Sony Wins Restraining Order Against Geohot

No.. that would be silly. by intellitech · 2011-01-27 10:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

This just means he won't be attaching his name to anything PS3-related for quite some time.

(something he likely should have just done in the first place)

--
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.

Re:No.. that would be silly. by TENTH+SHOW+JAM · 2011-01-27 10:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

If I were Geohotz, I wouldn't even be doing that. I might do some research on the PS3 in my spare time, but nothing would be published until the court case is over. Then, once the cheque comes form Sony paying his legal bills, release that research. His lawyer is probably telling him (for his own good) to STFU for a bit.
Having had a read through the court docs that have come to light thus far, I'd say Geohotz has this case in the bag if his legal representation can stand up.

--
A sig is placed here
To display how futile
English Haiku is
Re:No.. that would be silly. by cpu6502 · 2011-01-27 10:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Modification of your OWN property is not a crime. (Searches US Constitution.) I can not lay my hand on any part of this document which gives Congress the right to block you or Geohot from making mods.
On the contrary part 10 of the Bill of Rights reserves that power to the Member States of the union. And part 9 reserves to the People the right to make said modifications.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:No.. that would be silly. by Moryath · 2011-01-27 10:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

The answer is "interstate commerce clause."
No, seriously. Our fucked-up senile delinquents on the Supreme Court have ruled that everything under the goddamn sun falls under the "interstate commerce clause."
Want to grow your own wheat to feed to your own chickens, which means you didn't have to buy someone else's wheat? Sorry. ""Interstate Commerce."
The same crap comes up in just about any argument. Want to regulate guns? Well sure, they might conceivably be sold across state lines. Even if the original factory won't sell them out of state, a rebuyer might, or someone might buy one and ship it to someone later or someone from out of state could buy it and transport it themselves or or.... yeah. You get the picture. Regulate food, regulate clothes, everything under the damn sun can be regulated under the "interstate commerce clause"... a clause originally intended to merely stop the various states from erecting tax stations and charging "import tariffs" on each other's borders, as was happening under the Articles of Confederation....
Re:No.. that would be silly. by whoever57 · 2011-01-27 11:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

I've wondered if a criminal defendent could use the interstate commerce clause against a state law.
For example, someone is prosecuted under state law for some offence. Criminal defendent says: "but this affects interstate commerce, hence it is the province of the federal governement to regulate it -- and, by the way, there isn't a federal law prohibiting this offense". Since the Supremes have completely gutted any limit to the interstate commerce clause, it's hard to imagine any activity that could not be described as affecting interstate commerce. Unless there is a federal law that specifically allows the states to regulate that activity, it seems like it would be an interesting tactic.

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Re:No.. that would be silly. by areusche · 2011-01-27 11:15 · Score: 3, Informative

Depends on the law broken. If you crossed state lines in committing the act, then it falls under the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Trust me you don't want this to happen.
Re:No.. that would be silly. by PopeRatzo · 2011-01-27 11:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is the state that arrests & prosecutes you.
That's beside the point, which is that fiddling with your Playstation 3 is not fucking bank robbery. It's not murder. It's not terrorism. It's not even spitting on the fucking sidewalk.
I may not be able to rob a bank, but I can write a book about robbing banks, even if it requires me to research the topic by learning to crack safes.
Geohot fiddled with his PS3. He published what he learned.
Here, I'll even give a car analogy for the pudknockers who want Geohot sent to Guantanamo for crimes against humanity.
I can buy a Ford Focus, and if I had the skill and the means, I could drop in some engine (even from a different manufacturer) that could make the Focus go 200 mph, which is clearly illegal in all fifty states. That is not the same as driving 200 in a 55 zone.
The DMCA is bullshit, and once the current crop of corrupt ideologue bastards on the Supreme Court are safely retired (or whatever) it's going to be revisited. Besides being horrible law, it hinders innovation which is eventually going to cost us. It applies 19th century standards to 21st century technology and eventually it's going to collapse under its own weight. Either that or we're screwed. On further reflection, we're probably screwed, but that doesn't make the DMCA any less bullshit.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:No.. that would be silly. by Chris+Snook · 2011-01-27 11:19 · Score: 2

Okay, I just found the impoundment order attached to the TRO. I've never heard of anything like that in my life. Highly unusual.

--
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
Re:No.. that would be silly. by Alanbly · 2011-01-27 11:31 · Score: 2

But in this case what the guy published were keys stored in hardware. They allow users to run software but they are not software.

--
-- Adam McCormick
Re:No.. that would be silly. by cpu6502 · 2011-01-27 11:46 · Score: 2

>>>Want to regulate guns? Well sure, they might conceivably be sold across state lines.
Well here's some good news: The Supreme Court recently over-turned the Central Government's gun ban near schools. They said that calling it interstate commerce was a step too far, and that proper jurisdiction for local schools belongs to the Member State government, not the Congress.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:No.. that would be silly. by Grishnakh · 2011-01-27 11:56 · Score: 2

That's beside the point, which is that fiddling with your Playstation 3 is not fucking bank robbery. It's not murder. It's not terrorism. It's not even spitting on the fucking sidewalk.
No, it's something far, far worse than any of these. It's interfering with corporate profits. That's why the government is so keen on clamping down on this guy, or anyone else who releases such information. Remember, in a fascist government, corporate profits are more important than anything else.
Don't forget, murder is not even a federal crime, it's a state crime. That's why murderers usually get lesser punishments than people who traffic drugs across state lines (which is a federal crime), or those who break the DMCA (a Federal law).
Geohot fiddled with his PS3. He published what he learned.
Yes, and that's illegal, according to the DMCA, which Bill Clinton signed.
I can buy a Ford Focus, and if I had the skill and the means, I could drop in some engine (even from a different manufacturer) that could make the Focus go 200 mph, which is clearly illegal in all fifty states. That is not the same as driving 200 in a 55 zone.
You don't need to drop in a new engine to go fast in a Focus. The factory-provided engine will easily exceed 100 mph, which is also clearly illegal in all fifty states. However, there's no law specifically directed against people modifying their cars with different engines. There is a law specifically directed at preventing people from modifying electronic equipment they own to bypass encryption or other built-in protection mechanisms.
Is that law Constitutional? I doubt it, but who cares? Since when has our government followed the Constitution? You want an example? Try cashing out your bank accounts, so that you have at least $100k in cash. Carry that around with you, such as on a flight, or in your car when you get pulled over for speeding or improper signaling or whatever. See what happens when the cops find all this money on you. You probably won't be charged with anything, but you won't ever see that cash again. Seizure without due process is plainly illegal according to the 4th Amendment, but that hasn't stopped the "authorities".
The DMCA is bullshit, and once the current crop of corrupt ideologue bastards on the Supreme Court are safely retired (or whatever) it's going to be revisited. Besides being horrible law, it hinders innovation which is eventually going to cost us. It applies 19th century standards to 21st century technology and eventually it's going to collapse under its own weight. Either that or we're screwed. On further reflection, we're probably screwed, but that doesn't make the DMCA any less bullshit.
Exactly. We're screwed.
My suggestion: don't engage in this kind of behavior if you live in the US. If you really want to do this kind of thing, move to a country where freedom is more respected. It's not that hard for IT people to move to Canada, I think they even have a special consideration for IT skills in their immigration laws.
-----
When the hell is Slashdot going to fix the italics? This redesign sucks!
Re:No.. that would be silly. by techoi · 2011-01-27 12:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

How dare you think that silly, old piece of paper called the US Constitution should somehow be allowed to slow (or God forbid stop) any corporation from being able to extract every last penny from their victims (errr customers)???.
This is America, bitches! This is were you only *think* you can own something. Where you can "buy" a PS3 knowing you can load another OS (until they decide otherwise).
This is America, where you can "buy" a DVR at Best Buy for $199.00 only to have to return it to DirecTV after you cancel service or they will charge you another $250.00 for that thing you already "bought".
This is America, where odds are you can punch your local taxi driver right in the face and steal his wallet and get less of a penalty than if you, GOD Forbid, share that song that you already "bought" on vinyl, then "bought" on cassette, and maybe "bought" CD. Fuck those stupid hold-up victims, the real victims are the music and media companies and the fines imposed on those caught sharing prove that out.
And, finally, this is America, where you can be punished for pointing out that the security of the product you "bought" was designed by ass clowns. Of course if one of those corporations ever fucks up and breaks a law or two (Sony root kits anyone?), well, tough shit...that YOUR problem...That's what all you stupid-fucking-morons (oh, sorry we mean victims, er, no that not it...we mean "customers"). Yeah that's the funny word we corporations call you - customers. Anyhow, yeah, tough shit, customers, that is what you get by not being able to afford an army of lobbyists yourselves.
This is AMERICA bitches! The best fucking government (Democrat or Republican lead - it don't matter) that money can buy. Stupid Constitution wavers....
Re:No.. that would be silly. by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · 2011-01-27 12:45 · Score: 2

Nah, let's just make it "1 strike and you're out". If you introduce a bill that becomes a law and is eventually ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, you lose your seat in Congress and are barred for some period of time from holding any seat in Congress.
Re:No.. that would be silly. by Antisyzygy · 2011-01-27 15:50 · Score: 2

What makes you think he will get a check? Sony is a global behemoth. They will tie him up in the court system/s for a decade or until we either forget about him, he gets tired of it, or he goes broke. The court systems of the world these days are far removed from reality and instead based on manipulating laws and precedent to one's advantage. Really, this case should be about the fundamental principal of what he did rather than what it "could possibly do one day". After all, we don't sue the blacksmith because one of his axes were used to cleave a mans skull in twain. We don't make him stop making axes, and one doesn't hold rights over what he does with metal once one sells it to him.

--
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Re:No.. that would be silly. by Antisyzygy · 2011-01-27 15:51 · Score: 2

It works the same way everywhere man.

--
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Re:No.. that would be silly. by dakameleon · 2011-01-27 16:06 · Score: 2

Why is it treason to pass a law that wasn't envisaged by the agrarian founders?
Now, I'm not for the DMCA, but to treat the Consitution like holy writ is wrong. The founders were not omnipotent, clairvoient or even particularly extraordinary men; the constitution as they declared it was to define a set of principles they thought fair. The reason why we have the amendments we have today is because through the years the American public has decided that the founders either didn't think some things through, or were flat out wrong (see: slavery).
The founders had no idea of the transformational nature of computers; hell, 50 years ago they didn't have a clue about the transformation that was soon to take place. The constitution simply doesn't cover the things we do today, and that's why laws that make up the living body of the legal system supplement the consitution.
I've done a undergrad thesis on the impact of the DMCA, and I'm far from agreeing with it or its outcomes. It is a fundamentally biased law favouring corporations and their commercial interests, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
(Disclaimer: not a constitutional lawyer. Anyone care to correct me?)

--
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
Re:No.. that would be silly. by hairyfeet · 2011-01-27 23:13 · Score: 3, Informative

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that first growing in popularity after the release of the miniseries of the same name. Since it depicted an America ruled by a cold Soviet style control and now we are seeing more and more that same control only in the hands of the megacorps that now pretty much rules this country (just look at how many laws are written by the corporations and just rubber stamped by elected officials, such as DMCA and endless copyrights) I assume some would see it as appropriate.
Me personally the way the corps run the country reminds me of the late great philosopher/ comedian Bill Hicks and his take on things which is sadly probably even more true now than when he did it 20 years ago. The fact that the courts can take away his right to speak because it would impact a corps bottom line is frankly disgusting to me.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.

This makes me sad by Octopuscabbage · 2011-01-27 10:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Coporations should not be able to do this...

Re:This makes me sad by MozeeToby · 2011-01-27 10:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why not? He's doing something that may, or may not be illegal. Asking the court to knock it off until the status of his actions is quite reasonable. Now, IMO there isn't much question and what he's doing should be legal, but the court obviously thinks it isn't that obvious.
It's not as if Geohot makes his living hacking PS3s to run pirated games (which is all the restraining order prevents him doing). This is costing him his hobby, and only temporarily if what he's doing is determined to be legal.
Don't like it? Find a politician who will fight to have the law overturned or clarified. Can't find one? Then make one. The Tea party didn't exist 3 years ago. If that particular group of people can become a political force overnight I would hope the geeks of the nation could manage as well.
Re:This makes me sad by StikyPad · 2011-01-27 11:06 · Score: 4, Informative

It's not as if Geohot makes his living hacking PS3s to run pirated games (which is all the restraining order prevents him doing). This is costing him his hobby, and only temporarily if what he's doing is determined to be legal.
That would be true if the TRO didn't have an order of impoundment attached:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) business days of this Order, Defendant Hotz shall deliver...for impoundment any computers, hard drives, CD-roms, DVDs, USB stick, and any other storage devices on which any Circumvention Devices are stored in Defendant Hotz's possession, custody, or control. http://www.scribd.com/doc/47676627/50-Order-GRANTING-TRO

...and I'm pretty sure that those devices are his trade tools which means this TRO places a significant and disproportionate burden on him as the defendant.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

It only sues everything... by seebs · 2011-01-27 10:18 · Score: 5, Informative

So other people will invite him to work on their products, which he'll do, and that'll generate buzz and excitement for those products. And they'll win, and Sony will lose. This is awesome! I really have to say, I am amazed at the skill and precision with which Sony has managed the PS3. They've got some kind of dream team working on this. There's a cycle. First, identify the largest clearly identifiable remaining demographic. Second, piss them off. Repeat.

PS3: Buy it for the Other OS feature, keep it because no one will take it off your hands. (No, really. I have a launch 60GB which I bought entirely for the Other OS feature. It's now useless for playing games because games require "updates" that disable the only functionality I got it for, but no one's gonna buy the old loud monster to play video games...)

--
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/

Re:It only sues everything... by francium+goes+boom · 2011-01-27 10:33 · Score: 2

The original 60GB with the EE chip? I know several people who would buy it just for that. I've often thought about getting a PS3 but at this point i'd only buy a used one to get the EE chip.
If the price is right I might even take it off your hands.
Re:It only sues everything... by CTU · 2011-01-27 10:37 · Score: 2

So other people will invite him to work on their products, which he'll do, and that'll generate buzz and excitement for those products. And they'll win, and Sony will lose. This is awesome! I really have to say, I am amazed at the skill and precision with which Sony has managed the PS3. They've got some kind of dream team working on this. There's a cycle. First, identify the largest clearly identifiable remaining demographic. Second, piss them off. Repeat.
PS3: Buy it for the Other OS feature, keep it because no one will take it off your hands. (No, really. I have a launch 60GB which I bought entirely for the Other OS feature. It's now useless for playing games because games require "updates" that disable the only functionality I got it for, but no one's gonna buy the old loud monster to play video games...)
I would, but then again I like the backwards compatibility and I want a blue ray player :)
Re:It only sues everything... by Maestro4k · 2011-01-27 13:52 · Score: 2

So other people will invite him to work on their products, which he'll do, and that'll generate buzz and excitement for those products.
Going to be kinda hard for him to work on anything for a while, since the court order also requires him to turn over his computers and hard drives to Sony. He's unlikely to get them back for months, if ever, and it's going to take yet more lawyer time to get them back. Which is exactly what Sony wanted. This is all about making life difficult for Geohotz because he dared to publish the PS3 root key. It's harassment, plain and simple, and so far, Sony is winning.

A life lesson I learned years ago by FictionPimp · 2011-01-27 10:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

It is very hard to stuff a cat back into a cat carrier. It is even harder to stuff a cat back into a bag.

Re:A life lesson I learned years ago by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2011-01-27 10:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is very hard to stuff a cat back into a cat carrier. It is even harder to stuff a cat back into a bag.
I guess it depends on whether or not you want to keep the cat alive. ;-)
Re:A life lesson I learned years ago by Zelgadiss · 2011-01-27 10:58 · Score: 3, Funny

Oh I doubt this is an attempt to our the cat back in the bag.
This is just trying to slow the cat down temporary for as long as possible and shoot the guy who let it out of the bag.

Don't buy anything from Sony for some time. by Daniel+Phillips · 2011-01-27 10:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just don't buy anything from Sony for some time. Like forever.

The way Sony treated me over the faulty PS3 hardware they sold me makes this decision easy, never mind the other horrible things Sony does on a regular basis.

--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?

Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time. by SanityInAnarchy · 2011-01-27 10:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

The rootkit wasn't enough?
The better solution is to actually stick to your boycott. Don't buy anything Sony, ever. Making it only "for some time" makes it clear that Sony can do whatever they want so long as they're willing to take a short-term financial hit, and that's assuming there are enough people to even make that point.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time. by Dan541 · 2011-01-27 10:47 · Score: 2

I stopped buying from Sony after they started installing rootkits into their products.

--
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time. by whoever57 · 2011-01-27 11:14 · Score: 2

Less than 18 months ago, I foolishly bought a Sony car radio. It's cr*p. I won't be buying any Sony products again.
As an example, the radio can read mp3s from a flash drive, but, it appears that this only works if the flash drive is less than 4GB. Even then, it seems to be very picky about the format of the filesystem (picky about a FAT filesystem!!!).
It has some other stupid design "features", which are too numerous to mention.

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time. by Blakey+Rat · 2011-01-27 11:50 · Score: 3, Funny

Easy for you to say if you don't want to play a game that's only available for PS3, for instance MGS4.
Aw poor baby. You might actually have to make a *gasp* sacrifice!

--
Comment of the year
Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time. by Thing+1 · 2011-01-27 12:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah, the proprietary "memory sticks" was the first shot across my bow; the rootkit on music CDs that to this day are still infecting people who frequent used CD stores, was the last straw. No Sony in this household.

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:Don't buy anything from Sony for some time. by Grishnakh · 2011-01-27 12:22 · Score: 2

Don't worry, pretty soon a $6000 cellphone will be the norm, as will $10-20k/month rents, $50 for a loaf of bread, $500-1000 for a dinner at a restaurant, etc.

Re:No big deal by RingDev · 2011-01-27 10:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Agreed, and:

he can no longer 'engage in acts of circumvention of TPMS in the PS3 System to access, obtain, remove, or traffic in copyrighted works.'

So he CAN still engage in acts of circumvention of TPMS in the PS3 System to access, obtain, remove, or traffic in NON-copyrighted works.
-Rick

--
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs

protected like iPone? by sunjay · 2011-01-27 10:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

It baffles me that this is not protected like jailbreaking of mobile devices. It is near identical, Full hardware access in order to add features, which some low-lifes use for piracy. You cant blame him for thinking he was within the law on this one, since he is when he does the same thing on his iPod.

Re:protected like iPone? by Mad+Leper · 2011-01-27 12:41 · Score: 3, Informative

I see this question come up quite often by people who haven't taken the time to actually read up on the jail-breaking exemptions.
Here's a list of the exemptions granted for jail-breaking your devices. Could you please point out the one that would allow breaking the encryption on the PS3 to play cracked games or add functionality?
Thank you.
- Computer users may now bypass external security devices if they do not longer work and cannot be replaced..
- Phone owners may break access controls on their phones to switch to another wireless carrier.
- It is now allowed to break video game protections to investigate or correct security flaws.
- Allow college professors, film students, filmmakers and producers of non-commercial videos to break copy-protections on DVDs for educational purposes, criticism or commentary.
- Allow blind people to break protections on electronic books so that they can be used with blind-suitable software.

Re:No big deal by SanityInAnarchy · 2011-01-27 10:42 · Score: 2

From the presentation I saw, it looks like roughly 80-90% of the work in completely pwning the PS3 was unrelated to piracy or cheating. That is, roughly 10-20% of what they did could've been used for piracy, the rest was for the complete and permanent ability to run any homebrew they like without restrictions, including (say) Linux with access to the PS3's GPU.

Also, note that the PS3 was pretty much left alone until Sony killed Other OS. So long as people were allowed to run Linux on the PS3, it was left alone. From the date Sony killed Other OS until it was completely pwned is about the same amount of time it took to pwn other systems (Wii, 360) from when they were initially released.

Essentially, if Sony had left Other OS intact, it's very likely people wouldn't be able to pirate stuff today.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!

Low lifes, eh? Ever heard about poor countries? by Kartu · 2011-01-27 10:43 · Score: 2

Where people earn like 200-400 buck per month? Exactly how do those evil "would never buy it if I had to pay for it" "pirates" harm Sony please?
Oh, and by the way, try to find out how many of the hackers out there have actually payed for IDA license. Someone on #ps3test already tried, quite fun to read:

http://pastie.org/1476525

Self-important judiciary by StikyPad · 2011-01-27 10:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

From TFO:

Paintiff has submitted substantial evidence showing that defendant George Hotz has violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A), 120(b)(1). Plaintiff has also submitted evidence demonstrating that plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief, and that the balance of hardships favors plaintiff.

Once the keys were out there, the irreparable harm was done. There is no "relief" whatsoever provided by this order. It's vindictive intimidation, plain and simple.

I'm also disappointed that the judge decided to assert jurisdiction despite the obvious fact that it's well within SCEA's means to file suit in New Jersey, and clearly places a significant burden on the defendant to appear in California. The fact that SCEA wanted this case heard in Northern California has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it's the "proper venue" and everything to do with forum shopping. I can only surmise that the judge was rationalizing her decision to participate in what will undoubtedly be a precedent setting case should it go to trial, which doesn't speak highly of either her integrity or judgement. Signing her name to a paper stating that the plaintiff's case is "likely to succeed on the merits," shows either a bias in favor of SCEA, ignorance of the facts, or both. Mr. Hotz has repeatedly stated that he does not condone piracy, none of the PS3 tools he has released directly facilitate piracy, and in fact, none of the tools he's ever released on any platform has directly facilitated piracy. Sony's keys, while ostensibly a trade secret, are not subject to IP law protections, and even if they were, they were obtained through lawful reverse engineering of property sold to the defendant(s).

In summary, we have some really crappy laws, and those charged with upholding them don't seem to be much better.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

Re:Self-important judiciary by Hatta · 2011-01-27 11:01 · Score: 2

In summary, we have some really crappy laws, and those charged with upholding them don't seem to be much better.
He who enforces an unjust law is no better than he who breaks a just one.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Self-important judiciary by BuildMonkey · 2011-01-27 11:36 · Score: 2

To receive injunctive relief, the moving party must demonstrate "It has at least a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits." This wording is part one of a four part test on when injunctive relief may be granted, as laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Rizzo v. Goode. See the first Google hit for "likely to succeed on the merits."

Use of the wording is not a show of bias, but the judge's way of referencing that test to show that she operated within her judicial discretion. Be careful throwing around phrases like "bias.. ignorance of the facts, or both" when your comment itself demonstrates, well, both. There are bad judges like there are bad programmers, bad mathematicians, and bad engineers but accusing someone of criminal misconduct due to your own ignorance is irresponsible.
Re:Self-important judiciary by Schadrach · 2011-01-27 12:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

If there was anything in the Judge's order that smelled of misconduct to me, it would be that she is hearing the case in the first place rather than in NJ (where geohot is) or somewhere with an actual Sony corporate office at the time the suit was filed.
AFAICT, the whole argument there was that they claimed one of the Does was likely to live in CA, so they had standing to sue in CA. Does that mean that I can simply add an unidentified Doe to any suit I want and move the case to whatever jurisdiction I want to pretend he’s in?
More importantly, does this mean that if that particular Doe is discovered not to be in CA that they have no claim to standing in that jurisdiction and would need to throw the case out and start over in an appropriate locale?
IANAL, so I would love some clarification on this one, because it honestly confuses me.
Re:Self-important judiciary by KeithIrwin · 2011-01-27 15:35 · Score: 3, Informative

I agree with most everything in the parent post and would also like to add that it's pretty clear that the ECDSA signing keys do not, in fact, compromise a "circumvention device or technique". Suggesting that a set of secret numbers, unto itself, forms a device or technique is stretching the meaning of the words past the breaking point. Further, the part of the order which requires him to turn over to Sony all computers, hard drives, etc. which contain circumvention devices presupposes that he actually has software which would legally be considered a circumvention device. It is not at all clear from the publicly known facts that he possesses anything which would qualify. All of the stuff which he has released has been about gaining access to the hardware without gaining access to any of Sony's software, firmware, etc. The PS3 is not, itself, a copyrighted work. The best that they can argue is that the firmware and OS which run on the PS3 are. That is a silly, but potentially successful legal argument (as the courts have previously held the communicating with running copyrighted software or firmware is a form of "gaining access to a protected work" in several cases, including the Bnetd case despite that being an idiotic interpretation of the language of the DMCA). So that would work as an argument, unless, of course, the keys you've released are the keys used to sign boot loaders and bypass loading any of Sony's firmware or software at all, which, as it happens, are exactly those keys which Geohot released.
So the question is what happens if he complies with the last part of the order by giving them an empty box and saying "I don't have circumvention devices"? Presumably, more legal fun would ensue. I'm curious if that's the tack he'll take. I probably would in his case, since turning anything over to them is tantamount to an admission of violating the DMCA.

Sony steals features. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-27 10:52 · Score: 4, Informative

I want the "Other OS" feature back that was stolen! 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

Re: protection methods by Saxophonist · 2011-01-27 10:55 · Score: 3, Informative

So now companies just have to put in minimal protection and the rest is legal protection?

Yes, it's been that way since 1998. See this and, more generally, this.

Counter-order ? by KreAture · 2011-01-27 10:55 · Score: 2

Can he file a counter restraining-order for Sony to not apply the protection to any new releases untill the case is over? Or in some other way be prevented from persuing their interests?

Doesn't matter. by thisisauniqueid · 2011-01-27 11:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

Doesn't matter. With the root key, his job is done.

Should have left the "Other OS" feature on by coolsnowmen · 2011-01-27 11:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

Sony should have left the "Other OS" feature on and just "unsupported." There was a link on /. last time this came up to a black hat conference on the trend of gameOS hacking. Sony PS3 enjoyed the longest time in recently history from launch till being compromised to be able to run custom "home brew" and pirated software (3.16 years). If you date it from when they removed the "Other OS" feature, it falls right in line with every other hacked game system (Xbox/360, game cube, wii, ps2, dreamcast...). Bottom line, if you don't allow people to install linux, enough people will be motivated to break your system to do just that, also opening the can-of-worms that is pirated software.

Re:Should have left the "Other OS" feature on by interkin3tic · 2011-01-27 11:59 · Score: 2

Thats nonsense. Geohotz broke the hypervisor before they pulled support for the PS3 fat. They pulled support as a direct result of his hacking.
That is not an appropriate response. You don't remove features for everyone just because you don't like how someone is using them.

The slims were never advertised as supporting Other OS. No one ever lost Other OS who owned a PS3 slim.
I understand that they've essentially removed Other OS for the old, fat ones as well.

You can get a better Linux machine than the PS3 slim anyways. These hackers are not going to use the PS3 for linux after this. They are just going to move on to the next device. The break machines that people paid good money for and move on. All for a feature that no one, includeing them, uses.
Sony was the one who broke it. People did use it for homebrew, and anyway you still don't remove features from products you already sold even if no one uses them.
Re:Should have left the "Other OS" feature on by roc97007 · 2011-01-27 13:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

True! That is very true, and I'm sure he's having a devil of a time right now.
But -- pay attention here -- the cat is out of the bag. And I think original poster's point is that if you don't give geeks some reasonable access to a device, to do something innocuous (install Linux) that doesn't muck with your DRM, they will break your paltry encryption and publish the hack. Regardless of the personal consequences. 'S how geeks are. And the rest of us will turn the hack into haiku and t-shirts and spread it all over the net and sundry, and you'll never EVER get that particular cat back in that particular bag.
That being the case, and acknowledging that he's in a heap 'o' trouble, and whether or not Sony has the high ground here, Sony could have saved themselves a lot of grief by just keeping the damned "Other OS" feature on. Can we agree on that?

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.

Let's get something straight. by Zelgadiss · 2011-01-27 11:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

Let's get something straight.

Geohot was the one who threw the first punch, he broke through the hypervisior using "other OS" and "bus glitching", Sony removed "other OS" in response.

Regardless whether you think that was the right response, it's not unexpected and unprovoked.

PS: This is the end of my karma I suppose.

Re:Let's get something straight. by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2011-01-27 11:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not the end of your karma, but I'll burn some of mine by saying that your opinion is twisted. Even if Geohot threw the first punch, Sony's reaction was completely over-the-top and illegal. One person attempting to hack your system does not give you the ethical right to screw over your entire customer base. In all fairness to both of us, Sony has burned a lot more karma.

--
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Re:Let's get something straight. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-27 11:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

I wasn't aware that modifying hardware that you own constitutes provoking the company that manufactured it. I would actually say that Sony deciding that they didn't like the way that paying customers using their private property then pushing out a mandatory update in order to reduce functionality down to something they thought better suited their business model is a much more provocative action. And is much more analogous to throwing, "the first punch" as you said.
Re:Let's get something straight. by interkin3tic · 2011-01-27 12:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

Geohot was the one who threw the first punch, he broke through the hypervisior using "other OS" and "bus glitching", Sony removed "other OS" in response.
Regardless whether you think that was the right response, it's not unexpected and unprovoked.
Why should we disregard whether or not it was an appropriate response? That matters a great deal. Taking away features from everyone is an extreme overreaction. It could be expected since consumers seem to have no rights, but that doesn't justify it.
It's kind of like saying "Those people currently protesting against their governments threw the first punch. Regardless whether you think it was the right response, police cracking down with lethal force was neither unexpected nor unprovoked." I'd say it's still unprovoked.
Expected, sure, but so what? It's still wrong.
Re:Let's get something straight. by Chuck+Chunder · 2011-01-27 12:21 · Score: 2

Geohot was the one who threw the first punch,
I think it takes a certain viewpoint to describe it as a "punch".

If you think about the computing world today I don't think it is overstating things to say that it would be very different if not for the fact that reverse engineering of the original IBM PC bios was permitted by law.

Geohot's tinkering may not lead to such change but his freedom to tinker with his own equipment and talk about his tinkering should nonetheless be supported. I have had Playstations, and Xbox, a Wii, a Nintendo DS, an iPhone, an iPad etc and have never thought seriousy about jailbreaking or chipping any of them. I do think other people should be able to do so with their own stuff if they want to and be free to talk about their findings.

--
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Re:Let's get something straight. by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2011-01-27 13:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

Car analogy. You buy a shiny new car with an amazing steering wheel warmer, but you live in a warm environment. Because somebody was researching a way to use that steering wheel warmer to do something the company deemed as nefarious, it disabled that feature on every car. You may not have been affected, it may only have bothered a few dozen drivers. But that does not change the fact that an advertised feature was removed from a product. I'm not painting Geohot as a modern Robin Hood, but he didn't pull the trigger...Sony did. I won't even bother responding to your personal attack because to be honest, if you're on this site and see all geeks as basement dwelling loners then you have a lot to learn.

--
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin

Re:of course by nateand · 2011-01-27 13:26 · Score: 2

You're a fool. Sony sold a console advertising features that it later took away. That is completely disrespectful to their customers. And I don't really care what you want to do with YOUR ps3, that's the point. And neither you nor Sony gets to decide what I do with my personal property. If I choose to break open my ps3 so I can run homebrew on it, that's my fucking right. I bought the hardware, and have the right to use it as I wish. Just because you don't want to doesn't mean no one else does. Just because some assholes decide to cheat doesn't mean I lose my rights to my own property. Those assholes should be banned from the online services the same way Xbox Live or Steam manage the people who cheat on there. People rob banks using getaway cars, I guess we should ban cars too, right? Dumbass.

Ex Parte. Very nice by russotto · 2011-01-27 13:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

So Sony sends one of their expensive lawyers to court against an individual, and gets a broad temporary restraining order against him "ex parte"... meaning he didn't even get a _chance_ to fucking respond.

Oh, and despite this being a "temporary" restraining order, it's actually indefinite.

Fuck Sony and fuck the honorable rubberstamp Susan Yvonne Illston.

Re:Ex Parte. Very nice by russotto · 2011-01-27 15:26 · Score: 2

Regardless of how you feel about it, the TRO was proper. There is a chance that Sony could win its case and whatever damages they are alleging would certainly continue during the trial if not constrained. That's all there is to a TRO. It's only "indefinite" in the sense that the trial itself has no predictable end date.

And that is indefinite enough. It's easy to drag out a case. For instance, in patent cases, the fight for the initial "temporary" injunction is usually the most important part -- and certainly not granted rubberstamp-style. A TRO is not as trivial as you make it out.

Slashdot Mirror

Sony Wins Restraining Order Against Geohot

60 of 397 comments (clear)