we would be seeing major changes.

What percentage of people who crack their PS3s will use the crack to pirate games? Don't low ball your guesstimate just for the sake of making your argument work. A fair, reasonable estimate.

I would say about 80 - 90% if not more.

 

[metal mustache]

regardless of whos right and whos wrong, Anonymous is the funniest group ever. Have you seen their motos? They're all fucking crazy!