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!!
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.
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.
That it's already out there isn't his defense against the lawsuit itself, but rather against the immediate takedown of his site to prevent damage to sony. He's saying no further damage will be done by leaving it up, therefore the takedown before the judge hears arguments from both sides should be denied.
Jury nullification works both ways.
Don't do it.
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.
which was most likely in reference to this comment by geohot's Lawyer:
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.
Note: TRO = Temporary Restraining Order.
Sony's shy^H^H lawyers tried to get the court to give them all of geohots computer equipment before geohot had time to mount a defense. He was only informed of this attempt a few hours before the hearing.
The "cat is out of the bag" statement wasn't addressing whether geohot is guilty or innocent of any crime. It was addressing the lame attempt by Sony to confiscate all of geohots computers. Sony said they needed the court to take this rapid and extraordinary action to keep the world from learning how to perform the exploit. Since the information was already on the web, seizing geohot's computers would not stem the tide.
TL;DR: Sony was being an asshole and tried to use a temporary restraining order as an excuse to steal all of geohots computers. Geohot had already lawyered up and was prepared for this sneak attack.
YAESF (yet another epic Sony FAIL).
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
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.
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 ;)
I suppose, but still seems darn weak.
It directly addresses the legal standard for issuing a temporary restraining order, which is issued before the legalities at issue are determined to prevent ongoing harm that might otherwise occur while the case is progressing. That there is no reasonable basis to believe that the TRO would prevent any ongoing harm is the strongest possible argument against a TRO, not a "darn weak" one.
A restraining order is equitable relief; juries do not decide equity claims.
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.
The problem with a restraining order is that at the time it's served, it's not established whether or not the subject is illegal. In your case, if you take down a legitimate video then you are censoring freedom of speech. If you don't then you are permitting continuing damage my whetever illegal stuff the video is doing.
So the court considers which action does the most harm. Taking it down will harm Hotz. It will not benefit Sony in any significant way at all. At least that's what Hotz's legal team are arguing and I agree with them.
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!
Bah, damn my inability to proofread. Make that stand Corrected.
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.
Then I shall stand correct. I still think it is kinda silly, but I didn't make the laws, and I'm sure in other cases it makes more clear sense.
The important thing to remember about a TRO is that it isn't the final judgement in the case; instead, its simply something that is available because lawsuits take time, and so courts need a way to restrain actions that might cause irreparable harm while the case is working its way through the system.
Its not primarily about what people ought to be allowed to do in a general, permanent sense (because those questions are what is decided in the resolution of the case), its about what do we need to do to make it so that one party or the other doesn't have their interest crushed by the other in the time it takes to resolve the case.
If there's no further harm expected from the action sought to be restrained, then there is no basis for a TRO, even though the final order when all the legal arguments are done and evidence is reviewed in the case might well be to declare that that action is illegal and order it stopped.
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.
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.
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
In theory. In practice, particularly when there's a large disparity of power between the two parties, getting the TRO is as good as winning. You get the TRO, then drag the case out until the defendant runs out of money or drops dead.
Sonys electronic dice keeps coming up 4 :-)
LOL I doubt publishers will give a shit as they are probably the ones demanding the DRM.
Look at the PC market and the retarded extend publishers go to.
Seriously they asked you to maintain a constant internet connection to play an offline game just so they can check up on you.
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
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.