Xaryn Mar said:
JDKJ said:
Xzi said:
JDKJ said:
Xzi said:
KEM10 said:
EcksTeaSea said:
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.
Not really. The DMCA states that:
"to 'circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner."
Obviously, if you're the owner of the copyrighted work being circumvented or someone acting with the owner's authority, the Act doesn't apply to you.
And what the Act actually says is "primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing . . . " or "has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent . . ." or "has knowledge." The full quote is:
"No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that?
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person?s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
So, even if the modification has secondary uses that could be legitimate, if it's more likely to be for the purpose of avoiding copyright protection mechanisms than for some other purpose or the defendant has knowledge that it is for the purpose of avoiding copyright protection mechanisms, they're dangling on the hook.
