Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sony Must Show It Has Jurisdiction To Sue PS3 Hacker

Posted by Soulskill on from the quick-guys-make-up-something-that-sounds-technical dept.

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."

7 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Can't have jurisdiction here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Your knowledge of the law, admittedly scant, is also utterly wrong.

    Additionally, it's worth noting that the headline "Sony Must Show It Has Jurisdiction To Sue PS3 Hacker" belies typical /. cluelessness about any and all legal issues. You never have "jurisdiction" to sue somebody. COURTS have jurisdiction, not parties, and the jurisdiction means they have the power to HEAR the lawsuit.

  2. They know that, but that's not the point by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Saw this one coming by genfail · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Saw this one coming by DrJimbo · · Score: 5, Informative
      There is already at least one class action suit against Sony for dropping the OtherOS feature.

      Before using a firmware release to disable OtherOS, Sony has said:

      Please be assured that SCE [Sony Computer Entertainment] is committed to continue the support for previously sold models that have the "Install Other OS" feature and that this feature will not be disabled in future firmware releases.

      IANAL, but I believe the fact that geohot was using the exploit to re-enable OtherOS will be a vital part of his defense against charges he violated the DMCA. My understanding of the current case law is that if you circumvent a security measure for the sole purpose of violating someone's copyrights then you are liable for prosecution under the DMCA. But if you circumvent a security device in order to exercise a "fair use" then you are safe. A recent example of this was the announcement by the US Government (I forget which department) that is was legal to jailbreak iPhones in order to change carriers.

      This then takes us back to the 1984 Supreme Court decision in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc where they ruled that "making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use". The idea was that if there were valid (fair) uses of video recorders then video recorders were legal even if they could be used for infringement.

      IMO (IANAL), geohot's exploit has fair uses, such as restoring OtherOS, and other uses that would infringe copyright (pirating games). Without the fair uses, geohot might have been in trouble.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
  4. Re:Can't have jurisdiction here by suutar · · Score: 5, Informative

    Right. The court is asking Sony to explain why a California court (where they filed) has jurisdiction, because Hotz's lawyer filed a response saying "What's california got to do with it? He lives in New Jersey".

  5. Vroom by jam244 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Imagine taking in your car for an oil change and having the manufacturer remove your car's air conditioner, radio, and half its horsepower because of fears that other hypothetical individuals might abuse their vehicles.

    Awesome, Hotz' attorneys used a car analogy in their press release.

  6. Re:TFA presents the issue as Sony's jurisdiction by shentino · · Score: 5, Informative

    Interestingly enough Sony's main claim to California jurisdiction is the "choice of venue" clause in their PSN ToS.