Slashdot Mirror
Sony Must Show It Has Jurisdiction To Sue PS3 Hacker
RedEaredSlider writes "A California court today asked that Sony show it has jurisdiction over the hacker who publicized a 'jailbreak' for the PlayStation 3 console. Judge Susan Ilston, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, said Sony has to show that George Hotz, a hacker who posted a method of 'jailbreaking' PS3 consoles, has some connection to California if Sony is to claim damages for his work on the PS3."
For his part, Geohot has moved quickly to fight back against Sony's accusations. His legal team issued a statement (PDF), and also pointed out, "On the face of Sony’s Motion, a TRO serves no purpose in the present matter. The code necessary to 'jailbreak' the Sony Playstation computer is on the internet. That cat is not going back in the bag. Indeed, Sony’s own pleadings admit that the code necessary to jailbreak the Sony PlayStation computer is on the internet. Sony speaks of 'closing the door,' but the simple fact is that there is no door to close. The code sought to be restrained will always be a Google search away."
With my scant knowledge of law, I know they can't claim real jurisdiction over the hacker himself. The hardware is another story, but unlikely too.
On the other hand, with my vast knowledge of how these things go, he'll probably wind up facing a stiff penalty of some sort.
It's always confirmation bias!
I hope his attorney has insurance against injuries sustained from excessive eye-rolling.
Little does Sony know that SCO has now found they infringe on no fewer than 238 of their patents!
"On the face of Sony’s Motion, a TRO serves no purpose in the present matter. The code necessary to 'jailbreak' the Sony Playstation computer is on the internet. That cat is not going back in the bag. Indeed, Sony’s own pleadings admit that the code necessary to jailbreak the Sony PlayStation computer is on the internet. Sony speaks of 'closing the door,' but the simple fact is that there is no door to close. The code sought to be restrained will always be a Google search away."
Isn't that a confession?!
Sendou Wave Kick!!
Is that people will be able to use the hardware that they purchased now and not have to fear a lawsuit.
There will be more piracy, but not to the point that there will not be room for a legitimate market for new games. My impression is that the type that applies custom firmware and burns(or copies to hard drive) blu-ray sized games is a minority of people.
for some reason sony microsoft etc that all lost lawsuits to hackers in the past dont seem to think the rules apply to new consoles. of course they do and they just lose the lawsuit again. and the hacker has a valid point on there being no door to close.
Sony knows that they can't put the cat back in the bag, but that's not the point. The point is to make life as hellish as possible for the person who let the cat out, so the next bloke who considers doing it might find something else to do. If nothing else they can haul him to court, ruin him financially, and hope for some kind of favorable legal precedent so that next time around it's even easier for them to come down with a hammer on the next poor bastard that dares to do whatever he wants with his own property.
Courts, not parties, require jurisdiction. Sony cannot have jurisdiction.
Because others guys are doing it, it's okay for me to do it, or this case continue doing it? I don't see that as a particularly good defense.
Disclaimer: I don't have any idea whether a jury is or will be involved at any point in this process. However, it seems to me that this could be a perfect use of jury nullification. Whether what he did was against the law or not, morally, he just tinkered with his own property and told other people how to tinker with theirs. There's nothing immoral about that, anymore than if I add an aftermarket gizmo to my car without GM agreeing, and then tell other people how to do the same.
Not that I expect most members of a jury would understand :(
And so apparently did George Hotz. This the best case you could have against an Anti-Circumvention suit. Really he could argue that all he was doing was restoring features Sony removed from the PS3 (after many customers bought it) and the fact that he took several anti-piracy stances on his website only helps. I hope it goes all the way to the supreme court.
The exception in the DCMA states "Computer programs that enable "wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset."
A console is not a wireless telephone handset, so that circumvention exception is not litterally applicable I would think.
I would disagree. It is one thing to tinker with your own stuff. It's another to tell everyone else how to do the same with the full knowledge that most of those who listen will misuse it to commit illegal acts, and even those using it legally would be just as well served doing said legal activity on any number of other platforms.
Jury nullification works both ways.
Don't do it.
According to another article on Threat Post, it sounds like Sony is essentially saying that this is a problem because it allows for people to run pirated games to be run on a jailbroken PS3. I may not be a legal expert or have read the Digital Millenium Copyright Act cover to cover, but what's illegal about that? Jailbreaking and Pirating are two completely different things. Trying to nail someone for Jailbreaking on the grounds that it leads to Pirating sounds like more of a PR ploy than a legal action to me.
I understand why they don't like it. I just think its absurd that they're taking any action other than trying to make the system more secure.
And for the record, if you ask me, once you buy something, you should be able to do whatever you want with it so long as you're not directly infringing on copyrights (I know as I write this that that's a pretty muddy statement). But there's a clear difference between buying a car and using it to model, reproduce and sell the patented parts vs everything from giving the car a new paint job to installing a nitrus system and sliding into a smooth Tokyo drift.
You have to be smarter than the machine you're working with.
Hey everyone if you switch the spark plug wires on cylinders 2 and 4 you can turn a mustang into a mustang gt with an extra 15 hp.
Would that be illegal? No, even if Ford didnt like it.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
By suing him, they are only asking for more news stories about the broken PS3 security. This may make jailbreaking a more common thing.
Speaking of Streisand effect: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/Barbrahouse1.jpg
And where exactly does this enable a huge number of people running around stealing millions of dollars of IP? I don't see it. That's the difference here. It is not that legal uses exist, it is that legal uses a insignificant next the huge number of illegal uses that said person fully knows will occur.
Now they're going to seek injunction against Google. (Yes, I DO think they're THAT RETARDED.)
It's too bad that we have protection of free speech here. That includes speech you or Sony does not like
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
Judge Ilston is rightfully concerned about Sony's argument here. If she were to accept their argument, it would be possible for someone to sue you in California if you use PayPal, or have a Twitter account, or a YouTube account, or any other kind of computer account in California. It would effectively create a kind of universal jurisdiction based solely on the fact that you use one of those Internet services. The Federal courts in California are already back-logged enough with just the personal jurisdiction already allowed.
Awesome, Hotz' attorneys used a car analogy in their press release.
Isn't that a confession?!
No. Read it again. He never admits to doing anything, whether or not it is illegal, so all the pertinent questions of law and fact are still out there. All he does is state the fact that Sony's own filing admits that the information that they are seeking to prevent getting out is already widely distributed on the internet, and argues, based on that, that on the basis of the claims in Sony's own filing requesting a TRO (temporary restraining order) such an order would serve no purpose.
...if the Library of Congress has already rules that jailbreak an iPhone is indeed legal? Since jailbreaking the iPhone doesn't violate DMCA, how can jailbreaking the PS3 violate the DMCA?
Doesn't seem like much of an uphill battle against Sony to me. One last incompetent, flailing grasp at a reality that could never last for them.
Guess they don't plan to take Geohot up on his offer to help secure the nextgen consoles ;)
A restraining order is equitable relief; juries do not decide equity claims.
That's not relevant to the topic. For one thing it also has substantial non-infringing uses in terms of legitimate backups. And for another it allows users to roll back the clock to a point when Sony allowed them to install Linux and other OSes on it. Something which they revoked after people had paid for their PS3s and without giving them the opportunity to get a full refund.
Just because something can be used for illegal purposes, does not mean that it doesn't also have legitimate ones.
Ya know, there's nothing stopping sony from filing exactly the same complaint in new jersey and then proceeding as planned.
I see what you did there! Comparing copying to stealing. Funny how they're not even vaguely similar. People who pirate games almost certainly would never have spent the money to buy them. No sales were lost.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
It is one thing to tinker with your own stuff. It's another to tell everyone else how to do the same with the full knowledge that most of those who listen will misuse it to commit illegal acts, and even those using it legally would be just as well served doing said legal activity on any number of other platforms.
Yes, those are two things. Specifically the first is exercising your property rights. The second is exercising your free speech rights.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
They should have done as MS did in the WP7 jailbreakers/hackers case, they started a dialogue instead of throwing lawsuits left, right and center. I guess they're just scared the PS3 will end up like their handheld console(s?) where piracy is the norm. They should hire some new geeky PR people http://brajn.org/comic/meanwhile-at-sony-hq
(I do agree that the headline is poorly worded but it's derived from a technically-correct but also poorly worded line in TFA).
No, its not. TFA -- and not just in the sentence excerpted in TFS, which is technically wrong but which might, on its own, have just been an error in pronoun use -- presents the legal issue in dispute as being whether Sony (not the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) has jurisdiction.
In addition to the first sentence in TFS, which might be explained away as an error in pronoun use in a sentence intended to convey the correct issue of the court's jurisdiction, TFA states: "Hotz's lawyer, Stewart Kellar, filed an objection stating that Sony has no jurisdiction in the case, as Hotz lives in New Jersey and the complaint was filed in California." [emphasis added]
This makes it clear that the error is not just one of pronoun use in the earlier sentence, its that TFA completely misrepresents the legal issue as being one of Sony's "jurisdiction".
That doesn't completely excuse the author of TFS and the editor posting the story, who should have recognized that the claim made in TFA was not reasonable and sought better sources before posting the story. But it does explain that they aren't the root source of the misrepresentation.
Only said stealing because he used a physical analogy instead of an IP one, my apologies. General point still stands though, his analogy failed to be an modification act with grossly favors illegal activity. However, where is your proof that not one single pirate, not a single stinkng one, would not buy a program they would normally have to buy? I grant you it certainly isn't a 100% conversion, but I find it equally absurd to claim it is a 0% conversion.
Yes, Jury Nullification works both ways. If I'm on a jury, I will exercise my conscience. If I'm ever a defendant, I hope my jury will do the same. The world would be a much better place if people exercised their consciences more often.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Replace "Sony show it has jurisdiction over the hacker" with: "Sony show that the court has jurisdiction over the hacker"
That's what all those old cyberpunk novels promised us. Big Japanese companies sending cybernetic ninjas to take-out rogue hackers.
Come on, Sony. Make it happen.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
If the PLAYSTATION 3 video game console is not a telephone, then what's the Sony Wireless Bluetooth Headset for the PS3 supposed to do?
If ford makes an extra grand off the gt package then they are loosing money.
There are legitimate uses for the hack. I do not have to prove that no one is gonna use it illegitimately. It would be like saying Ford cannot sell cars because some people might use them in a robbery.
Someone WILL use this improperly. Thats not geohots fault though.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
I don't know how many times I have to restate, but I'll retry again: This isn't about whether there is a legitimate use. Heck, it isn't even about whether it is legal, as we're talking about Jury Nullification in which case it is all about the Jury's feelings on the matter, not the law. No, this is about the proportion of bad vs good. As I said in my first post here, I disagree that he should be let off. A tiny little bit of totally replaceable good in a sea of bad is certainly not going to make me let him off (in fact, he's lucky I'm not an eligible juror).
Stealing would indeed be bad. Can you explain how one could use this jailbreak to go into Sony head quarters and steal this IP so that Sony no longer had it?
Otherwise I think you mean copy this IP infringing on Sony's government granted monopoly.
Jury nullification works both ways.
Actually, jury nullification works one way (in favor of criminal defendants) and in one context (criminal trials.) A criminal jury trial is the only case where a judge cannot overrule, in either direction, a jury verdict if it is, in the opinion of the judge, not reasonable given the applicable law and the facts presented. And, in a criminal jury trial, it works only in the defendants favor; a judge can throw out a conviction reached by the jury if it is not reasonable (though in practice, if a conviction on one or more of the charges would not be reasonable, the judge is more likely to dismiss before sending the case to the jury.)
And jury nullification is more distant from a motion for a TRO, which is always decided on by
a judge and doesn't go to the jury in any case.
Please allow me to summarize replies to similar questions above yours: "Because a PS3 is not a wireless telephone."
And the replies to that: "Yes it is. PS3 has voice chat and Wi-Fi."
If California does not have jurisdiction then the DMCA is irrelevant to this whole episode.
But it would remain relevant to the next episode, in which Sony lawyers fly to the other side of the U.S. mainland.
What did he do wrong exactly?
Let people use their own hardware however they see fit. Oh no what a fucking tragedy.
Well, if the only change between a Mustang V6 and a GT was the horsepower (it's not), and with the GT costing ~7,000$ more (22,500$ vs 30,000$), it would only take a change of ~143 sales from GT to V6 to cost Ford a million dollars. I'm sure that the general population of people who would be buying a Mustang (i.e. Car people) are generally more informed about cars then the group buying minivans, and that would make a difference. Could you see Ford taking that person to court and having a leg to stand on?
Honestly, it was an epic fail on Sony's part to not randomize a number that should be random. There has been several exploits in the past with stuff like that, and should have been something they made sure of.
I would be interested in what exactly Sony expects out of this except a rehash of the DeCSS issue. Worst they could do is sue and win... which would probably be followed by him filling bankrupcy and moving on. Sony should have instead offered the guy a job, and use him as a learning experience. If the Treasury Department of the USA could do something like that (being a government agency), I don't see why a private enterprise couldn't either. If something like that could end up making the PS4 more secure, then its a win for Sony.
So, since the device is no longer secure, does Sony have to revoke their BluRay/HDMI key as well? That to me is the bigger concern, as that is something they would have to do out of their control (IE, the movie studios revoke it on their discs)
Actually it doesn't work both ways. It only nullifies laws, it never makes new ones.
It does not have to be 0%. This only has to have significant non-infringing use. Like the VHS case proved. This does since it adds homebrew and the ability to run alternate OSes.
I don't consider either of those significant. Judge might, but again, this is not about the Judge, or the law, it is about the Jury, and I far from feel that another port of Linux is worth the millions of dollars in piracy that will result and that he knew would result.
Since you obviously miss the point, that he has broken NO LAWS.
Just because he did something that others can use to do bad does not mean he is GUILTY OF ANYTHING.
Your the one here who does not seem to understand.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Can I have your time machine so I can confirm this judgment you are apparently preview to? BTW, I didn't miss the point, apparently you did. This thread isn't about the legality of the thing. It is about whether a jury should be using jury nullification (which, you know, inherently implies the judge believes the case is legally sound) to let him off. I said no, based on the amount of damage this will cause.
then I'll be sorely tempted to sell the ps3 games that I've been holding onto for the day when I could finally get a ps3 again. I mean, they're REALLY good games and I want to get another system since I had to sell mine because I was in a hard spot a while ago..... but this is dumb. I don't want to support sony if they're going to be this stupid. Some stupid is livable, because we're only human, but this is just dumb.
Millions of dollars in what now?
In any case your hardware you do with it as you like. Not his problem what people would do with it.
Oh and you are a tool.
Like a hammer, there are all sorts of illegal thingsthat cann be fine with them yet they are legal to own and talk about...
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
Wouldn't happen anyway. Anyone who knows about that gets screened out.
erk: C0 CE FE 84 C2 27 F7 5B D0 7A 7E B8 46 50 9F 93 B2 38 E7 70 DA CB 9F F4 A3 88 F8 12 48 2B E2 1B
riv: 47 EE 74 54 E4 77 4C C9 B8 96 0C 7B 59 F4 C1 4D
pub: C2 D4 AA F3 19 35 50 19 AF 99 D4 4E 2B 58 CA 29 25 2C 89 12 3D 11 D6 21 8F 40 B1 38 CA B2 9B 71 01 F3 AE B7 2A 97 50 19
R: 80 6E 07 8F A1 52 97 90 CE 1A AE 02 BA DD 6F AA A6 AF 74 17
n: E1 3A 7E BC 3A CC EB 1C B5 6C C8 60 FC AB DB 6A 04 8C 55 E1
K: BA 90 55 91 68 61 B9 77 ED CB ED 92 00 50 92 F6 6C 7A 3D 8D
Da: C5 B2 BF A1 A4 13 DD 16 F2 6D 31 C0 F2 ED 47 20 DC FB 06 70
the tro (http://psx-scene.com/forums/670109-post1.html) goes out of it's way to say that in the eula for the ps3 the user agrees to be tried in california, and that it is reasonable to believe g.h. agreed to it... i don't have a ps3, but if the terms show when you power on the ps3, i don't think it would be hard to swallow that he agreed to it with a click. whatever that means -- as i don't know the legal status of clicking yes to a big file that nobody reads and is very different from a paper document (ex a cellphone contract) that you have to sign.
one thing that has always bugged me about eulas is that usually in a contract there is "consideration"... but what is it for these? i don't buy that "getting to use the software" that you already paid for with actual MONEY (the usual type of consideration) is enough. without consideration you often have to do an elaborate "signed, sealed, and delivered" thing, unless those funny things like the dmca and the many "i don't feel like asking before i take your land away" acts change things... the way i see it, none of these eulas/tos' have signatures associated with them so one shouldn't feel bound by them. if they do matter, it's not like you know who pressed "next/yes"... often it's your it dept or your kid. none reads eulas/tos... they shouldn't have any legal status at all. but ianal.
of course debating where it will be tried doesn't really address the larger issue of what, if anything he did wrong. (for ex, he might have broken a specific dmca law about circumvention... even if unjust) it just delays it, which isn't a bad thing if it's worth the cost, and getting it tried in NJ if possible is probaby better than cali. for anything digital.
If you really think Sony needs to back off and deal with the fact that they removed OtherOS, send a mass email to the publishers of PSN-downloadable and PS3-disc games, telling them that you plan to cut back on PS3 purchases while Sony is being ridiculous, because you know that ultimately Sony will get a cut of any of those purchases. Vote with your dollars, and make sure that publishers know why you're not buying their game.
Sonys electronic dice keeps coming up 4 :-)
I don't consider either of those significant.
You may not, and of course you're entitled to your opinion, and no doubt Sony have theirs too :-). One difficulty that Sony will have in arguing that these uses are insignificant, though, is that they previously included a feature with their consoles specifically for the purpose of running other OSs.
Also bear in mind that (as far as I'm aware), Geohot hasn't posted instructions on how to pirate games—far from it. What he has posted is one part of the jigsaw—and an important one—but is far from being a simple set of steps to copying games.
As for jury nullification, I don't think that's really relevant here...
Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
OP is trying to argue verbal acts not being protected by free speech rights (they aren't).
It would be a valid argument in the event that the person in question was telling people he was providing this information to that they should go out and perform illegal acts with this information, which wasn't the case.
It can still be argued that the person in question knew full well that people would use his information for illegal purposes, and provided that information knowing it would be used for illegal purposes, and knowingly facilitated the carrying out of illegal acts, and then try to tie that into a form of verbal act. It's sneaky as fuck, but not exactly completely retarded.
Put a thumb drive with audio on it in a package and mail it via UPS - it's an electronic medium, carrying voice, over a package network. Now UPS is a telephone carrier? No.
UPS is not an electronic network; it's a parcel network. Like the PSTN and unlike UPS, Skype allows real-time voice communication, typically with sub-second latency. Is Comcast Digital Voice "not telephone"? Is Vonage "not telephone"? Is MagicJack "not telephone"? Is Skype "not telephone"? Where should one draw the line?
Nailed It.
1201 is the reverse engineering provision, specifically allowing you to circumvent technological measures if you plan to use what you learn to allow other programs to do the mentioned inter-operating on any device. With this in mind it doesn't matter a damn if Sony argue that this "could" be used to run pirate software if the jailbreaking was done in the name of restoring Other OS.
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.