Sony Wins Restraining Order Against Geohot

[JDKJ]

So Sony is going after a guy who cracked their security? Shit they should ask him how he did it and develop something better off that, not go after him with a lawsuit.

That's part of the plea bargain.

Seriously, if more of the hackers were hired to work for Sony or MS, I believe that the system hacking would be a lot more difficult. That and the want to hack might also be eliminated (out of the box Linux ready PS3 anyone?).

Plea bargain? Lol. This thing will get dismissed, no question. Hotz's lawyer has a million different defense strategies he can use here. The least of which not being that Hotz was simply restoring functionality clearly advertised on the console box to the PS3 (other OS).

The worth of that defense defense depends on whether or not simply restoring that functionality was more likely than not to further piracy. If it's more likely than not to further piracy, then it ain't no kinda defense.

Irrelevant. If his lawyer can prove that was his intent, the case will be dismissed.

While easier access to piracy on the platform may be a side-effect of his actions, it's one that is unavoidable in the process restoring said functionality. Piracy is also not the basis of the case that Sony has brought upon Hotz.

No, I believe they're proceeding under the DMCA's provision prohibiting the modification of an access control mechanism. And that provision says that if the modification at issue is more likely than not to further the purpose of piracy, then the modification is prohibited and a defendant so accused can be found liable if the plaintiff can carry that burden of proof. If Sony can prove that the modification information at issue was more likely than not disseminated in furtherance of piracy (which doesn't strike me as an impossible burden to carry in this case given, as you point out, that increased possibility of piracy is an unavoidable side-effect of the modification), then the defendant saying that he did it for a particular purpose not in furtherance of piracy doesn't really matter. What matters is the likelihood of piracy. Which, in this case, does appear to be a substantial likelihood.

 

[RMoD]

I'm pretty sure jailbreaking is the modification of an access control mechanism...

 

[JDKJ]

I'm pretty sure jailbreaking is the modification of an access control mechanism...

But your analysis can't stop there. Your next question needs to be: "For what purpose, legal or illegal?" If the likely purposes served are benign and legal, then there's no DMCA violation. However, if the likely purposes served are illegal, then the defendant could well be liable.

 

[Xaryn Mar]

So Sony is going after a guy who cracked their security? Shit they should ask him how he did it and develop something better off that, not go after him with a lawsuit.

That's part of the plea bargain.

Seriously, if more of the hackers were hired to work for Sony or MS, I believe that the system hacking would be a lot more difficult. That and the want to hack might also be eliminated (out of the box Linux ready PS3 anyone?).

Plea bargain? Lol. This thing will get dismissed, no question. Hotz's lawyer has a million different defense strategies he can use here. The least of which not being that Hotz was simply restoring functionality clearly advertised on the console box to the PS3 (other OS).

The worth of that defense defense depends on whether or not simply restoring that functionality was more likely than not to further piracy. If it's more likely than not to further piracy, then it ain't no kinda defense.

Irrelevant. If his lawyer can prove that was his intent, the case will be dismissed.

While easier access to piracy on the platform may be a side-effect of his actions, it's one that is unavoidable in the process restoring said functionality. Piracy is also not the basis of the case that Sony has brought upon Hotz.

No, I believe they're proceeding under the DMCA's provision prohibiting the modification of an access control mechanism. And that provision says that if the modification at issue is more likely than not to further the purpose of piracy, then the modification is prohibited and a defendant so accused can be found liable if the plaintiff can carry that burden of proof. If Sony can prove that the modification information at issue was more likely than not disseminated in furtherance of piracy (which doesn't strike me as an impossible burden to carry in this case given, as you point out, that increased possibility of piracy is an unavoidable side-effect of the modification), then the defendant saying that he did it for a particular purpose not in furtherance of piracy doesn't really matter. What matters is the likelihood of piracy. Which, in this case, does appear to be a substantial likelihood.

Hmmm, one could argue that Sony could be sued for the exact same thing, since piracy is a very likely side effect of the creation of the ps3... Not saying that it is possible to do that but the way that rule is formulated makes it seem plausible.
The same thing could be said about every game produced for any platform and where do we then end up?

P.S. That is why the DMCA is a load of bull. It is way too easy to misuse.

 

[ShadowKatt]

So if I understand this right, the COURT has decided that even though YOU BOUGHT a playstation, SONY still OWNS it.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

What's done is done Sony. This just makes you look even worse.

 

[Giest4life]

And any thoughts I had on buying a PS3 with my Federal Aid have been eradicated by this article posting.

 

[Cryo84R]

I don't see why people want to fuck with shit like this anyway. If you wanted a computer, just buy a computer. The only reason to jailbreak/root is to steal shit.

I know there is a god complex, maybe the urge to mess with things in order to get free stuff is the 'nerd complex'.

 

[CaptainKoala]

Its a hack, and its been on the internet for more than 10 minutes. Based on those two rules I can say as a fact that it is now on 10,000 different web sites.
Sorry Sony, day late and a dollar short.

 

[Defense]

Sony, how dare you take protective measures.

So Sony is going after a guy who cracked their security? Shit they should ask him how he did it and develop something better off that, not go after him with a lawsuit.

That's part of the plea bargain.

Seriously, if more of the hackers were hired to work for Sony or MS, I believe that the system hacking would be a lot more difficult. That and the want to hack might also be eliminated (out of the box Linux ready PS3 anyone?).

Plea bargain? Lol. This thing will get dismissed, no question. Hotz's lawyer has a million different defense strategies he can use here. The least of which not being that Hotz was simply restoring functionality clearly advertised on the console box to the PS3 (other OS).

Did the PS3 Slim box really advertise that? Not trying to sound argumentative, honestly curious.

 

[imperialreign]

So Sony is going after a guy who cracked their security? Shit they should ask him how he did it and develop something better off that, not go after him with a lawsuit.

Agreed - that's how major corporations improved their online and IP security a decade ago.

Pathetically, in our modern age, any time a company runs across such a situation, their "fix" is to go to court instead of trying to learn from their failures. Corporations have become too proud, and our judicial system isn't helping the matter by constantly catering to their every whim and desire.

 

[JDKJ]

Sony, how dare you take protective measures.

So Sony is going after a guy who cracked their security? Shit they should ask him how he did it and develop something better off that, not go after him with a lawsuit.

That's part of the plea bargain.

Seriously, if more of the hackers were hired to work for Sony or MS, I believe that the system hacking would be a lot more difficult. That and the want to hack might also be eliminated (out of the box Linux ready PS3 anyone?).

Plea bargain? Lol. This thing will get dismissed, no question. Hotz's lawyer has a million different defense strategies he can use here. The least of which not being that Hotz was simply restoring functionality clearly advertised on the console box to the PS3 (other OS).

Did the PS3 Slim box really advertise that? Not trying to sound argumentative, honestly curious.

I don't know if the box advertised it, but it was definitely a part of their advertising campaign.

 

[Judgement101]

First off, this is bullshit.

Secondly, how the fuck does one "retrieve" information they "communicated" to a third party? Men in Black style memory wiping?

You may have known at one point but Sony already got to you!

OT: Is sony really THAT paranoid?

 

[thedeathscythe]

So Sony is going after a guy who cracked their security? Shit they should ask him how he did it and develop something better off that, not go after him with a lawsuit.

I've always told myself that if I ever own a technology company or a game company/software company, who knows what or why, and something I don't want cracked, get's cracked, I will hire the man that did it on the spot. Hackers make the best security and test security better than anyone.

Sucks that he's being attacked like this. Sure he cracked it, but whatever? He's one guy, there's nothing breaking him down now will do, and making an example of him isn't exactly good publicity for your company...

 

[nYuknYuknYuk]

Thank god. Those hackers have messed up PS3 enough already. Maybe now people will think twice before hacking it.

 

[minimacker]

I'm forced by law to tell you that I am a registered PS3 hacker and has been chained to a restraining order. By law, I'm not allowed to go within fifty feet of a PS3 console or controller.